{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"geh_vhpohr_209","title":"Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Georgia, Chattahoochee County, Fort Benning, 32.35237, -84.96882","United States, Kentucky, Hardin County, Fort Knox, 37.89113, -85.96363","United States, Louisiana, Rapides Parish, Camp Claiborne (historical), 31.07056, -92.54889","United States, Texas, Bell County, Killeen, Fort Hood, 31.13884585, -97.715048633985"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Conn, Lewis S., 1922-2010"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Lewis Conn recalls his childhood during the Depression in Georgia, as well as his service in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II. His father owned a drugstore near Atlanta University, but lost it during the Great Depression and died soon after. His grandfather was given a cabin in which to live in Coweta County (Ga.) by a Mr. Todd. He recalls his education, where he faced segregation and hardship, but also found support and opportunities. He recalls how living near Atlanta University influenced his desire and motivation to get an education. He describes how his principal, Mr. Lewis, helped him get a working scholarship for college. He describes hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor and recruiters who came and took 95% of their young men to Warner Robins. He describes how German POWs could go in to the Post Exchange and the bars, yet black soldiers were barred. He recalls his response to the conditions black soldiers had to face: \"We did what we had to do.\" He also explains that some soldiers rebelled and were sent to prison. He discusses Eleanor Roosevelt's praise of blacks and how it affected their opportunities to go into combat; until that time all blacks were either cooks or in transportation. Even after they had become soldiers, they ceased to be soldiers when they went into town, yet they still felt determined to prove they could do their jobs. No blacks could become senior officers and all black units had white officers; Conn relates that some of them were good. Even aboard ship, segregation continued and he also faced severe seasickness as well as the threat of U-boats. They found a very different reception in Wales, where they did not face segregation. About six weeks after D-Day, they found themselves landing at Omaha Beach after another rough crossing, where he describes the evidence of the fighting that had happened there. He reports that his unit was scheduled to go in to liberate Paris, but was diverted away from the celebration and that many deserted. On coming home, Conn remembers that after fighting for liberty, they still faced the same discrimination. He describes how the Georgia General Assembly would pay the difference in tuition for blacks to go to an out of state college; Conn opted to go to New York to go to school and felt that going to watch the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Yankees was a bonus. He emphasizes the importance of education and family.","Lewis S. Conn was in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II.","INTERVIEWER Ok, um, just, uh if you could give me your name and where you are from. LEWIS CONN My name is Lewis S. CONN, and I was, live in Atlanta, Georgia. INTERVIEWER Um, how long have you lived in Atlanta? LEWIS CONN Off and on, approximately maybe eighty years. INTERVIEWER Um, where did you grow up? LEWIS CONN Well, I was born in Atlanta, Georgia. I stayed here until, approximate, around when I was six or seven years old which I lost my father. We, we used to own a drugstore over by the Clark and (Gownan) University Center as we call it now, which around Morehouse College. Well, during the Depression we lost everything - my father did - and then he passed, and my grandfather took over. Well during the Depression, and that you had no security on your money that you put in the bank, so we had no money to run anything. So my grandfather was born in Grantville, Georgia, Coweta County. So my grandfather said, well, look like we can't survive, that's what he told my mother, which I have a sister. Said, well what you all want to do? Say, I'm going back to the county where I was born, and I believe I can make it rather than just eat soup everyday, cause we had no food stamp. So they would bring soup and (rankle) the bell. You came out with your pots and your pans, and that's what you had around lunchtime, and that was the end of that. So that's four hour (prak and raves) in the country, Coweta County, around Grantville, Georgia. But I tell my students, which I'm still instructing, well the state of the day, that I'm a country sheep and a city slick. INTERVIEWER Uh, tell me why you say that? LEWIS CONN Because I have and give you some ideas about how maybe people live in the country, here we call it in the rural area, plus I can give you some ideas what I came back and forth to the city so I could keep up with what was going on in the city, how city people live and what they did. And therefore I have ideas about both city and the country. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me, tell me just a little bit about growing up back in those days. LEWIS CONN Back in those days naturally we were segregated. So naturally going back to the country we were still segregated, and so we had in it noth-, we had nothing. So, my grandfather knew a person he grew up with, which was a white person named Mr. Todd. So going back to the country we had nowhere to stay, but he knew Mr. Todd. So Mr. Todd said, well, Gus - that's what they called my grandfather, Gus (Ond), his name was (Guster Ond) - say, I'll let you have a little one log cabinet on one of my farms. Said I'll just let you stay there, free of rent, cause boy that's when you went to the country, if you had a farm, and you leased it out, normally they would charge you according to how many acres you had by the bale of cottons. No money was exchanged in those days. Whatever you had or whatever you produced then you gave it back to your landlord and you with the run up which you were the leasee, and that's how you stayed on the land. But my grandfather knew, cause we had no money, so he just stayed until maybe you can get yourself adjusted, as long as you want to. So it was a one log cabinet, just one big room. So with my sister, with myself, and with my grandmother, and with my grandfather, we stayed in the one room log cabinet. Now if I give my sister some privacy, I remember my grandmother had some quilts, so I remember her running a little string across to give my sister a little privacy, and that was her little room. And then I had a little place in the log cabinet, plus my grandfather and grandmother. Well we stayed approximately two years in that log cabinet in Grantville, Georgia. INTERVIEWER Um, did you go to school during that time? LEWIS CONN Yes. When I left Atlanta I was in, think the fifth or sixth grade. So when we got to Grantville, Georgia, the nearest school to us was what we called Moreland, Georgia. That's approximately three miles from where we had the little log cabinet. So we walked to school, although we had buses, but buses wasn't for the Negroes, cause we were segregated. So if you wanted to get an education, you had to walk to school. But the Moreland school only went to the fifth grade. So when we finished the Moreland school, and by that time we finished the Moreland school, my grandfather then had moved to what we call Meriweather County, which was right on the border of Coweta County. So when we moved out from Grantville, Georgia, out of that particular area, then I went to what we call the Lutherville Junior High. At that time you went to the eighth grade. And when I finished Lutherville Junior High, which was in Meriweather County, then Grantville had what we called the senior high. But for black people, Negroes, you only went to the eleventh grade. No twelfth grade. So I had three more grades that I want to accomplish. But where we were living it was five miles from where we stayed to where I had to attend the school. So for approximate three and a half to four years I walked from where we lived to Grantville High School, and the first time I attended Grantville High School it was a church. It wasn't a building. They had a church, and they called it Grantville High School cause the high school for the whites naturally you couldn't attend. But we had a bus that would run about a quarter of a mile away from where we lived, but I couldn't ride the bus, cause it was segregated. But we knew the people – my grandfather did – who drove the bus. So on some bad days it would be cold, freezing, raining, and we used to rabbit hunt together. The people who used to drive the bus used to come and use our rabbit dogs, cause we had the best rabbit dogs in the (hearing), so we rabbit hunted together. So they took a little chance and when it was real bad they said, and stop the bus, and it was muddy and raining, whatever it is, and I could stand right on the steps of the bus, and they would said, I'm looking for nobody to say nothing. And I picked up this person or whatever it was, so I got a little break there. But most of the days I walked. And I did that for three and a half, approximate, four years. Five miles there. For doing the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday and Friday that my grandfather would let me attend school. When I would leave like in the wintertime and the fall the chickens were still on the roof – people don't know about chickens used to be roostin', they didn't get up until sunup but I was on the road walking, heading to school. When school was out around three or three thirty, by the time I got back home the chicken had gone back to roost. So the only time I saw the chickens when I was going to school in the wintertime was on a Saturday to Sunday. Because other days when I left it was dark, when I got back it was dark. Now remember this, we had no electricity. No electricity. Well I attended the school in Moreland we had just lamps. We had potbelly stoves as they called them. Then sometime you had coal – you may of be lucky – but you more or less went to the woods and you got wood. And burned wood to kinda keep warm one way at cold days. For attending Grantville my last year, they finally put up a little school there, and they called it then Grantville High School. So this is when I finished, and I was only boy in the graduation class. And I do have documents to show where I think we had nine or ten students, but I was only boy, because nobody else wanted to walk. Nobody else had the desire for some reason. And then nine times out of ten they were staying what we called on Lee's farm, so they had to work. They couldn't attend school, cause if they didn't work then the landlord would run ‘em off the farm. Because that's how you stayed, you had to work, and in order to stay in the shelter they provided for you, and that was your rent, and that was the way they provided for you. Some places, rural area, they called ‘em camps, or groups where people stayed together and therefore you stayed on a person's farm, and you stayed there as long as you worked for them. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me why it was so important for you to get that education. LEWIS CONN Well for some reason a little like, by being maybe growing up around the Atlanta University Center as we call it now, I always had the desire to want go to Morehouse. Morehouse, I could see ‘em you know there, developing. So I guess by me being around an education center, it maybe dawned upon me, this is the way to go. And that's what maybe instilled in me, and why I pursue what I did regardless nobody wasn't going to turn me back. And I wasn't going to be and let no segregation or anybody keep me back. I will make my own what desire. And if I had the desire I believe I could maintain it which I was able to accomplish it. INTERVIEWER So you did end up going to Morehouse? LEWIS CONN No. INTERVIEWER No? LEWIS CONN I had the desire coming from Morehouse, around AU Center which we had Morris Brown, also Atlanta University. Now Clark College as they called it then was out from Atlanta, but now they are all in what we call a complex. Now it's Clark Atlanta University Center as we talk about it today. What all the groups was there, then I would always see people from the colleges and we had the little drug store, and so they would come in and that you'd get hotdogs and milkshakes and things like that, and that's how we made our, our living when my father here that in my grandfather passing so it would just make a desire that I wasn't gonna plough mules all my life. I wasn't gonna pick cotton all my life and that's what kept me going and I desired, and that's what gave me that desire to continue. INTERVIEWER And uh, after you graduated, uh, then what? LEWIS CONN Now, after we graduated, least after I graduated, by being the only boy, then my grandfather said, boy, what you want to do, you know we don't have no money. I say, I don't want to plough no mule. He say I go get you another one, I go get another mule. And we'll go lease, what, more land, and we'll grow more cotton and corn. He feel what we have more revenue, we'll have more money. I say, no sir, I say I don't want to do that. He say what you wanna do? So he got in touch with my principle, which was Mr. Lewis at that time. I played basketball (whither) we played, and I was a pretty good basketball player, that's the way they, they said, and I could run track. I'd developed myself running track running rabbits. Cause when I would rabbit hunt, and we only had a few shells, and they was very expensive – they cost a nickel, but a nickel now, back in those days, was like maybe five or ten dollars today. So in order to conserve my shells, then my dog would run the rabbit, once they were running them so long, rabbit get tired, he start out across the open field, I would see him come out the woods, I would outrun the rabbit and catch him. So I'd have to use my shell. And I'd just take and hit his head right on a rock, or hit his head sometime with my fist, then I had me something to eat. So that's how I got that desire. I figure I had some kind of talent. We didn't have much in high school to really offer. So my principle came and talked to my grandfather, said, well I believe he's a pretty good basketball player and I know people at Fort Valley College at that time, that maybe I can get him a working scholarship, but they didn't have the Hope Scholarship that you had then, didn't have the GI Bill, in which I was given after I got out, done, we didn't have all that. So, he say you know we still don't have anything, you don't have anything to wear. I say, well, whatever I have, I just take that. So I had one suitcase. So I had two pair of pants. I had one pair of brogan shoe. I had one pair dress shoe. I think I had two, maybe, maybe two sets of underwear. I don't remember having any toothbrush. We had no electricity. I don't remember having any toothpaste. I didn't even know what toothpaste, I didn't know what it was. I didn't know about, nothing about soap, and we made our own soap, cause we weren't able to buy soap that you sell in the store. We made what you call potash soap. That from lard off the hog, and you put potash in and you cooked it. And after you had soap from that. So what I had would fit in my suitcase. So we went on to Fort Valley, and he knew people, and they asked and they said, well, he's a pretty good student. Don't have all the facility in the school but I think he would do all right. They say, well we'll give you working scholarship, and we have two open for you. Said now one you can help and clean up the buildings once we have the classroom facilities after the class has ended and you can do what they needed. Then in those days they had what you call (nine horse). Now they served food, cause you ( ) food, as we have today. So they cooked the food for the students, served it in the dining room, breakfast, as they called it - lunch, and dinner. They say now he can work in the dining hall, but he have to get up before the sun, because at daybreak we have to feed and serve the student, and maybe he doesn't want that. I said that's what I want. They say why you want that. I say I've been getting up before sunrise ever since I've been big enough to know ( ), because I had to get up and milk the cow, I had to feed the hogs, I had to feed the mules to get them ready so we could go to work when the sun came up, and my granddaddy, boy, said boy go to work. I said that's no problem for me. Then I thought about, that's where the food is. I don't have no money. I don't have nobody sending me any money. How would I have a nickel or dime to go buy anything. But I'm in the food. I'm a have me something to eat. And I hit it just right, cause I had to worry about having anything to eat. So I went to the dining room – that's where I worked. So while I was working there my first year her name was Ms. (Frambroke) which was a dietician, she made me headwaiter. She had a headwaiter, but he graduated my first year. So I was just a freshman. I was punctual, and I was always there, you know, just doing what I need to do, stay late. She said, well you're my headwaiter, so as being headwaiter I was responsible for the whole dining room of operation, along with taking care of what we call when the president had that guest, and I was a headwaiter when the food was cooked, to go to the president's house to serve the guest. And that's what I had, and that's how I got to Fort Valley. INTERVIEWER Um, reading your, your other, the transcript from your other interview, um, it's a very interesting, uh, take on it, tell me, tell me, um, about when you and your friends heard about Pearl Harbor. LEWIS CONN Well, I remember we were in what you call old Jeanes Hall on Fort Valley State College campus. It was a wooden building. It's no longer there. It was destroyed by fire. This was where the men stayed, cause all those other two buildings were for the women. So, they don't have it like you have now, no cohabitation, no, you, co, co-habitating you was goin' on that we have today, so you had only one building Jeanes Hall. And we had potbellied stoves at three levels, and we burned coal on the three levels. So, I remember one evening, I forget when it was, that we finally got the word that we was attacked by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor. And we have thought nothing of it, you know, we just say hey, here's another, uh, country attacking the United States, and, well, everybody went along their normal way, and we didn't even take for granted that nothin' gonna happen. But we said was a long ( ) and wasn't normal before we started seeing they started recruiting you know, and started getting people and having them come and recruiting for the army. And that's when it dawned upon us maybe they're coming here next. And which finally they did. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about how you got into the military. LEWIS CONN Well, they came to Fort Valley State College. And they said, and called out all the men, and said line up. They came from Warner Robins and they brought the buses and trucks cause they say we gonna get you all and take you back, or we're gonna get some of you. So they notified us when they was coming to the campus and we all had to be ready to fall out, you know like we was in the army cause they was coming to recruit us. Cause if you didn't, then you were put in jail. So they came to Fort Valley College at that time, and we all was there lined up, and they looked at our resume for us (men) and saw you know I played basketball, ran track, so ( ) that was the first one they say, fall out, fall out, they figure, you, you goin'. You figure you were in good shape and you were an athlete, whatever it is. But they ended up taking approximately maybe ninety-five percent of the young men off the campus, and taking them to Warner Robins and all what, to recruit them and put them in the army. INTERVIEWER And, and what did you think about that? LEWIS CONN Well, at that time it didn't dawn upon me about what it was all about. I just knew I was a U.S. citizen, and I said hey, I'm a U.S. citizen and I'm gonna fight. And they want me to fight, and that's the law, what can I do about it? If I don't do it, they say jail time, so I said, let's go. And it didn't dawn upon me till a little later on ( ) the army. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me a little bit about your, um en, enlistment, um, and training experiences in a segregated army. LEWIS CONN Yes, this is where I, it started dawning upon me and maybe the other Negro soldiers. We were recruited and when we left Warner Robins then we were went to Fort Benning. And that's where they took us there to give us further examination and maybe to give us what we call a IQ test or other test in order to see maybe what unit they would like to maybe put us in. So when we got to Fort Benning, then naturally that's when it hit us, we saw a lot of other white soldiers, but here we was on Fort Benning, and we went to our little segregated place they had for all blacks. Then we found out in another part of Fort Benning, here you had all the white soldiers. But when we get, and we be goin' through in order for examination, then they had a line for the blacks, had a line for the whites. Even when you went to get your uniform, you had a line for the blacks, you had a line for the whites. And that's when it, we started talkin', say, look, what are we doing, uh, uh what is all of this about? We getting ready now, what, to risk our lives or, they're recruiting us or go fight for freedom as they say, so to speak, and here we just like outside, here we come inside, figure, this is the U.S. army. Should be controlled by the federal government. Why shouldn't it be one for all and all for one? And that's when it started dawning upon us, we got a little problem here. But we figured least we had to do what we had to do, cause I had no other recourse. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me if you would about the instance, uh, with the, uh, German POWs. LEWIS CONN That dawned upon us. We heard about it before we left Fort Benning, but you really hadn't got into a war see too much with the Germans at that time, but once they put us in the unit, which was a tank outfits, then we were sent to Fort Knox, which is in Kentucky. Fort Knox I think is still there, I think is the army unit training center as of today, last time I heard, and where all the gold is placed, that's what I heard too. We tried to really find it but we never could find where they placed all the gold. But we figure that's where all the gold was established and put in Fort Knox. But that was a training ground for tank units. But when we got to Fort Knox, then they had captured a lot of the German prisoners. And when we would go to the PXs, after training, whatever it is, for recreation, or they had the theaters on the fort. Then we saw the Germans with the outfits they had given them to distinguish them from the white soldiers. Then we started asking, who are these people? And they told ‘em these were the German prisoners. Well they could socialize with the white GIs, but they wasn't admitted to socialize with us. They could go to the PX and sit down and drink beer, do whatever you wanted to do with the white soldiers, then they could attend the theaters. Well we still had to go to our little segregated PX. We used to had to go to our little segregated movies. And that's when it started being rebellious against some of the recruits. And we had a lot of men was sent to prison. Lot of them, uh, uh, what, I think, POWs, what it, uh, POA, what, you, in other words they escaped. And they was captured, so when they brought ‘em back they put ‘em in prison. And this ways it dawned upon us in Fort Knox. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me a little bit too about, uh, the idea of, uh, putting blacks into combat units, and, and how that, how you got into a tank unit. LEWIS CONN Well, this came about, I think, and I do have documentation here, which, one of the predominant Negro papers wrote an article which Ms. Eleanor Roosevelt at that time, President Roosevelt's wife, she commended us for being recruited and maybe being segregated, and would have a willingness to maybe fight without being too rebellious at that time. So whoever interviewed her wrote the article, and he named it Eleanor Roosevelt Niggers. And I have the documentation right here to show it, where he went on to express, and she expressed, why can't we let these Negro soldiers maybe train what they should be capable of fighting in tanks outfits, shooting arms, and just like anybody else. So that's when they organized the tank battalion. And I became part of one called seven eight four, seven eighty-four tank battalion. INTERVIEWER Um, at this, when they, when they, uh, formed a tank unit, and you were, you were assigned to it, and you started training, um, did the comradery, uh, you felt with your, uh, fellow, fellow soldiers, start to, um, really make you take a, a pride in what you were doing, placed within the context of that segregated military? LEWIS CONN It gave a little more, I say, desire, because we knew what had happened with other Negroes that were recruited, and they were placed in what were called the cooking units or transportation units. I mean, things that maybe nobody else desired. You figure, they not capable of doing or participating in. So, it say, well, they are recognizing us a little bit. That maybe we are capable if you only give us a chance. So we took it in heart and say, we're gonna do it. But within that whole development of our tank outfits at that time we were still segregated, so all of the officers was white. No black person or Negro could become, in that tank outfit, a captain, a captain, a first lieutenant, a second lieutenant. Now you could become a master sergeant, I will call a technical sergeant. That was your highest ranking at that time. So the people who was over you, who could really control you was still what? White, and we were still segregated to leadership. Well we didn't let that get next to us, cause here we were put in a unit, and we were going to make the best of it, and could we show, and we were going to show, that we could fight and do ( ) as well as anybody else if we were only given a chance. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me a little bit about your opinion of the officers that were placed with you. LEWIS CONN Some as we will have in any situation were very good. They understood, and more or less it was amazing to me, and I can remember Captain, Captain, whew, Captain (Bertstrand), I can remember his name. He was from a, a capital of South ( ), I can remember that very well. So he was from the south. He, he was placed as Captain, Captain over the unit and which he was controlling, so he was, he had a desire and he was pretty gentle. But we had other lieutenants that was in our outfit, and they gave us a hard time. And we had to take it, and we was punished a lot, because what we said and maybe they heard us say, and they took it out on us because they were saying we were violating a ( ) justice. Well we had to go along with it, those who were what they did had to serve time in, in the prisons camps whatever years and they had to put on extra duties and we went along with that. But overall, the captain that we had, he was pretty reasonable, pretty reasonable. Because I figured he said if we had to fight and we had to back him up or back them up then everybody OK had to work the other, and it came out pretty good. INTERVIEWER Um, so they, so you were eventually shipped with your unit over to England, and . . . LEWIS CONN Well, from Fort Knox, then we went to what we call camp in Louisiana, and from the camp in Louisiana, Claiborne, Camp Claiborne in Louisiana, then we stayed there awhile, then we went all the way out then to Camp Hood, Texas. I think it's pretty close to where the President stay in that particular locale as I speak today, but Camp Hood I think is still there. So it was a training unit and ground for tank outfits. They land ( ) and the maneuverability that you did in order to train. And this is where we had our last training at Camp Hood, Texas. Now if we run along again, staying in those very little towns, here again we were segregated. So once they let us go to town we had to quit thinking we was American soldiers. What, we were Negroes, so you had to go what called what? Negro Town, or Blacktown. You couldn't be caught uptown going in any other establishment – you would be locked up, although you had on a soldier. I (swear), as far as they were concerned they were going to enforce the law, although you training to go fight for freedom, to make it free for everybody here to have freedom. But still, they was, they was against you, and that was really hurt us to a certain degree. Same as Camp Hood. There was ( ) weekend, sometime I used to go on, cause you had nowhere to go. Especially little towns, we stayed on the camp, did the best we could, cause nobody would, you under-, it's, it's segregated, and we violated the law. Naturally they going to get the people who let you in. They had a place for you to go round by the back wonder, if you ordered something but you couldn't go, like a restaurant, you couldn't sit out and eat just what you had on your uniform, and that was really tough. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about the first time your unit, uh well, actually just you specifically with your unit went into action. LEWIS CONN Well from Camp Hood we went all the way, and then they, went to New York. Naturally they took us across the Atlantic Ocean. Went on the Queen Mary. I haven't been on it since. Maybe somebody give me a ticket and let me ride it one day. But they convert it to having what? The troops, and putting them in as they could with the decks they had. So, they say we going across on the Queen Mary. I didn't know where, where it was, I know they getting ready to ship us overseas for combat duty. Even on the Queen Mary you were segregated. Going overseas, to fight, for freedom, and we was given no less the lower docks. I didn't ( ) that little ship, never hardly seen one in my life, so all I know, they say, whatever dock, that's where you go. And ( ) whatever it is, a hatch, whatever they had for you. So you can us imagine in the bottom of that ship the, the rocking, the rocking. And I remember it took us three weeks to go across the ocean, cause we had to zigzag, because of the U-boats, cause the German with the U-boat was destroying so much of our shipment plus a lot of transportation cause they found out we were using the ships to transport soldiers and they started targeting them with their submarines. So we hit water one day, and you come out, you had on an overcoat. Two or three days you come out on deck for a little relief. Then you could be in shorts, cause it'd be converted back down into warm water. So I was a sick, and most of us was sick the second day for three weeks on that ship, cause being on the bottom decks you couldn't hold, at least I couldn't, and most of us couldn't, no food. I remember losing approximately twenty pounds. And going across to England. And when we got across, I remember we got off the ship, they put us in little tents first. Then they shipped us all way down to South Wales. Most people never heard of, of South Wales. Most people I talk to about England, they say South Wales, where's that? I say, well that's in England. ( ) South Wales. I think they made a movie called How Green Is My Valley, cause you had a lot of coal mines. I think they might still be digging coal from those mines down in South Wales. So they, that's where we relocated and that's where we had, where we stayed and were going to do additional training until they shipped our equipment over for us to go for the invasion or right after the invasion on D-Day. So we stayed there approximate, I know, three to four months, and we got all of our equipment and train. Well when we got there they had places for us to stay - the people in South Wales which the government had leased out for us. But by being black, or Negroes, we were fascinating to them. For some reason they told them that we were from Africa, cause in England and all over Europe people didn't know they had black people which they had ( ). That's why Africa was in the predicament as we've known here lately, cause if you look at the Africa map, it's broken up into all parts of the European country who controlled them, who controlled them. So they used those people as slaves, not only in America, in all those European countries. England had a part of it. So they looked at us as being part of, coming from the apes, it's what they was taught. So when we got there and this ( ) didn't know about it cause they was taught that. And therefore you shake the hands, but when you see ‘em running around and you see the tail it will come out, and they did it, until we educated them and they became to say, what we have been taught and told, it isn't true. So we stayed there a couple of weeks and the people would come where we stayed and started inviting us to the church, inviting us to some of their affairs, and came to know us as black, Negro soldiers all the better. And so we got a lot of a relationship with the people there in South Wales, which made us feel real good, cause we was helping them, cause they was almost destroyed and they knew that. They had to have help. They had to make, it didn't make what difference what color you looked like because they almost conquered by the Germans. So here we came to their rescue, fighting for freedom. INTERVIEWER Um, just briefly tell me a little bit about some of the actions you saw. LEWIS CONN All right from South Wales I was ( ) what, equipment that we ( ) all the way to where we had the landing docks in order to go across the English Channel. Again one of the worst experiences I've ever, and I, that's why maybe I don't go back now. Water, don't show me no water, cause it's like when I see it I get sick. At that time, ( ) D-Day invasion, we were about maybe six to eight weeks behind the first two or three waves of the first groups before we land, we, we was docked to go across the English Channel. Well that time the English Channel was still really rough far as the sea is concerned, so when we hit the boats again, the second day out, we all became ill again, seasick. Lost a lot of energy and so forth and so on. So when we got, and we did land, our first experience when we got almost to the beaches, and I remember around Omaha and other beaches which we did land, D-Day was maybe about a week or two or three weeks on, but you could see the evidence of the slaughter. You could see evidence of the landing boat torn to pieces and you could see evidence of, just the beaches was just full of all kinds of debris. We didn't see any humans floating as people but we saw remnants of where they had been buried. You could see where people were slaughtered. So, when we hit the beaches, and when we regroup, then that's when we fanned out and ordered to make our desire and get and start the movement of branching out. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about the first time you actually ran into the enemy and were in combat. LEWIS CONN The first time we ran into enemy, I can't call the little towns but, maybe about three or four days after we landed and we got with the second army. That was our support, we were support for our group the second army the seven eighty-four tank battalion with the seven fifty-eight, seven sixty-first. And we were what you call the light tank outfits. And our tank that we had, we had two Cadillac motors in it, very powerful. So that's to penetrate, and they would run sixty, sixty-five miles an hour. But behind us we have what you call the backup units with the medium tanks, with the ( ) only we had the little thirty-seven millimeter. So we were what you would call what, the penetrating group. Go out and make contact with enemy. Hope you make it back. Now if you don't we know the enemy is out there and then we send out the big boys, cause we know the Tiger Tanks are there. So that's when we encountered our first enemy was we spearheaded in the gap going ahead toward Paris. Went up, went up what we call on the right flank following the English Channel. So we were very successful. We lost a lot of men. Naturally we supported the infantry group. And what was so, uh, hurt me so, really, when I saw movie that was made in which Mr. Steven Spielberg, I think it was Finding Private Ryan, I think what, I think that was the name of the movie. Finding Private Ryan. Then he made, and the infantry who fought, and had on that signal, was called the Screaming Eagles. That was the group my outfit supported. And when them Germans would drop those eight-eights and shoot those guns, they had no foxhole to jump in, they'd jump in our tanks for support and jump among them. We were all fighting together. When I saw it in the movie I didn't see anybody that looked like me, just like nobody was there but them. I say please tell them to call me. Please tell me to redo it. Please tell ‘em I got darker ( ). Please tell ‘em I do a little bit more research. We was there. Finding Private Ryan. All through those little towns supporting that group. And when they ventured off to find Private Ryan, we kept on to the right, cause that where I, uh, now we almost got to Paris. We going to liberate Paris, they had told us. But, came from high command, when they found out we was, what number, black tank outfit, we got orders, don't come right, turn left, regroup, and stay on the front line. So when we got the news, we were devastated, cause we thought we going to walk down, what, the Champs-Elysées, we thought we were going to celebrate a little bit. Here we had conquered, had lost a lot of men, had fought, but we were diverted away from the celebration. And it hurt us. We had a lot of young men in our outfit deserted. We never did see them any more. We don't know whether they got with the French people and stayed there or they killed themselves. We don't know. We just had to call up extra recruits in order to fulfill, cause we get up in the morning and call roll call and somebody be missing. We didn't have time to go find ‘em, cause you had what, orders what, to move on. And that's what, ( ) again, here we still fighting, segregated. Here we fought and maybe get a little, what, celebration. Nope, diverted. And so, what are we fighting for? I don't know what desire we had, what desire I had, but I say I got a family, I got to make it back home. INTERVIEWER Um, with, with all the stuff that you went through, not only, um, fighting the Germans but, it seems, fighting your own army as well, would you say that the experiences of black soldiers in World War Two, um, pushed forward social reform at home after the war? LEWIS CONN I think it had a great desire on maybe who maybe looked at what we had accomplished and what we went through. Maybe give ‘em a little more momentum to see, well let's fight just a little harder, because look what they have done. And I'll try to erase what we are here this discrimination and segregation, that we are one for all, all for one. Now's the time don't we are in a lot of trouble. And have a lot of desire we have show that we are citizens of the United States, we should be treated equally, we should given an equal opportunity, those who can do or not. And therefore we had the desire. And ( ) that's we had a lot of men in our outfit like I told you were recruited off predominant black, we didn't call them black universities, colleges then, we just called Negro school. Well, by us having already the desire to want an education, well we wanted an education cause we wanted to come back in the various communities what, to help our other what, brothers and sisters that was denied and was segregated. To uplift ‘em. So it was just in us to, to what, to maintain that momentum, to show that maybe somebody was here somewhere along the line. So that's what gave us the desire in order to keep going. And let's wait and see what's going to happen. INTERVIEWER Um, tell me about, um, how the GI Bill helped you. LEWIS CONN In the GI Bill, I guess I'm a fortunate person, because I've told you about my little scholarship I had running track, playing basketball, working in the dining room, which they don't call as they do like the Hope Scholarship and all like that. And I worked even during the summer, summer school, that's how I made my little, extra money, to buy my little books what I need to buy, cause my people had no money, and they say, you can come home if you want to, stay down at work, which I did. But come home with my GI Bill, that gave me a little momentum. Now that time I had married and had a daughter of my own, my oldest daughter was born. So when I got back my wife was still there in school. So I decide, and that time they gave us an idea that they could get us some barracks and put on the campus, and we could use our GI Bill to further our education. Which I say well here that's what I've been waiting on. That's what I need. So that's what my desire was at that time, to get an education. Here I have something now what, to go upon, to look upon, to work upon without me being ( ) from my family, and have something if I use to the best of my ability and use wisely, then I can make it, and don't have to do what I see others doing by saying I'm segregated, I have no desire, nobody going to help me, and they give up, and they are hurting and was hurting at that, that time. INTERVIEWER Um, thousands of school kids will see this exhibit and this video. Um, what do you want to tell them about World War Two and what do you want them to remember? LEWIS CONN Well, World War Two, you can remember this. It was the United States declaring war on an enemy which they said was desirable in order they want to conquer the world as a dictatorship. It's called a different philosophy now as we have in, like, Iraq. But, this is what I would like for the young people to know. Regardless how you are treated and if you live in the country, do the best you can and do what you need to do to support your country and come back to your country in order to see what do I need to do, that I can help in order to what, work out the evils even in my own country, or uplift it in order that everybody can have what, freedom. And have representation one on one. So that was my desire, and that's what I would tell the young people, don't give up. You can make it and have your desire. You may have a little more difficulty than somebody else but look at yourself first. If you and only you keep you down only you can have a choice to go up or go down. Don't worry about what's around you, because they not going to help you too much. You've got to help yourself. If you help yourself, then other people probably will come to your rescue. But you've got to have the desire. And nothing is too hard for you to overcome if you got the objective, you got the desire, and you want to do it. And you can do it if you set your mind to it. And that's what I would like to give to them as I did my education. You like for me to expound after I left Fort Valley, on my GI Bill? INTERVIEWER I'm sorry? LEWIS CONN Would you like for me to give more explanation of how I got my other education? INTERVIEWER Um, actually, I've, I've got just a couple more questions, um . . . LEWIS CONN All right, OK. INTERVIEWER Tell me, uh . . . LEWIS CONN See what, what, I'm just asking you these questions, I hope we're not on TV. But what became very fascinating, which I think the students or somebody should know, once I left Fort Valley, a predominant black college, a Negro college, how I had to get my other education, and what I had to go through. ( ) I just got through fighting for freedom, and here I came back to Georgia and the United States was still segregated, and the education system and process. And they hit me again. Here I am on the GI Bill. They didn't have to give me anything. All they had to do, open up the door, let me in. Give me an opportunity to further my education. But I was denied, because I was still what, was a Negro. That's how I went to Atlanta University, in which I got my master's degree on administration through my GI Bill. When I finished Fort Valley College I applied Georgia Tech, University of Georgia. They looked at my resume, had to give what, my race, denied. Denied, because of my race. Here I am, born in Georgia, live in Georgia, fought from Georgia for the United States, but came back, here I had the GI Bill. Still, couldn't attend the university systems for further education. So the Georgia general center and the Georgia government said, this what we'll do. In other school you pick out that will accept you, like Atlanta University, and what we charge at Georgia Tech and University of Georgia, for our points, or whatever you want to call what you pay for how many units you want to take. Say for instance University of Georgia say was a hundred dollars a unit, and maybe Atlanta University say it was a hundred and fifty. The Georgia government general center would send a check to Atlanta University for the difference, for me attending, just as if I was attending the University of Georgia, they would pay the difference. And that's how I finished at Atlanta University. I paid just what I would've paid on the GI Bill going to Georgia Tech or University of Georgia, cause the government supplemented the university, and we were still segregated, which floored me again. Then I finished university, and I would call Atlanta University, then I had the desire to work on my doctorate degree, so I applied again. University of Georgia, Georgia Tech. Again I made application – denied. Then the general center passed a law saying that any Negroes that have a desire for further education we will pay the difference in the tuition and give you a one way round trip ticket by train, cause you couldn't ride by plane at that time, and we'll pay the difference that we did here in Georgia to the university of your desire anywhere east of the Mississippi River. Not west, east. So that made me to look out, and I picked out for some unusual reason, which my people at Atlanta University, my, people of my, instructors said, why not apply at Columbia University, Teachers College, cause they had a good administrator program there, which we did, and they filed application, and I was accepted, from Atlanta University, which I applied, they got all the coordinates together which they said. So I attended that for five summers. I said that's all right with me cause that's when they had the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Yankees. So that gave me an opportunity during the summer, after I work and was teaching school, in order to go what, on a summer vacation like, get an education plus what, attend the ballgame, and have a vacation. So that's how I worked and got my six year certificate from Teachers College, Columbia University, which you call up on the Hudson. Wasn't too far from Harlem. And I'm very familiar with the Apollo Theater cause you just walk down on eighth avenue and you were right there at the Apollo. So that's where we'll go for recreation. But that's my educational background and more or less the people who had the desire, if they wanted to get further education, that's what they had to do. INTERVIEWER Um, just two last questions. Um, the first, um, what was the, there were of course a lot of effects on the, on the United States that came out of World War Two. What do you think was the, was the greatest, uh, effect, um, on the U.S. from World War Two? LEWIS CONN My desire from World War Two, where I look back at it and what we had to overcome, and what I was fighting for we called democracy against a dictatorship, but when we came back we had more trouble than the Germans had. For our equality, and for our rights, for all citizens. So I think that made our government take a different view of what we need to do in order to let the rest of the world know that we going to be a leader for what we said democracy, we've got to change our status here. We got to see what we can do so when we get our ( ) do we have what we can come back and say, do you see it, do you see our example, see how it works? I think it had a tremendous effect. And all during the rest of our what, development of our government, I think each time you had an administrator in, we got just a little more rights, a little more rights. Until you know 1968 in which my man ( ) the civil right act, which made everybody open their eyes. What do we need, what do we need to do to be what? And said we leaders, said this a democracy, this how it functions, this the way it should be? And I think all that alone, along with MLK, about him losing his life as he did, had a tremendous affect. And I hope we never get back in that rut again. INTERVIEWER Um, one last question. Why, um, black and white, everyone, why should future generations, um, remember yours? LEWIS CONN I think they should remember, and always, and hope, and really it starts, I say, from the family, mothers and fathers. Hope they would have the desire, because what you look like, what nationality? You should always say I'm human. And we're one. You're born, and nothing going to keep you here regardless how you look. You ( ). So they will look at that and say, why can't we live together, why can't we be one, why can't we treat one another right in our life? If they got that desire, then it starts in the home number one. Starts really in the early grades. You got to instill in these children as being one as a human. And you've got to maybe let the family, and mothers and fathers, whoever are in charge of these children, really come to let them know, this the way it's going to be. And being principle for school, I know they wouldn't want me principle now, I know a school cause, I know they wouldn't be allowed to take me cause even segregated days when I was principle, I was very adamant for what a desire in what I need for my students, regardless of who they looked like, which I was segregated, and teaching, but I got what I want from the board of education, cause I say, I deserve it. And I think that's what should be taught now. And everybody looks alike, everybody is alike, everybody should be alike, in regards how you think what you feel about people, nothing going to keep you here forever. Do let me know, please call me and I say, maybe I live to get old as Methuselah, which he said he lived, what, oh, ten thousand years old, so let me know and I come back again. INTERVIEWER All right, I think that will wrap it up. Thank you very much. LEWIS CONN All right. OK. INTERVIEWER Thank you very much sir."],"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings","Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["Segregation--Georgia--Coweta County","Segregation--United States","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Participation, African American","Conn, Lewis Samuel, Sr., 1885-1927","Arnold, Augustus G., 1871-1957","Conn, Dorothy, 1920?-","Roosevelt, Eleanor, 1884-1962","Queen Mary (Steamship)","United States. Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944","Fort Valley State University","United States. Army. Tank Battalion (Light), 784","United States. Army. Army, 2nd","Columbia University. Teachers College","United States. Army"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/209"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["1:01:11"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_595","title":"Oral history interview of Marion Brody Glustrom","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, New York, Kings County, Brooklyn, 40.6501, -73.94958","United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Glustrom, Marian Brody, 1916-2007"],"dc_date":["2004","2014"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Pearl Harbor (Hawaii), Attack on, 1941","Civil rights","V-E Day, 1945","V-J Day, 1945","Racism--United States","Atomic bomb","Segregation--United States","Yale University","American Red Cross","American Veterans Committee"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Marion Brody Glustrom"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/595"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["streaming video","Betacam-SP"],"dcterms_extent":["29:13"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Brody, Alvin S., 1923-1945","Brody, David S., 1909-1994"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_437","title":"Oral history interview of Samuel Floyd Daniel","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Algeria, Oran, 35.69906, -0.63588","Brazil, Natal, -5.805398, -35.2080905","Canada, Nova Scotia, Halifax, 44.6486237, -63.5859487","Iceland, Reykjavík, 64.145981, -21.9422367","Trinidad and Tobago, Port of Spain, 10.66668, -61.51889","United Kingdom, England, Bristol, 51.4538022, -2.5972985","United States, Florida, Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, 26.71534, -80.05337","United States, New York, New York County, New York, Hoffman Island, 40.57898605, -74.05390232869","United States, Virginia, City of Norfolk, 36.89126, -76.26188"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Daniel, Samuel Floyd, 1923-"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center, 130 West Paces Ferry Rd., Atlanta, GA 30305"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center","Veterans History Project oral history recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["Merchant marine--United States","World War, 1939-1945","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Depressions--1929--Georgia","Pearl Harbor (Hawaii), Attack on, 1941","Segregation--Virginia--Norfolk","Liberty Ships","V-E Day, 1945","V-J Day, 1945","Atomic bomb","World War, 1939-1945--Participation, African American","Seafarers' International Union of North America","Thaddeus Kosciuszko (Liberty ship)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Samuel Floyd Daniel"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/437"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","Mini-DV"],"dcterms_extent":["54:05"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Hutton, Barbara, 1912-1979"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_276","title":"President's Assembly, 2004","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["This video features the Dr. Trudie Kibbe Reed's President's Assembly, in which Dr. Reed meets with Bethune-Cookman University students. This video opens with musical performances from the Bethune-Cookman University choir. At 00:16:25, Dr. Reed delivers her address, in which she speaks about Dr. Mary McLeod Bethune's history. Dr. Reed reminds students that they are the \"dreamkeepers of Dr. Bethune's legacy\". She encourages students to have a legacy toolbox and to keep the following instruments in their toolbox based on Dr. Bethune's legacy: learning, living, listening, loving, and leading effectively."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","College presidents","Meetings","Speeches","Special events"],"dcterms_title":["President's Assembly, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/276"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["digital moving image formats"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35747","title":"Prince Edward County: the story without an end; a report prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 1963","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["A report prepared for the United States Commission on Civil Rights by Dr. Edward H. Peeples, Jr., in July 1963. The report is based on interviews and other research done for Dr. Peeples' masters thesis, as well as further interviews and research conducted immediately after the thesis was written. Includes special note to the contemporary reader by Dr. Peeples."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Public schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Segregation in education--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Education and state--Virginia--Prince Edward County","Schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County","United States Commission on Civil Rights. Virginia State Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_title":["Prince Edward County: the story without an end; a report prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 1963"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35747"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_580","title":"Program evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-01/2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/580"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMemorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the seventeenth day of October 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date ), is entered into by and between James S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand W HEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions ' hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on October 31, 2006. The tenn of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors A+ Program (hereinafter A+) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains particularly performance of African-American students. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary Information shall not include information which: (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 1.9 Confidential Infonnation shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluation. 2. Evaluation 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluator shall conduct an Evaluation of Sponsors A+ on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A), within the mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C), and substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The Evaluations name is A+. 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner: Amount: Rate: Travel: 3.1.3 3.1.4 To be Paid: Invoices: Not to exceed Forty-five Thousand dollars (US $45,000.00). $1,500 per day for effort, plus travel expenses. Travel expenses for travel between Los Angeles, CA and Little Rock, AR including Little Rock accommodations and meals not to exceed $6,000.00 (economy class airfare only). Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice. Shall state days of effort. 3.2 Payee Taxpayer ID Address: Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to: James S. Catterall 141-38-3478 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 3.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein, Evaluator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluators sendees rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator a pro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 10/17/05 24. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the freedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at symposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE. 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure The Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the tennination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluation. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination This MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No tennination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3 through 17 herein. 3 10/17/059. Indemnification Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or (b) actions by Evaluator in violation of applicable laws or regulations (c) violations of this MOU. or The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers serv'ed on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 4 10/17/0512. Severability If any one or more of the provisions of this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict perfonnance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluator s President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee. 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other its respective address as follows: party at If to Sponsor: Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387, Fa.x (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator: James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Office 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 15. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 5 10/17/0516. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement of Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator. 17. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date. By: SPONSOR Signature Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District By: EVALUATOR Signe lure James S/catterall, Ph. D. Ic' ''/v-o 0 17-^ ao L\u0026gt; Date Date 6 10/17/05 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy. 7 10/17/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Little Rock School District 8 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply w'ith requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How io Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  Utility(U) -evaluations are informative, timely, and influential  Feasibility (F) -evaluations must be operable in the natural setting and must not consume more resources than necessary  Propriety (P) - rights of individuals must be protected  Accuracy(A) -evaluations should produce sound information Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities m this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots . As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewcr standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluaiion Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually' applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy cs'ery standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports 9 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews Standard____________________ Ul Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness Pl Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility Al Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data A10 Justified Conclusions AI 1 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations F + -h-F -F-t- F-F -F-F -F+ -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F F-F ++ 10 Informal Assessments 0 -F -F-F -F -F -F T\" + -F + -F -F-F -F ++ + -F -F -F-F -l-t- (j Formative Assessments (School Portfolios)  -F -F -F -F -F T -F + \"o' 0 -F + V F + + + F F T\" F F 0 Snapshots 0 0 -F -F -F 0 -F V -F + V -F -F V 0 -F -F -F -F -F -F -F + -F-F + 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include d proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry\nand Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculumdnstruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 11 10/17/057. 8. 9. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R D. E. F. G. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports {e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines: 153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 12 10/17/0510. 11. 12. 13. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. B. C. D. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). W hen the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 16, 2004 13 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2\"** Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator .credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. 14 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Rights of human subjects. Evaluation design and conduct should respect and protect human rights and welfare. Human interactions. Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Meta-evaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summativcly against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 15 10/17/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES Evaluation of A+ Program This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will conduct an Evaluation of the Sponsors A+ Program and produce reports of that Evaluation. Evaluation questions For this Evaluation, the primaiy questions are: I. Has A+ as implemented in the Little Rock School District improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African-American (AA)? II. Has A+ as implemented in the Little Rock School District decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)? III. To what extent does A+ account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step-two) questions are 1. What competing events or programs (relative to A+) explain changes in student performance? 2. What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them? 3. What changes in A+ do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs? 4. How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluation, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A. theoretical model(s), B. Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program C. D. E. F. G. Assessment Process, specific variables for the Evaluation, data adjustments and statistical methods, format(s) of data for use in the Evaluation delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of ser\\'ices and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (200506) November 2005 DecemberJuly 2006 August 1,2006 August 2006_____ September 1, 2006 ___________________________Service and Products__________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will observ'e classes, conduct interviews and surveys, and receive test and other data from Sponsor__________________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.___________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly.________ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing, Evaluator will track his efforts in increments of days or some portion thereof. 16 10/17/05Exhibit D A+ Program Evaluation Primaiy Evaluation Question: 1. Have the A+ Program (A+) been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description A+ combines daily arts instruction with academic subjects to boost both self-confidence and achievement. Committed to the Four Beliefs and Eight Essentials as the guiding philosophy for the program, A+ was built on the principle that every child learns better when his/her whole self engages in learning. Thus, A+ lessons stimulate all eight intelligences. Arts enrichment combines with the rich LRSD curriculum. The magic of the A+ program allows light bulbs experiences to illumine students, whether they learn in classroom groups or in movement, music, or visual arts lessons. The magic of the A+ program energizes students with the simple thrill of learning in ways many of them have never experienced before. Included in this scope of A+ is professional development for the faculty. Currently Woodruff Elementary School implements A+. Schools Name Woodruff Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent Africa n- American 21 235 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch 86 17 10/17/05Proposed Design Primary Evaluation Question 1. Have the A+ lessons been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African- American students? IVhole School. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Subsample: Within Woodruff Elementary School, students who participated in A+ will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of A+ instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of A+ instructional strategies? A+ teachers will be interviewed by phone. A+ instruction will be observed. 3. What is the level of participation in A+ lessons by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2004-05 and 2005-06 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The A+ teacher interviews and the A+ Teacher Survey will address this question via closed-ended and open- ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A survey will be administered to program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent Survey will address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 18 10/17/05Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _________Evaluation Question Primary Question: Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in A+ on student achievement? All grades at Woodruff Elementary School Benchmark, ITBS, and school records Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies? All A+ teachers Teacher phone interview Classroom observations 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies? 3. What is the level of participation in A+ Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? All A+ classes School records/archival data 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All A+ teachers A+ teacher interview and survey 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A+ students A+ student survey 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of A+ students A+ parent survey 19 10/17/05November DecemberMarch MarchApril MayJune July JuneJuly August 1, 2006 August September 1, 2006 Schedule (2005-2006) Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRJ2 and A+ experts\nand instrument development A+ classroom observations and A+ teacher interviews Survey A+ school teachers and complete A+ teacher interviews Records/archival data analyses Evaluator will receive benchmark test results. Evaluator will analyze data of benchmark tests, surx'eys, and interviews. Evaluator will submit draft report to PRE. Evaluator will receive feedback from PRE and finish final draft. Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. received OCT 2 5 2005 desegregation monitoring 20 10/17/05Cfiri^ecfed Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between Education Innovations, LLC (hereinafter Evaluator), a Tennessee limited liability company, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHERE.AS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows\n1. Definitions For purposes of this MOD, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of .-Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. / iilaski C ounty Special School Districi No. I el al., Mrs. Lorene .Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A), which is incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Plincipal Investigator shall mean Steven M. Ross, Ph D., appointed by Evaluator to conduct the step-two evaluations hereunder 1.4 Formal step-two evaluations (hereinafter Evaluations) shall mean summative evaluations of the three programs conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. 1.5 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by the Sponsors Board of Directors December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1, 2004. 1.6 Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Ev-aluator in accordance with this MOU. 1.7 Evaluation Team shall mean the Principal Investigator and the research personnel under the Principal Investigators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds. 4 8 0.'=: 1BI 1.8 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean the department of the Sponsor who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluations. 1.9 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable, not generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary' Information shall not include information which: (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluations. 2. Evaluations 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluation Team shall conduct three (3) Evaluations on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A). Evaluator agrees to perform the Evaluations within a mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C) and further agree,s to complete Evaluations substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The three Evaluations are named below. 2.2.1 Reading Recovery (Exhibit D) -7 9 9 9 Compass Learning (Exhibit E) Smart/Thrive (Exhibit F) 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner. Amount: 3.1.2 Rate: To be Paid: 3.1.4 Invoices. Not to exceed one hundred eighty thousand (US$180,000.00) plus reimbursable expenses as indicated below. $1,000 per day for effort. Travel cost to be reimbursed at actual cost. Translation cost to be reimbursed at actual cost. Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice, and/or reimbursable expenses, documentation included with invoice. Shall state days of effort for each of the Evaluations. 3.2 Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to: Payee Tax ID #: Address. Educations Innovations, LLC 56-2288391 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3830 2 4/8/053.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein, Principal Investigator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluator's services rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator 'dpro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 4. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the treedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at s^'mposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure rhe Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluations. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination 1 his MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No termination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 18 herein. 3 4.8/059. Indeinnincation Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or the Principal Investigator, or (b) actions by Evaluator or the Principal Investigator in violation of applicable laws or regulations, (c) violations of this MOU. or The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers served on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 12. Severability It any one or more of the provisions ot this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability ot the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4 4/8'0513. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluators President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other party at its respective address as follows: If to Sponsor. Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D Director, PRE Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387/Fax (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator with respect to all non-technical matters: Cindy Hurst Education Innovations, LLC 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, TN 38152-3830 Phone (901) 678-5063/Fax (901) 678-4257 If to Evaluator with respect to technical questions. Steven M. Ross, Ph D. Director, Education Innovations, LLC 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, TN 38152-3830 Phone (901) 678-3413/Fax (901) 678-4257 16. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 17. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement ot Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this 5 4  (5Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator, 18. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date SPONSOR EVALUATOR By. Signature By: Signature Superintendent P?*r-e\u0026lt;te., /rie^ct Samuel Hurst Vice PresidentBusiness and Finance Date Date 4/8/05 /5-\u0026lt;^y 6 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock- Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene .Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy of this document but may request another copy from Sponsor. 7 4/8/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process of the Little Rock School District is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy of this document but may request another copy from Sponsor. 8 4/8/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will perform Evaluations of three programs of the Sponsor, viz.^ Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Compass Learning, and produce reports of the Evaluations. Evaluation questions For each of the three Evaluations, the primary' questions are I. II. 111. Has the program improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African- American (.A.A) as implemented in the Little Rock School District' Elas the program decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)' To what extent does each program account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step two) questions are 1. 2. 3. 4. What competing events or programs (relative to each evaluated program) explain changes in student performance? What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them What changes in the program do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs' How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluations, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A B C D E. F G theoretical model(s), Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process, specific variables for the summative evaluations, data adjustments and statistical methods, format) s) of data for use in the Evaluations delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of services and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (2004-05) OctoberFebruary October 1 October November 1 ___________________________Service and Products________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.__________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly._______ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing. Evaluator will track its efforts in increments of days or some portion there of. 9 4.'8C5Payments Little Rock School District Desegregation Court Mandate Support Project Period October 2004 to November 2005 Costs: Consulting @ $1,000 per day - 180 days maximum Actual Cost - Travel (est. $500) Actual Cost - Translation Seivices (est. $500) $180,000 * Maximum Payment $180,000* Plus actual cost of travel and translation services 10 4/8/05Exhibit D Reading Recovery Proposal for the Evaluation of Reading Recovery in Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation (Juestion. 1. Has the Reading Recovery (RR) program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Supplemental (Qualitative Level 2) Evaluation (Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in RR by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? J. What is the progress demonstrated by African American and other student participating in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and w'eaknesses'i 5. What are the perceptions of K.-3 classroom teachers in the school regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'^ 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interx entions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. It is restricted to the first-grade and involves providing systematically designed individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds support the RR Program. Currently, RR is implemented by 18 elementary schools (whose .AA student composition follows their names): Bale: 82%, Booker: 53%, Carver: 53%, Chicot: 73%, Dodd: 54%, Franklin: 96%, Geyer Springs: 88?o, Gibbs: 53%, Meadowcliff: 78%, Mitchell: 96%, Otter Creek: 60%, Rightsell: 100%, Stephens: 95%, Terry: 53%, Wakefield: 78%, Watson: 96%, Williams: 52%, and Wilson: 89%. Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: 11 4-'8/O5Printaiy Evaluation Question. 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AA students? A. Whole School'. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1- 3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. It may be decided to examine (a) all 18 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the most usable database) administered in kindergarten. Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. Reading Recovery Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs Control), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: I. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05'^ RR teachers will be interv-iewed by phone. First grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR tutoring sessions will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 12 tutoring classroom observations will be conducted. RR Teachers in-training will not be observed. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students is discontinued or not discontinued'^ RR Teachers will provide Recommendations for Discontinuing and Statement of Progress for Non- Discontinued Student data information on each 2004-05 RR student. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' The RR teacher survey will directly address this question. RR teachers in-training will be interviewed by phone. 5. What are the perceptions of K-3 classroom teachers in the school regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 12 4/8/05The K-3 classroom teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Only experienced RR schools will be surveyed. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent Surv'cy will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items in experienced RR schools. Suinmary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question: Reading Recovery Evaluation Question | Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. Wliat are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions:  All grades I -3 students at 18 RR schools and other elemcntaiy schools  RR student participants within above samples  DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) 1 What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in RR by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the schixil?____________________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program- specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued\"?______________ 4. W hat are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All RR teachers  Classroom teachers at experienced RR schools  Principals at RR schools All RR schools All RR teachers will provide program data for first grade students All RR teachers 13  Random sample of principals and teachers intraining interview  K-3 classroom Teacher Surt'ey (faculty meeting)  RR student data  RR Tutoring Session Observation (min. of 12 observations)  School records/archival data  RR student program data  RR teacher survey  RR teacher in-training interview 4\nS 05no 5. Whal are the perceptions of  K-3 classroom teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' All K-3 classroom teachers in experienced RR schools K-3 classroom teacher survc\u0026gt; (disaggregated by 1 grade vs. other grades) 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Timelines Februan,' 2005\nMarch: MarchApril: May-June: JulySeptember: October 1\nNovember 1: Parents of RR students in experienced RR schools RR Parent Survee Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and RR experts\nInstrument Development Begin observations, RR Teacher In-Training Phone Interviews Complete observations, RR Teacher and K-3 Classroom Teacher Survey, RR Principal Phone Interviews RR Student Data, Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of finding\nto PRE\nReceive feedback from PRE Finalize and submit final repon to PRE 14 4/8/05Exhibit E Compass Learning Proposal for the Evaluation of Compass Learning in Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evahialion Question. 1 What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) and other students? Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools J. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Program Description Compass Learning is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The theme-based lessons and activities provided by CL take a crosscurricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. A Technology Specialist assists classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 20 LRSD elementary schools utilized CL programs, while 2 middle schools and 1 high school used the program in previous years. The AA student composition follows the individual school names: Elementary Schools Bale. 82%, Booker: 53%, Brady: 78%, Carver: 52%, Chicot: 73%, Fair Park: 75%, Forrest Park: 20%, Franklin: 96%, Fulbright. 26%, Geyer Springs: 88%, Gibbs: 53%, Mabelvale: 80%. McDermott: 62%, Mitchell. 96%, Otter Creek: 60%, Rightsell: 100%, Rockefeller: 67%, Stephens: 95%, Wakefield: 78%, Williams: 52%. 15 4.8/05Middle Schools: Cloverdale: 82%, and Henderson\n82% High School: Accelerated Learning Center (ALC): 92% Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows\nPrimary Evaluation Question. 2. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? A. Quasi-experimental desist: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 20 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only*. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely using multiple-regression type analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test ot Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests. Iowa Test ot Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4- 8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)\nArkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1 What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) all school Technology- Specialists and (c) the lab attendant at the 7 elementary schools randomly selected for observations. All teachers at the 20 elementary schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a random sample of 7 elementary schools. At four of the observed schools, a brief (20-min.) student focus group {n = 5 to 7 students per school) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.) 2. U hat is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 and CL observation data will be analyzed. Recent information indicates that the nnddie and high schools are no longer using CL. The principals will be intei^iewcd at these schools regarding CL usage. If the schools are not using CL, CREP will work w ith PRE to modify the achievement analy sis accordingly. 16 4/8'053. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the teacher survey and Technology Specialist interviews in schools identified as implementing CL and interviews with lab attendants in the 7 schools randomly selected for CL observations. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL parent survey consisting of closed- and open-ended items will be administered to parents at 5 randomly selected schools. 5 What arc the perceptions of school principals, w hose schools no longer use CL, w ith regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? This question will be addressed via the Principal Interview. Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question: Compass Learning Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CompassLearning (CL) on the achievement of African American and other students? Participants Supplemental Questions: 1. Whal are I be qualih. naliire. and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementaiy schools identified a.s implementing the program in 2004-05?  Students al 20 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools  Whole grade-level means al ihc Compass Learning high school. (T)ic middle schools and high school may not be included in the achievement analysis depending on CL usage)________________  All CL school teachers  All Technology Specialists at schools implcinenting CL  CL Lab Attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations  District CL Program Coordinator  Student Focus Groups at 4 randomly selected elementan schools Data Sources ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 Arkansas Benchmarks as poshest for 3-8) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (as poshest in grades 1- 9)2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as poshest) 2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry End- of-Course Exams (as posttest)  Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Technology Specialist Phone Interview  District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview  Lab Attendant Phone Inten iew  Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 4 schools randomly selected from the 7 observation schools 17 4'8'052. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ctlmic groups at the schools concerned? .3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and n eaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL. with regard Io past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? All Coinpass schools School rccords/archiv al data Two-hour CL Laboratory Observ ations (J randomly selected elementary schools) Ail CL school teachers All Technology Specialists al schools implementing CL CL Lab Attendants al the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Parents of CL students Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology Specialist Phone Inlcn ie Lab Allendani Phone Inlen ieu CL Parent Suney Distributed to one class at each grade level al 5 elenicnlarv schools Principals at two middle schools, one high school, and possibly one elementary- school Principal Phone Inlen iew 18 4/8/052005 Timeline January. February: March-April: May-June\nJuly-September: October 1: Planning/Refmement, consultation with PRE and CL experts, and instrument development Complete instrument development and begin observations CL Teacher Surx'ey (at faculty meetings), conduct phone interviews with district CL program coordinator, technology specialists, lab attendants, and principals in schools no longer implementing CL\ncomplete obsen'ations\nconduct student focus Groups. Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE\nreceive feedback from PRE November 1: Finalize and submit report to PRE 19 4/8/05Exhibit E Smart/Thrive Proposal for the Evaluation of the Smart/Thrive (S/T) Programs in the Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question. 1. 1 .Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students' Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Sniart and Thrive by African American students'^ 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions' 3. What are the perceptions of Smart/Thrive Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra 1 teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What arc the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Program Description The S/T program was designed as an intervention for S\"- and 9\"'-grade African-.American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. This program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in /Algebra 1 classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, the program served 264 students. Participants were offered pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year Thrive Program). Various local grants have fiinded this program since 1999. In the current school year, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools (whose AA student composition follows their names): Cloverdale: 82%, Dunbar: 61%, Forest Heights: 77%, Henderson: 82%, Mablevale: 81%, Mann: 52%, Pulaski Heights\n57%, and Southwest: 94% Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows\n20 4 8/05Primary Evaluation Question . 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students'  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment . i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs Pretests: 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test  Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests\nAlgebra I EOC\nMath Benchmark Test. Supplemental CQiialitative/Slep 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African American students'  Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions?  Random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions. Approximately five visits will be made. Observations of the Summer Smart Program can be conducted in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'  A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A questionnaire will be administered to program participants. A sample of program participants will also be selected to participate in student focus groups. Approximately 3-5 focus groups will be conducted, with each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions ot parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'  An S/T Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 21 4.'g/05Summary' of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question: Smart/Thrive Evaluation Question [ I Primary Question:___________ 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on student achievement? Participants Data Sources Timelines  All 8* and 9* grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 Math Benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests\nMath Benchmark\nAlgebra I EOC Supplemental Questions: I. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African American students?__________________ 2. What instructional strategics are used during the tutoring sessions?___________ 3. WJiat are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?________________ 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra 1 teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____________ 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses/ 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? January', 2005. Febiuary: March-April: May-June: July-September: October T. October: November 1  All program participants ST teachers and students All S/T Tutors  All Algebra I teachers  Program participants Parents of ST students School records/archival data  Observations of tutoring sessions  ST Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire  ST Student Questionnaire  Focus Groups  ST Parent Questionnaire Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE, Instrument Development Begin observations of Thrive sessions Administer Teacher, Tutor, and Student Questionnaires and begin focus groups. Complete focus groups and observations and analyze records and archival data Analyze achievement data and complete survey and interview analyses. Submit draft report to PRE. Discuss draft report of findings with PRE and write final report. Submit final report to PRE 22 4\n8/05RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2005 OfRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGi-C\u0026gt; 'rvtc4ecl te Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between James S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply\n1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors Year-Round Education (hereinafter YRE) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains differences among schools as w'ell as for the LRSD. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary Information shall not include information which\n(a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluation. 2. Evaluation 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluator shall conduct an Evaluation of Sponsors YRE on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A), within the mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C), and substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The Evaluations name is YRE. 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner: Amount: Rate: Travel\n3.1.3 3.1.4 To be Paid: Invoices\nNot to exceed Forty-five Thousand dollars (US $45,000.00). $1,500 per day for effort, plus travel expenses. Travel expenses for travel between Los Angeles, CA and Little Rock, AK including Little Rock accommodations and meals not to exceed $6,000.00 (economy class airfare only). Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice. Shall state days of effort. 3.2 Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to\nPayee Taxpayer ID Address: James S. Catterall 141-38-3478 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 3.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein. Evaluator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluators services rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator a pro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 2 3/22/054. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the freedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at symposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications,, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE. 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure The Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluation. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination This MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No termination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3 through 17 herein. 3 3/22/059. Indemnification Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or (b) actions by Evaluator in violation of applicable laws or regulations or (c) violations of this MOU. The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers served on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 4 3/22/0512. Severability If any one or more of the provisions of this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluators President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee. 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other party at its respective address as follows: If to Sponsor: Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387, Fax (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator: James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Office 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 15. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 5 3/22/0516. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement of Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator. 17. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date. EVALUATOR By: SPONSOR Signature Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District By: Jame: 'ure 'atterall. Ph. D. Date Date 3/22/05 a 6 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy. 7 3/22/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Little Rock School District 8 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply with requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  Utility(U) -evaluations are informative, timely, and influential  Feasibility (F) -evaluations must be operable in the natural setting and must not consume more resources than necessary  Propriety (P) - rights of individuals must be protected  Accuracy(A) -evaluations should produce sound information Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots. As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports. 9 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews Standard____________________ UI Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Infonnation Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness Pl Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility Al Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data______ A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data AIO Justified Conclusions A11 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations Informal Assessments Formative Assessments (School Portfolios) ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 10 0 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 4- y 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- T 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- V 0 + + + + + + + 0 4- 4- 4- V 4- 4- 4- + 4- 4- y 4- 4- 0 Snapshots 0 0 + + 4- _0 + 2 4- y _0 4- 4- y _0 4- 4- 4- + + + + + + 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 11 3/22/057. 8. 9. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R D. E. F. G. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 12 3/22/0510. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R 11. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 12. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 13. 14. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46,123-124.) Approved: December 16, 2004 13 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2\"** Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed infonnation is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. 14 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Rights of human subjects. Evaluation design and conduct should respect and protect human rights and welfare. Human interactions. Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Meta-evaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summatively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 15 3/22/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES Evaluation of Year-Round Education This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will conduct an Evaluation of the Sponsors YRE Programs and produce reports of that Evaluation. Evaluation questions For this Evaluation, the primary questions are: 1. II. III. Has YRE as implemented in the Little Rock School District improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African-American (AA)? Has YRE as implemented in the Little Rock School District decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)? To what extent does YRE account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step-two) questions are 1. What competing events or programs (relative to YRE) explain changes in student performance? 2. What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them? 3. What changes in YRE do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs? 4. How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluation, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A. B. C. D. E. F. G. theoretical model(s). Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process, specific variables for the Evaluation, data adjustments and statistical methods, format(s) of data for use in the Evaluation delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of services and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (2005-06) FebruaryMarch October 1,2006 October November 1,2006 ____________________________Service and Products_________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.___________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly.________ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing. Evaluator will track his efforts in increments of days or some portion thereof. 16 3/22/05Exhibit D Year-Round Education Programs Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the Year-Round Education (YRE) Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? '4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description Year-Round Education is a concept which reorganizes the school year so that instruction occurs throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks interspersed. Instruction and vacations are shorter and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. LRSDs design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Currently there are five elementary schools implementing YRE\nElementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent of Students Free/Reduced Lunch 89 88 92 91 86 17 3/22/05Primary Evaluation Question Proposed Design 1. Have the YRE Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? fVhole School-. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Subsample: Within each YRE school, students who participated in intersession will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular sessions? Year-Round Education teachers will be interviewed by phone. Year-Round Education classrooms, both regular and during intersession, will be observed. 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The Year-Round Education teacher interview and the Year-Round Education Teacher Survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A survey will be administered to program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent Survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 18 3/22/05Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in YRE on student achievement? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year-Round Education intersession student participants within above samples Benchmark, ITBS, and school records Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? All YRE teachers Teacher phone interview Classroom observations 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? All YRE schools School records/archival data 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? AH YRE teachers YRE teacher interview and survey 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey 19 3/22/05Timelines February-March: March: March-April: May-June: July-September: October: November 1 Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and YRE experts\nand instrument development Begin YRE classroom observations and YRE teacher interviews Survey YRE school teachers and complete YRE teacher interviews Records/Archival data analyses Analyze achievement data/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE and receive feedback from PRE Finalize and submit report to PRE received OCT 2 5 2005 .OFFICE OF DKEGfiEGAnONMONirORING 20 3/22/05Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between Janies S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2005 OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors Year-Round Education (hereinafter YRE) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains differences among schools as well as for the LRSD. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietaiy Information shall not include information which, (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of ind\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_640","title":"Program evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-01/2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/640"],"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\nFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. F.A. JOE D. BELL, F.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY, F.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. F.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. F.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER F.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR. F.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. F.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. F.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. F.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER F.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. F.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. F.A, HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. F.A. PRICE C. GARDNER P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. F.A. JEFFREY IJ. MOORE. F.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. F.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, F.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirfn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-685-2011 FAX 479-605-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. F.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. F.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. F.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH F. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. E2:ELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA Caffs rose BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. FATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. F.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 halUrQfec.nac January 12, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Jan 13 2004 Received Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris HolmesJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MAR ^1? 2004 Via Facsimile \u0026amp; U.S. Mail OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Ro.ad Little Rock, Akkans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 EiVAIL: mcheiiryd@swbell.net  J March 8. 2004 Mr. Cliristopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Chris\nI have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. Very truly yours, /\nI I : i/ L b' L  John W. Walker '-6- JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshal Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. MarK Burnette-fo fa.)C CP received MAR 1 200't OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 9NW01IN0WN0llVD3aD3S30 d030HJ0 ^00? J I yvw JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS a3A3O3a Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8*** Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation\nand 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afncan American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. JJ 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of Afncan American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afncan American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of T* or 8* grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive\nit is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, iy John W. Walker ' .\u0026gt;4^^ I 1 / c \\ JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE OUU W. CAPI lUL, ROOM 423 i-iTTLc nOCK, Bill WILSON JUDGE Ov4-5i|UU Pscsimiiv (ovi) 604-5 i45 March 10, 2004 Tho Wz^nz^rahlQ Oav/ ( (UI LJ U ICppQI l/UI LI (UUOC 500 West Capiioi, rsucrn i45 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Ray ECEIVE, MAR 1 0 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR?!: Enclosed iS s copy of Mr, Walker's March 10, 2004 fax iexter to Ms. Marshall. by copy of this letter I remind Mr. Walker and other counsel of record to copy you with correspondence and other matters. ^//// / i/^ /I/1 b't / /A' I Wn\u0026lt; R. Wilson, Jr. Tiginal.' Athor r'O Mr. JaiTiSS W. lerk \u0026amp; 1----------- COURT eastern DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAR 1 1 2004 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK ____________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS 1. ORDER I have received a copy of Mr. Walkers March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed\nand a request for facilitation by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. J. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshalls office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the numerous areas of disagreement. Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. 'I8- 4. Any suggestion of facilitating at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late  far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, 1 would expect that office to file a report on the progress under  2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed, so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. rfH- IT IS SO ORDERED this / /^day of March, 2004. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG| UNITED Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, pa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLnet Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ^4/? / Re: Little Rock School District nsa\n's Dear Ms. Marshall: Now that we have the 8* Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our belief is that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work hand in glove to that end. When we last met -with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the Districts obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the Districts representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose of followup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004,1 received two lengthy reports from the District entitled\n1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation\nand 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics \u0026amp; Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSDs program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter aha, the evaluations are keyed to No Child Left Behind mandates or State accountabihty mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the exphcit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its comphance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the Districts use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Courts Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the Districts intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for Afiican American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5* grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the surprising notation that substantial difierences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed Afiican American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 25) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated fi-om the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the Afiican American students during 2002-2003 in 4* grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4* graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesleys data. I read that the Courts Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use of this data, i.e., LRSD now has over three years of testing data. 57 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the Districts ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address Afiican American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the Districts tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving Afiican American performance. 10) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for AlBrican American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4* or S'** grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3The foregoing list is merely suggestive\nit is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wilson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the Districts compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you kindly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs cc\nHonorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel 4 CHECK LIST FOR ENGLISH CLASSROOMS r Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Be Seen Comments 1. Teacher engaged with students. 2. Students' creations on walls. 3. Students often seated in groups or pods._________________ 4. Students who can discuss their work.. 5. Students interacting with peers. 6. Classroom libraries and sustained reading time._________ 7. Students able to relate benchmarks, standards, assessments.__________ 8. Use of rubrics and performance-based assessments. 9. Benchmarks clearly displayed in room. 10.Teacher reading and writing with students. Observed in class Top Ten Things That Should Not _________________Be Seen____________ 1. Teacher sitting behind desk. 2. drab, boring, or \"old\" classroom. 3. Students in rows all the time. 4. Rote skill, drill or busy work. 5. Worksheets and packaged materials. 6. Prolonged silent periods of time. 7. One objective on board. 8. All multiple choice or \"canned\" tests. 9. Students who do not know how they are doing or waiting for overdue papers. 10. Paper grading in class by teacher while students are working. Comments Date Signature\ns c o 1 CQ cS  CQ o o o co \"S g 6 o O d Constructive and Effective Evaluation Granimar/Mechanics Taught in Context at Editing Stage Collaboration-------------------------------- Process Writing ------------------------- Scoring Guides\nRubrics --------------- Phase Questions\nWriting Writing before/after reading Teacher Modeling  Reading  Writing Silent Reading\nDiscussions Independent Reading Active Reading I (P \u0026gt; O (U -H Minilessons ______ Skills Taught in Context of Meaningful Literature  Grammar i Spelling/ Vocabulary Mugshots Dates IPrograms on Page 148, -intertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1* semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms on Page 148, -tntertm Compliance Report 2001-02 Evaluation Outcome of evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Date 2002-03 evaluation completed 2003-04 1 st semester evaluation completed PreK-3 Literacy National Science Foundation Project Middle Schools Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program SEDL Program-Southwest Middle School Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital LinkPrograms listed in Interim Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Title I Programs PLATO Labs Accelerated Learning Center Alternative Learning Center Summer School Tutoring Programs 21 Century Community Learning Centers Project ACT Tutoring Career Orientation Block Scheduling High School Advisory Program Personalized Education Plan K-12 Science Professional Development for Science Teachers Citizenship and Character EducationPrograms listed in the final Compliance Report to improve student performance Evaluation Date Completed Author Date of Board Approval Outcome of evaluation Achievement Level Tests Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 3-5 Criterion-Referenced Tests-Literacy, Grades 6-12 Criterion-Referenced Test (End if Unit/Modual Exams) Mathematics and Science State Benchmark Exams, Grades 4, 6, and 8 Stanford Achievement Test, g Edition Professional Development Instructional Standards Language Arts Mathematics Science Social Studies Staffing Curriculum Guides Teachers of Tomorrow AP World History Pilot Progrm in Grade 8 American History Citizenship Assessment Professional Development Social Studies ResourcesFine Arts Summer School Tutoring Programs Extended Year Education Pathwise Badgett Charter School Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant Project 21 Century Community Learning Carters Grand Project Carnegie Planning Grant for High School Reform Proposal for Magnet School Grant for Cloverdale Middle School, Mabelvale Middle School, Fair High School, and McClellan High School Charter School Planning Grant to Expand the Accelerated Learning CenterRECEIVED First Quarterly Progress Update December 1, 2004 NOV 3 2004 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Outline Purpose This update is of actions taken with respect to the new Compliance Remedy: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. 9? B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. ... the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction C. program. 99 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. 99 A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals LRSD has hired three new professionals with knowledge and experience in assessment evaluation, and statistical analysis: As of October 1, 2004, the Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation team consists of: Karen DeJamette, PhD, Director (cite date of hire and bio) Maurecia Malcolm, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) James C. Wohlleb, Statistician (cite date of hire and bio) Continued employment of Ed Williams, PhD, Statistician (cite bio) Yvette Dillingham, Testing Coordinator (cite bio) Irma Shelton and Malinda administrative assistants (cite years of experience)B. Devise and imbed a comprehensive program assessment process. In late September the reinvigorated PRE began devising the comprehensive program assessment process that will be deeply imbedded in LRSDs educational operations. Dr. Dejamette and staff continued cooperation with Dr. Steve Ross to review the draft Policy IL-R2 and to redefine the policy to include a comprehensive program assessment process that fits the needs of the Little Rock School District: Discussion of Drs. Brooks and Dejamette and Mr. Heller: Telephone conference between Drs. Dejamette \u0026amp; Ross: October 5 conference of Drs. Brooks, DeJamette, \u0026amp; Ross in Memphis: October 7 introductions to Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; general discussion. October 26 telephone conference of Drs. DeJamette \u0026amp; Ross \u0026amp; Mr. Wohlleb: Agreement by Dr. Ross: C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare four formal step 2 evaluations. LRSD has begun negotiations to hire Drs. Ross \u0026amp; Catterall to perform the following tasks... Drs. Ross and Catterall were contacted late September for preliminary conversations regarding the 4 step 2 evaluations for 2004-2005 [List dates and times of conversations with superintendent, school board, ODM, intervenors] Process of selecting programs for evaluation, including PRE staff efforts to initially review all programs currently operating and then to discuss possibilities with Ross and Catterall to determine selection of 4 programs to formally evaluate Design of Evaluation studies (mini-proposals?) Schedule of evaluations and reportsAppendices Resumes of staff Memo from Ross related to IL-R2 Schedule of tasks \u0026amp; assignmentsLittle Rock School District Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Evaluation Designs for Programs Greater Second Baptist Church 5615 Geyer Springs Road February 16, 2005 Agenda 7:45 a.m. Dr. Karen DeJarnette \u0026amp; PRE team welcome Drs. Steve Ross, Anna Grehan. Dan Strahl. \u0026amp; Aaron McDonald from U/Memphis \u0026amp; Drs. Gail Weems \u0026amp; Linda Dorn from UALR 8:30 a m. Drs. Lloyd Sain, Roy Brooks \u0026amp; Sadie Mitchell address principals 8:50 a m. Presentation of evaluation designs to principals by Dr. Steve Ross 9:30 Dr. Ross \u0026amp; team meet with directors of programs: 9:3010:15 Reading Recovery\nDr. Linda Dorn from UALR, Pat Busbea, \u0026amp; Krista Underwood 10:1511 Smart/Thrive: Vanessa Cleaver \u0026amp; Marcelline Carr 12:00 Center) Lunch Compass Learning: Lucy Neal \u0026amp; Travis Taylor (Tech 2 p.m. Wrap-up of PRE \u0026amp; Dr. Ross teams8: 00 - 8:25 LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING Greater Second Baptist Church Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8\n30 A.M. - 3\n00 P.M. Continental Breakfast 8:30 Call to Order Dr. Lloyd Sain 8:30 - 8:50 Organizational Chart Dr. Roy G. Brooks Dr. Sadie Mitchell 8:50-9:20 Evaluation Designs for Programs Dr. Steve Ross 9:20 -10:30 A.M. Constructivist Teaching in the Literacy Classrooms Dr. Olivine Roberts Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Suzi Davis Krista Underwood Elementary Principals - Downstairs Secondary Principals - Classroom #8 - Upstairs 10:30 -10:45 Break 10:45 -12:05 Part I: Constructivist Teaching Continued 12:05 -12:40 Lunch (On-site) 12:45 - 2:30 Part II: Constructivist Teaching 2:30 - 2:45 Break Return to Fellowship Hall for a General Meeting 2:45 - 3:05 Maculaitis Assessments Dr. Karen Broadnax 3:05-3:15 Wrap-up/Evaluation Drs. Sain and Mitchell Evaluation of heading Eecovey in the Uttle V^ock School System x=: Conducted by R\u0026amp;' j FEB i . CREP \u0026gt; Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimaiy YLvaluation Question... a Has the Reading Recovery program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievements of African-American students? JJSupplemental Pivaluation Questions...  What are the quality and level of implementation of Reading Recovery at the participating schools?  What is the level of participation in reading Recovery by African-American students?  What is the progress demonstrated by African-American and other students in Reading Recovery in improving achievement?  What are the perceptions of the Reading Recovery teachers and principals?  What are the perceptions of regular first-grade teachers and other teachers regarding Reading Recovery?  What are the perceptions of parents of Reading Recovery students?Evaluation Procedures,..       DRA or Dibels 2004-05 Reading and Math Subtests Reading Recovery Teacher Phone Interviews Reading Recovery School Teachers Survey Reading Recovery Principal Interview with Randomly Selected Principals. Reading Recovery Achievement Profiles Tutoring Observations School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation) Reading Recovery Parent Survey    The Tutoring Observations will consist of Reading Recovery experts observing tutoring sessions.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Begin observations  Interview Reading Recovery Teachers  Survey Reading Recovery teachers and parents  Complete Reading Recovery teacher interviews  Profile Reading Recovery achievement  Analyze records/archival data analyses July-September October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft reports  PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval  Draft reports for reviewSchoolparticipation guidelines...    Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools It is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individuai teachers or schools.Evaluation of the Smart! Thrive Programs in the Tittle Tock School District Conducted by CREP received FEB 1 . 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION uOHlTOWNG \u0026gt; Center for Research in Educational PolicyPrimary Evaluation Question... (( Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African/American students? JJSupplementary Questions...  What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African-American students?  What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions?  What are the perceptions of Smart/Thrive tutors regarding the program?  What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding the Smart/Thrive program?  What are the perceptions of participating students regarding the Smart/Thrive program?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding the program?Iivaluation Procedures...  Achievement Analysis  Quasi Experimental  School Records/Archival Data (e.g. Participation)  Observations of Tutoring Sessions  Smart/Thrive Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra I Teacher Questionnaire  Smart/Thrive Student Questionnaire  Smart/Thrive Parent Questionnaire Observation of tutoring sessions wiii consist of visits to the Saturday Aigebra ci asses.ILvaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Observe Thrive Sessions  Administer Teacher, Tutor and Parent Questionnaire  Complete Focus Groups and Observations  Begin Focus Groups  Analyze records/archival data July-September October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft report  PRE submits report to Little Rock School District for approval  Draft reports for reviewSchool Participation Guidelines...  Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students  Facilitate researcher visits to schools It Is important to remember that this study does not evaiuate individual teachers or schools.Evaluation of Compass Eearning in the Uttle Eock School System Conducted by RECEJVED FEB 1 '1 2005 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION I.iONlTORlNG CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt;Primary Evaluation Question... \"Has the Compass Learning program been effective in improving and remeditating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" Supplemental Questions...  What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of Compass Learning at the participating schools?  What is the level of participation by African-American students?  What are the perceptions of teachers and technology specialists?  What are the perceptions of parents?Evaluation Procedures... 1^      Student Level Achievement Analysis  Quasi Experimental Compass Learning Teacher Survey Technology Specialist Phone Interview District Compass Learning Program Coordinator Phone Interview 10 Two Hour Compass Learning Laboratory Observations 5-Twenty Minute Student Focus Groups Compass Learning Parent Survey School Records and Archival Data (e.g.. Participation)    Observations will be conducted by trained observers using CREP observation instruments validated through extensive research.Evaluation Timeline... February March-April May-June  Begin observations  Survey teachers \u0026amp; Parents  Analyze records/data analysis  Phone interviews of tech specialists  Complete observations, interviews and student focus groups. July-Sep tember October November  Analyze achievement data, survey and interviews  PRE reviews draft reports  PRE submits report to LRSD for approval  Draft report for reviewSchool participation guideline...    Promote the importance of the research among faculty and students Administer surveys at faculty meetings Facilitate researcher visits to schools 'J- It is important to remember that this study does not evaluate individual teachers or schools.Sent from to p2/ll F, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO COURTS OCTOBER 31, 2005 ORDER - LRSDS WITNESS SUMMARIES In response to the Courts Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witnes.s will take thirty minutes. LRSD does not expect to call Dr. Brooks a,s a witness, a.s the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSDs implementation of the Courts June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat LRSDs Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful\nthat he had access to all relevant documents and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005\nthat LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required S tep 2 program evaluations\nthatSent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:15 from to p3/ll PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work\nthat LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Courts compliance remedy\nthat he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSDs compliance\nthat PRE, as far as he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr, Catterall which took place on October 17,2005\nthat LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors\nthat the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansas benchmark exams for their completion\nthat such data was not available in a form useful to LRSDs experts before October 1\nthat the reporting of Arkansas benchmark results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education\nthat there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of benchmark exam results\nthat in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations\nand that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline\nthat LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3ff'' \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testily that she i.s director of PRE and has been since September 17,2004\nthat implementing the compliance remedy has been PREs top priority during the time she has been its director\nthat she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy\nthat LRSD hired Dr. James S. Catterall. a qualified expert, to evaluate its 2Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:57:43 from to P4/11 Year-Round Education (YRE) prognim\nthat LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross, a qualified expert, to pertorm the Step 2 evaluations ot SMART/THRTVE, Compass Learning, and Reading Recovery\nthat Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy\nthat they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004\nthat PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSDs progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy\nthat. beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court\nthat those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam results would be available in July 2005\nthat during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request\nthat LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision\nthat the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirements of the Compliance Remedy\nthat the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansas benchmark examinations\nthat in order to be useful to Drs. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form\nthat the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005\nthat the reporting of Arkansas benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas 3Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:14 from to p5/ll Department of Education\nthat there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results\nand that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy\nthat the requested extension of time was made in good faith based on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy\nand that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRSD - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005, 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Lo.s Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310-455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Courts June 30,2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:36 - from to p6/ll Courts June 30. 2004 Compliance Remedy\nthat PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance\nthat 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005\nthat such information is not yet available\nand that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30,2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations was completed in a timely manner and that he wax waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations\nthat it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his assignment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation JO\"* \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004 as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same as that of Dr. Karen DeJamette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 5Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58:59 - from to p7/ll Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE)\nthat she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansas benchmark examinations in particular\nthat the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be released in July 2005\nthat on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committee.s were working to reset the cut score.s for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phases\nthat Phase I would consist of cds containing raw score reports which would be shipped to districts no later than July 1, 2005\nthat assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\nand that Phase 11 Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005\"\nthat the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be released in mid-November\nthat release of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and its contractors\nthat LRSD has done nothing to delay the release of the results\nand that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Heller wilt testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiiy, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:25 - from to P8/11 true\nthat he filed a response to the Courts September 30,2005 Order on October 4,2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true\nthat, having now had the opportunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSDs Response to Order probably occuned in February or March rather than June or July, The principal reason for not tiling LRSDs Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsels intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee-, that matter was scheduled as follows\nMay 5,2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005\nMay 19, 2005 Oral Argument\nJune 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed\nJuly 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits\nJune 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters\nJuly 19, 2005 Multiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks\nJuly 26,2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations\nAugust 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings\nSeptember 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:59:47 from to p9/ll in July and that the October 1,2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJamette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fashion because of his involvement in the Lake View case. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted. Philip E. Kaplan (68026) Kaplan. Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan @kbmlaw.net /sZ Philip E. Kaplan 8Sent 03/11/2005 at 12:00:02 from to plO/11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005,1 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\nClark-hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sionesft'mwsgw.com siQiies@ili.cotn iohawalkeranv@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 Sheet Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Philip E. Kaplan 9VQ/XX/Z.UVO dL ii:uo:oa rom to p2/5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Pagel of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DATED OCTOBER 31.20GS The Court seeks as explanation for LRSDs failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1,2005 requirements of e Courts June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain why delay was not promptly sought The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Courts limited concern would be addressed on November?, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD\n1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the 1X X um CU po/ O Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 2) 3) 4) time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 20 minutes Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh\nhis involvement in the process was also minimal, not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1,2004 and October 6,2005 on other matters. 15 minutes Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJamette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses. Drs. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller\n(b) her minimal involvement in the process\nand, (c) her failure to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time for compliance with Joshua, the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes Joy Springer\n(a) will address Mr. Hellers contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller infonned Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005\n(b) that when Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12,2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing\n(c) Joshuas efforts to be involvedin the process\n(d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline\nand (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2a c XI um ro Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) 6) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes Mr. Gene Jones: will address the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice given by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response of the LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted, /s/John W. Walker______________ John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781)862-1955 3UJtill b X/ X.UVU a. L irom to pb/b Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 4 of 4 XX\nlu:uo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that on this 2' day of November, 2005,1 electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NA.ACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney Generals Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 /s/John W, Walker 4John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS received MAR 2005 ' OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION InONlTORlNG Via Facsimile March 8, 2005 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 mar o 2C05 RECEiVi 0 Re: LRSD Program Evaluations DESEGREGADON I'.iONlTORING Dear Margie: When we met in my office in November, 2004,1 was left with the understanding that you would prepare notes of our meeting. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:jsrm I JOHN W, walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. Walker, PA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-376S Fas (501) 374-4187 I I Via Facsimile -447-7609 March 17,2005 OP COUNSEL ROBERT MsKENSy, P.A DONNAJ. McHENKY 8210 HfiNDSRSON ROAD Little mnwn 70010 PbonT\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\natcheniydgswbeiiMt Karen DeJamette, PhD. Director PRE Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2005 S: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING jESEGhui\n. I am advised by Ms. Springer that you promised to share with us, as you did with all other participants, by email copies of all documents, i.e. data collection instruments, discussed during the meetings on February 16,2005 prior to final print. To date, we have not received any of the final drafts for comments. You will recall that there were discussions regarding the survey forms for parents and teachers and other data collection documents where feedback was given. None of the final documents have been shared with us. I note that you have reported to the Court That counsel for Joshua Intervenors provided feedback and assisted with the final design of data collection instruments.' Would you also provide all documents including agendas, notes and any documents disseminated during the parent and teacher meetings held on or about February 24,2005. Finally, this is to request that you provide to this office any and all documents that you have shared and intend to share in the future with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Your cooperation is appreciated. I lincerely, 1 .'Walker I 'b JWWijs cc: Mr. Gene Jones, ODMptg^ Mzz Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge April 21,2005 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 received APR 2 1 2005 OFFICE OF DBSESRE6M10H MOHnOWHO Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: On Friday, May 6, at 2 PM we are convening the four teams participating in the Step-2 Evaluations of Little Rock School District programs. This session will occur in room 19 of the Instructional Resource Center at 3001 South Pulaski Street. We expect about an hour and a half duration. In addition to notifying you of this event, we invite you in case you would like to learn our progress evaluating Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Year- Round Education. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, mette, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 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: 501-324-2032MAY. 2.2005 2:i3Pn JOHN W WALKER P A NO.459 P.2 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS JOHN w. Walker, p.a, ATTORNEY AT Law 1723 BaoALiWAy IJTTLS Sees, 72206 Tblrphone CROI) 374.375fi FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile Mw2,2005 OFCOIJNSEL ROBERT McHENRY PA DONNA J. McHENRY 82X0 RoaD LrmE Rock. Askans-as 72210 Phone\n(SOl) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Eil-z.: mdiemyd^wtejlirt K^en DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PSE Little Reek Sehuul District ^iO West Markham Little Rode, AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJamette: I am in recent of your letter April 21,2005. This is to fiir\u0026amp;er advise that we have not received the requested iafonnation per our letter to you dated March 17,2005. Sincerely, W. Walker J^W\njs ce\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Gene Jones 124 West Capitxri Avenue, Suite 1S95 Little Rode. AR 72201 Catterall 5/11/2005 Draft Questions for Parent Interviews Target parents. Identify parents of an YRE student or students where at least one of these students spent two or more years in a traditional calendar year school. The main goal is to interview parents who have seen the same student (or students) in both the traditional and YRE school setting. Randomly select 20 of these parents from each of five YRE schools. Conduct a phone interview with each parent. A. Explain the purpose of the inten'iew. We are interested in how Year Round Education sckaobng in Lillie Rock is working, especially when it comes to student leaning. Since you have experience in both YRE and traditional calendar schools, wed like to asK you a few questions  X number questions to he exact. Your name will be confidential. It will not appear in any of our reports and only your school name will remain with our notes from this interview. B. Confirm that a child in this family attended both YRE and traditional calendar schools. 1. What was the reason your students change from traditional calendar to YRE education? a. The school changed to YRE./_/ b. My child transferred to a YRE school/_/ c. Multiple children  both reasons apply. Capture the essence of responses, but always check\na,, b., or c. You may spark talk of rationales for changing schools here  e.g 1 wanted my student to learn more, wanted access to inter-sessions, didnt like previous school, etc. If parent claims to be dissatisfied with prior school, hear parent out here and bring this oack up when asking about differences between YRE and traditional calendar schools faelow. Record worthwhile quotes.2. What are the main differences you see between YRE and traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting. 3. Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn If applicable, solicit elaborations of any school effectiveness differences reported in Question 2. (Remember to focus on comparisons between YRE and traditional calendar year schools.) Or if learning did not come up in response to Question 2, ask parent: Whar do you see as (he main differences in student learning in YRE vs. traditional calendar year schools? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 4. (If learning-related differences seem not well addressed in responses to Question 2, push harder on ieaming differences through the following question. If learning- differences were well-covered, skip to question 5.) Are there things about the YRE calendar that help kids learn better? (Draw out parent on perceptions of learning differences, YRE to traditional calendar.) You will probably get these sorts of responses, so check-off if you hear any of these\na. Kids are in school more. b. Shorter breaks/vacations. i- Kids forget less academic content iii. Shorter gaps in teaching. iv. Kids remember better how to behave in school. c. Inter-sessions help kids leam more. d. Teachers seem to like YRE better, and are happier in their jobs. e. Others (specify each). Also\nCapture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. Retrospectively group into categories in for reporting.5. In comparing YRE to traditional calendar schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Yes, a lot. Yes, a little. No. Check one that best describes main response. If No, interview is done. If Yes, probe for what kinds of differences and why they might exist. Pay attention to claims that specific aspects of being an YRE school affect how kids feel about school. their motivation for school. their outlook. And other effects mentioned. Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes. 6. Does your child/children talk about the fact that the they are in an YRE school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Capture essence of responses. Record worthwhile quotes.A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 26, 2005 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris: This accompanies three copies of the third quarterly update, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court, due June 1,2005. Tucked inside the front of each is a copy of Dr. DeJamettes letter to Mr. Walker today indicating our interest in evaluating the 2U Century Learning Communities as the Joshua intervenors recommended in his letter of May 24 (previously copied to you). Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your advice in preparing this update. Sincerely yours, James C. Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation (PRE) Enc. xc: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 810 W. Markham - Lithe Rock. Arkansas 72201  wwrw.irsd.K12.ar.us .501-32200C r\n50- 24-20t Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua June 1, 2005 received may 2 7 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.l ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge May 27, 2005 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: We received your letter of May 24 as a facsimile on the same day acknowledging your receipt of lists of programs from us. Primarily from them, we selected the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross are evaluating this year. Your recommendation, in your May 24 letter, to evaluate the 2E Century Community Learning Centers interests us. After discussing it with Dr. Ross and others, we propose to evaluate it rather than PLATO Learning during the coming school year. Because our quarterly update for June 1 has already been printed (which we are delivering to you with this letter), the next update can report this change for next years evaluations. We understand that 2E Century Community Learning Centers will end within a year or so at several of the sites you named. Limiting our evaluation to a few sites where the programs support is secure for at least a couple more years makes sense to us. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJarneoe, Ph.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell, ODM Mr. Chris Heller, Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 810 W. Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  vrv.rv.irsd,kl2.ar.up 501-324-200C'  fax\n501 -32^-2032C'- An Individual Approach to a World o/Knoivledge May 27, 2005 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Dear Mr. Pressman\nMr. Walker requested that we furnish you the accompanying quarterly update of June 1 and future updates. You might also like a copy of my recent reply to Mr. Walker regarding evaluation of the 2D' Century Learning Communities. If you did not see the article, you might want to find the article about the program by Sue Shellenbarger in The Wall Street Journal of May 26, 2005. We will keep you informed of our progress and invite your further ideas. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further comments or questions. Sincerely yours, Director, PRE xc: Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 g 810 W MarKham  Littie Rock. ^irKansas 72201 * www.ifsd.ki2.ar.us -2000 ra::\n501RECEIVED JUN -6 2005 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING QUARTERLY UPDATE Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Quarterly Update dated June 1, 2005 states: 1. The attached document is the third quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. It has been provided to the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in accordance with the District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004). 2. LRSD is filing this Quarterly Update so that the Court may be aware of the compliance work done by LRSD to comply with the Courts Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits its Quarterly Update as required by the Court.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\nChristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 1 day of June, 2005: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Buildin\"o Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 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 Christopher 2 I 'si! DATE: June 23, 2005 TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Roy G. Brooks, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda BACKGROUND: LRSD policy requires an annual Evaluation Agenda proposed to the Board of Directors outlining Li xwUz UUllvy I  **- ---- --- -------------- - I I J X. external evaluation activities with projected costs. During 2004-2005 PRE has engaged tvvo outside consultants to evaiuate four District programs. The 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda consists of five external evaluations:  4 Step-2 program evaluations mandated by Judge Wilson in 2004, and  1 non-mandated evaluation recommended by the PRE department RATIONALE: LRSD is complying with U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67) to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. In December 2004, the Board of Directors approved this process. It provides for a range of educational program evaluations with respect to their scientific rigor and complexity, and it  ___ .\u0026gt; I __I__ .x: requires participation by LRSD stakeholders in the design and execution of evaluations. In the same Opinion, the Court ordered, 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.\" By step 2\" the court meant for evaluations to delve into underlying .... ri. ___ -ruz, rir^or r,,that thp Cmift rfirected ths District to examine is reasons for outcomes. The primary outcome that the Court directed the examine the academic achievement of African-American students. The Opinion also instructs the PRE with the outside consultants and encourages it to evaluate additional Department to cooperate District programs. Court-Mandated Evaluations for 2005-2006: For siep 2 evaluations in 2005-2006, Dr. Ross has identified four 2.7 programs, named on the following page.1. Arkansas A+ Schools Network, at Woodruff Elementary School, incorporates the arts in teaching language and mathematics. Projected Cost: $30,000 2. Knowledgepoints is a Supplemental Educational Service (SES) selected at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Wakefield, and Watson Elementary Schools and offered there as an after-school program. Projected Cost: $30,000 3. 21' Century Learning Centers offer a broad array of out-of-school support services, programs, and activities designed to help students meet academic standards and to increase student achievement. Projected Cost: $30,000 4. Pre-kindergarten (PreK) literacy development will be evaluated in the 31 schools with classes for 4-year-old children. These young students participate in developmentally appropriate and fun lessons and activities intended to nurture essential language skills. Projected Cost: $50,000 Dr. Catterall will evaluate Arkansas A+, while Dr. Ross will evaluate KnowledgePoints, 21 Century Learning Centers, and PreK literacy. st Data for schools where these programs operated this year (2004-2005) are in the tables below. Additional schools may participate next year, particularly schools chosen per the school choice option of No Child Left Behind regulations. Schools in these tables which are on the Arkansas School Improvement List are so noted by an asterisk (*). Proposed Programs Evaluations 2005-2006 2004-2005 School Data Schools Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent of Students African- American Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch Woodruff* A+ I 235 I 91 86 Bale* Brady* Chicot* Wakefield* Watson* Mabelvale Middle* McClellan* Henderson* Hall* 27 28 44 29 34 Knowledgepoints 319 318 536 451 456 82 78 73 78 96 21*' Century Community Learning Centers 57 75 60 105 634 925 630 1464 81 92 82 75 86 80 86 92 93 75 56 70 52 77^ I These schools are designated for School Improvement.LRSD Schools Offering PreK Classes for Four-Year-Old Students No. of No. of Max. Enroll- No. of Per cent School Bale* Baseline* Brady* Carver Chicot* Cloverdale* Dodd Fair Park* Forest Park Franklin* Fulbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M. L. King* Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller* Romine Stephens* Terry Wakefield* Washington* Watson* Western Hills Wilson* Woodruff* Teachers Aides Students 2 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 . 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 40 40 40 20 80 40 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 60 40 40 40 40 20 40 40 40 80 40 40 80 40 20 20 40 ment 38 39 37 20 59 40 36 37 40 55 40 36 40 80 38 40 40 39 20 38 39 39 78 35 39 75 36 37 18 36 AAf 32 32 27 NAt 46 32 22 28 2 52 8 35 5 46 31 27 35 22 6 38 24 31 72 18 29 67 34 20 16 32 AA 84.2 82.1 73.0 NA 78.0 80.0 61.1 75.7 5.0 94.5 20.0 97.2 12.5 57.5 81.6 67.5 87.5 56.4 30.0 100.0 61.5 79.5 92.3 51.4 74.4 89.3 94.4 54.1 88.9 88.9 t AA is African American. NA is not available. * These schools are designated for School Improvement.  In the 2005-2006 school year, Fair Park Elementary converts to a preK center with eight or more classes\nwhile the other elementary schools keep their current preK capacity.Non-mandated Evaluations: In addition to four court-mandated studies, PRE recommends a fifth external evaluation that will focus on Magnet Schools and Schools with Specialty Magnet Programs. Projected Cost: $60,000 The proposed Magnet School evaluation includes the study and evaluation of 18 magnet schools and specialty magnet programs within the Little Rock School District - six Stipulated Magnet Schools, four Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) Schools and eight Specialty Magnet Programs. Stipulated Magnet Schools and Themes - 2004-2005 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced 1 Lunch Elementary Schools Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Middle Schools Mann * High Schools Parkview Arts Magnet Basic Skills/Math-Science International Studies/ Foreign Languages Traditional Magnet Arts and Science Arts and Science 53 52 53 52 52 51 63 53 44 34 37 22 Magnet Schools Assistance Program Schools and Themes - 2004-2005^ Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Middle Schools Cloverdale * Mabelvale * Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch^ Engineering, Multimedia \u0026amp; Economics Medical Studies, Environmental Science and 82 86 81 75  Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances. 2004-2005 was the fourth and last year of MSAP funding for these four schools Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude 3 indicator of family economic circumstances.information Technology High Schools J.A. Fair* McClellan * Science and technology Systems Engineering, Multimedia and Business Finance 85 92 Special Magnet Program* Themes - 2004-2005 54 56 Schools in this table which are designated for School Improvement are so noted by an asterisk (*). School Elementary Schools King Rockefeller Romine Washington * Middle Schools Dunbar * Henderson * High Schools Central Hall* 4 5 Magnet School Theme Percent of Students African-American Percent of Eligible Students Free/Reduced Lunch International, High Intensity Learning Early Childhood Computer Science and Basic Skills (Interdistrict) Basic Skills Math-Science Magnet (Interdistrict) Gifted and Talented, International Studies Health Science International Studies University Studies 60 67 76 76 61 82 51 75 55 66 76 80 57 70 28 52 These Specialty Programs are special programs which these schools offer. Per cent of students who are eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program is a crude indicator of family economic circumstances.All five external evaluations will seek to answer the following Primary Evaluation Question: Have the Programs been effective in improving students academic achievement? How effective have they been among African-American students? To ensure that a full range of quantitative and qualitative data is collected, the evaluators will use a variety of data collection tools and activities. They are:  classroom observations and protocols  surveys of parents, teachers, and students  interviews of students, administrators, parents, teachers  focus groups  student work portfolios  district data, e.g., demographic data, standardized test scores  site- and district-generated program documents The evaluators will be required to adhere to Professional Standards for Program Evaluation and to provide a complete list of standards used. FUNDING: Total projected costs for five studies: $200,000 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board will approve the 2005-2006 Evaluation Agenda. i ! IJuly 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Si^erely yours. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 10/03/2005 08:51 5016045149 WILSON PAGE 02/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern district of ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 800 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501)604-5140 Facaimila (501) 604-5149 October 3,2005 FAX LETTER Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Robert Peter Pressman Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD. et al, 4:82-cv-866-wrw Dear Counsel: I realize that this is short notice, but if possible, I would like to get the Joshua Intervenors response to LRSDs Motion for Extension of Time by 5 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, October 4,2005. If tomorrow afternoon is not enough timely, please file your response as soon as practicable  at the latest, by the deadline set by the rules. Cordially, Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Recordreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 3 2005 I,.- OFFICE Of desegregation MONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states\n1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. 2. The four Step 2 program evaluations cannot be completed without the results of the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2004-05 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until October 1 or later. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that if they receive the benchmark exam results in early October that they would be able to deliver completed program evaluations by early January 2006. Letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 3. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful programevaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2006-07 school year. 4. LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year to and including Monday, January 16, 2006. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Zs/ Christopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 29,2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@aK.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw-com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and I hereby certify that on September 29,2005,1 mailed the document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CMZECF participants: Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 ZsZ Christopher Heller 3UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES BERKELEY* DAVIS  IRVINE  LOSANCELES  RIVERSIDE  SAN DIEGO  SAN FRANCISCO SANTA BARBARA  SANTA CRUZ UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies P.O. Box 951521 Los Angeles. CA 90095-1521 September 26,2005 Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Karen: According to Dr. Julian, Assistant Commissioner for the state Department of Education, her agency will receive results of the Benchmark test scores \"around the first of October\", and your experience with release of digitally formatted data indicates that you may not receive data to pass on to me and my research staff until several weeks after the state receives it. At any rate, we do not have data in hand necessary to complete our report on Year-Round Education, certainly not by the present due date of October 1, 2005. Assuming you can deliver correctly formatted data by early November, I can furnish a draft in early December and the final report by early January 2006. This schedule should permit analyzing the data, composing a complete draft, and producing the final report. Anything you can do to confirm the date of data delivery will help our team plan the balance of the work. Sincerely, (e-mailed September 26, 2005 - Signed original sent express) jsc James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Professor Voice: (310) 825-5572 Fax: (310)206-6293 E-mail: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Center of Excellence 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Office: 901.678.2310 Toll Free: 866.670.6147 Fax: 901.678.4257 September 23,2005 www.memphis.edu/crep Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 77206-2873 Dear Dr. Dejamette: I have been informed that the State of Arkansas will receive student-level Benchmark test scores at the beginning of October this year and release them to the school districts some time after that. I further understand that the digital version, which we need for computer analysis, will be available after the State sends printed versions to the districts. Thus, the data may not be available to my research staff until perhaps late fall. Whatever the actual delivery date, it typically takes us about six to eight weeks to run, verify, and interpret the analyses and then produce the draft report. I am asking you to take this time requirement into account in projecting when our final report could be ready following the release to us of Benchmark data. Given the dates above, we believe a reasonable date for delivery of the final report is early January 2006. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity  Affirmative Action UniversityRECEIVED OCT 3 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending is Little Rock School Districts Motion to Extend Time (Doc. No. 3938), the first paragraph of which, reads as follows: In accordance with the June30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on August 31, 2005. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2005. For emphasis I note that the above quoted paragraph correctly reflects that the June 30, 2004 order directed (not suggested) that the subject evaluations were to be filed on October 1, 2005 (actually, the Order directed that the evaluations were to be filed no later than October 1, 2005, but this is a small point). Late yesterday (at 4:34 p.m., to be specific), September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline, LRSD filed this Motion to Extend Time. It appears from the other matters set forth in the motion, that LRSD cannot meet the October 1 deadline because of uncompleted tasks. 1Before writing anything else I feel compelled to quote my complete order of July 26, 2004: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do. I assume that I am stating the obvious, but, as folks are wont to say nowadays, I wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. LRSDs Motion to Extend Time also contains this paragraph: LRSD has attempted to contact the Joshua Intervenors to secure their agreement to the requested extension of time, but has not yet received a response. Since the current motion by LRSD presents a weighty matter (at least my view), it seems that it would be important to have a response from Joshuas lawyers before the deadline passes. Is it possible that both lawyers of record for Joshua are traveling out of the country sans omnipresent cell phones? If what I have said above has not made it clear, I will now state it plainly - I am not happy with the Johnny-come-lately motion. These things, among others, are on my mind: 1. How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? 2. Why was the motion not filed until the 11th hour? 3. Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? 'Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 24. 5. Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? LRSD is directed to file a plenary response to each of the above questions by 5 p.m. next Tuesday, October 4, 2005. I note that sixty-nine page Order entered on June 30, 2004 was so long and detailed because LRSD pled that it did not understand exactly what its obligations were under earlier orders. It seems that this detailed order of June 30, 2004 did head off pleas of misunderstanding. but not a last minute motion to avoid its plain obligations, at least until a much later date. A hearing on LRSDs Motion to Extend Time will be set forthwith. The exact nature of that hearing will be determined after I receive LRSDs document in response to this Order (due next Tuesday, October 4, 2005, by 5 p.m.). IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2005. Zs/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 C,' Filed 10/04/2005 Paget of4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 5 2005 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS LRSDS RESPONSE TO ORDER For its response to the Courts September 30, 2005 Order directing the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to file a plenary response to each of five questions, LRSD states: Question No. 1: How long has LRSD known that they were not going to comply with the Courts direct, specific order? Response: LRSD, Joshua and ODM have known for months that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported. LRSD has known since September 19, 2005 that the Arkansas Department of Education would receive the results of the benchmark examinations from its contractor around the first of October. LRSD has now received hard copies of the reports, but the electronic data necessary for the evaluations is not likely to be available for two or three weeks. Question No. 2: Why was the motion not filed until the 11* hour? Response: The Motion was not filed earlier for at least three reasons, all of which were influenced by the fact that both Joshua and ODM were aware that benchmark examination results had not yet been reported and that the experts could not complete the Step 2 evaluations without them. First, LRSD did not know until September 19 when the 2004-05 benchmark scores would be released, and consequently would have had to request an indefinite extension of time. Second,Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 2 of 4 LRSD discussed the situation with Joshua in June or July and was told by Joshuas counsel that Joshua not only would oppose any motion to extend time but would also seek to litigate other issues upon LRSDs filing of such amotion. LRSD decided that there was no point in provoking additional litigation during the pendency of its appeal. Finally, the need for the extension of time was dictated by matters beyond LRSDs control. The timing of the motion would not alter the facts that the experts need the benchmark results and that LRSD could do nothing to hasten the delivery of those results. Question No. 3: Does this last minute filing demonstrate that LRSD is treating the Courts directives with studied neglect? Response: No. Question No. 4: Is LRSD playing for time in the hope that the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse, thereby relieving LRSD of what it was plainly obliged to do, regardless of the appeal? Response: No. LRSD believes in the merits of its appeal or it would not have filed it, but LRSD is not playing for time. The requested extension of time is not based on anything LRSD did or failed to do or anything that LRSD has any control over. LRSD hired outside experts to complete four Step 2 program evaluations in accordance with the Courts Order. Those evaluations cannot be completed in any useful form without the benchmark examination results from the 2004-05 school year. Those results are only now becoming available. LRSD has no authority over the grading or reporting of benchmark examination scores. Those things are entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 3 of 4 Finally, whether or not the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals relieves LRSD of its future obligations under the compliance order, LRSD has contracted for four Step 2 evaluations which have been substantially completed. LRSD intends to receive completed evaluations in accordance with its contracts with Drs. Ross and Catterall and to use the evaluations to help judge the effectiveness of the academic programs which are the subjects of the evaluations. Question No. 5: Why should a last minute motion like this be granted? Response: The motion should be granted for the reasons set forth in response to question four above, and for the reasons set forth in the motion, including the letters from Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall. If the motion is denied, LRSD would be compelled to file the evaluations immediately. even though they would contain no analysis of the benchmark results and consequently would not be of much use in evaluating the effectiveness of academic programs. Drs. Ross and Catterall would be extremely reluctant to have their work publicized before they had the chance to complete the evaluations by incorporating and analyzing the results of the benchmark exams. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3943 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 4, 2005,1 have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock 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 Zs/ Christopher Heller 4Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3945 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 RECEIVED October 5, 2005 OCT 6 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, Motion for Extension of Time Dear Counsel\nA hearing will be held on your Motion to Extend Time (which was filed Thursday, September 29, 2005) on Monday, November 7,2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m. It is very likely that other questions will be addressed at this hearing. An order setting forth the exact nature of the hearing will be entered forthwith. It is likely that I will want to hear testimony from the persons mentioned in your last two filings\nso please arrange to have them available, as well as other witnesses you may want to call. Cordially, /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, other lawyers of record, ODM.RECEIVED OCT 11 20115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE In the June 30, 2004 Order, I held that the LRSD had again failed to comply the desegregation obligations in  2.7.1 of the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.' This Order, in part, reads: The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2004.^ At the risk of being redundant, I entered a July 26, 2004 Order which read: Regardless of an appeal, LRSD is required to continue full speed ahead, on all points, with respect to the compliance remedy set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of June 30,2004 (Doc. No. 3875). As was noted in the June 30 Memo, LRSD is required to do only what it volunteered to do.^ Late on September 29, 2005, with one working day left before the October 1 deadline. LRSD filed a Motion to Extend Time to submit the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 'A September 13, 2002 Order held that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations except those contained in  2.7.1. ^Doc. No. 3875. Doc. No. 3890 (emphasis in original). 1school year. Because of uncompleted tasks, LRSD requested an extension until January 2006 to submit the evaluations. To date, the motion has not been granted and no evaluations have been fded. Accordingly, LRSD and its counsel are directed to appear at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, November 7, 2005 and show cause, if any there be, why they should not be held in contempt of court (civil) for violating the June 30, 2004 Order ~ specifically, the directive to file the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October 1, 2004. With respect to LRSDs Motion to Extend Time, filed on September 29, 2005, and with respect to LRSDs Response to Order filed on October 4, 2005, LRSD and its counsel are directed to also show cause, if any there be, why they should not be sanctioned, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the representations and omissions contained in these two documents. Among others, I would like for the following to appear, some of them to give testimony: A representative from the ODM\nDr. Karen DeJamette\nDr. James S. Catterall\nDr. Steven M. Ross\nDr. Jim Wohleb\nEach member of the Little Rock School District School Board\nDr. Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District\nThe persons at the Arkansas Department of Education who oversee benchmark examinations\nSuch other person as any party may want to call as a witness. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, October 12, 2005, the LRSD is directed to file a list of the witnesses who it will call at the hearing (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused 2by the Court). Within ten (10) days after the LRSD provides its witness list, Joshua must file its witness list (these persons will be expected to appear unless excused by the Court). IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson.Jr._____________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 31010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;494232@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order to Show Cause\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.\u0026lt;!- rcsid='\\$Header: /ecf/district/html/TextHead,V 3.1 2003-04-25 07:56:43-04 loy Exp \\$' U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/6/2005 at 4:23 PM CDT and filed on 10/6/2005 #ident 'rcsid=\\$Header: /ecf/district/server/TextBody,v 3.1 2003-04-25 07:52:35-04 loy Exp \\$' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3948 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?394 8, 2 6052,,MAGIC, Docket Text: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 11/7/2005 08:30 AM in Little Rock Courtroom #431 before Judge William R. Wilson Jr. LRSDs Witness List Due by 5 P.M. 10/12/05\nJoshua witness list due 10 days after. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/6/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/6/2005] [FileNumber=494231-0] [4646454cc4bl35abdb59d2a8725c86222adf016dafacc9cl63al7c4660244fe41e95a3f7826fca4 10e22clf65bbdab9c82f54fe63aa303249d72d80de59f8d3a]] \u0026lt;! rcsid='\\$Header: /ecfZdistrict/server/TextAtyList,v 3.2 2003-06-02 17:37:56-04 bibeau Exp \\$' \u0026gt; 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@inbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us, Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fee.net\ntmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com. kate.jonesS jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com\njspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers S Sneddon, PLLCCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Pagel of3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDS WITNESS LIST For its witness list for the hearing scheduled for November 7,2005, the Little Rock School District provides the following: 1. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 2. Dr. Karen DeJamette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. O. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 2 of 3 5. Jim Wohlleb Planning, Research and Evaluation 30 \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 6. Dr. Roy Brooks Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 7. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 72201 8. All witnesses listed by other parties and witnesses who may be necessary to provide rebuttal testimony Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3950 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 12, 2005,1 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: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@ili.com iohnwalkerattv@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 3RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS ORDER i Pending is LRSDs Motion to Excuse Dr. James Caterall (Doc. No. 3951) from the November 7,2005 Hearing. For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. However, Dr. Caterall must provide Mr. Heller with a phone number where he can be reached, if necessary, the day of the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE fl- 1Case: 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_supportgared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;504296@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; Bcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion for Order\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/20/2005 at 4:01 PM CDT and filed on 10/20/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl726052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3953 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3953,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005214 Docket Text: ORDER granting [3951] Motion for Order to excuse Dr James Caterall from 11/7/05 hearing. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 10/20/05. (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=10/20/2005] [FileNumber=504295-0] [4b2f98b5ddl9c8ac9280f4eaf8bb25dc3f01ed0ec0146298ffebef5b9ee992dl8df64af85b5cc32 dce34e54ebb7f6e2f592c6d7bf2628da7d0c5605el7f75c42] ] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, beleda.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net\nttniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com\njspringerggabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense S Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson StreetSuite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818\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_aftermath_213","title":"Pulaski County, AR school enrollments by race, 2004-2006","collection_id":"bcas_aftermath","collection_title":"Aftermath map project","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Davis, Tony","Barth, Jay, 1966-"],"dc_date":["2004/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Education","This series of charts diplays enrollments by type of school and by race in Pulaski County, AR in the fifth decade after the 1957 Little Rock Central High Desegregation Crisis."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Ruled by race project"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Aftermath map project"],"dcterms_subject":["Pulaski County (Ark.)--Population","Schools--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Race"],"dcterms_title":["Pulaski County, AR school enrollments by race, 2004-2006"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/aftermath/id/213"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["charts (graphic documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_49363","title":"Ray [graphic] : the extraordinary life story of Ray Charles, a man who fought harder and went farther than anyone thought possible /","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":["Poster shows a bust-length profile portrait of actor Jamie Foxx portraying singer Ray Charles.","Title from item.","Poster copyrighted in 2004.","Inscription on poster: \"To Ms. Rosa Parks, Thank you! Without you... I would not have been able to do this. My sincerest thanks, James L. White.\""],"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":["Ray [graphic] : the extraordinary life story of Ray Charles, a man who fought harder and went farther than anyone thought possible /"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.49363"],"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":["prints2000-2010.gmgpc","motion picture posters2000-2010.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Charles, Ray, 1930-2004","Foxx, Jamie"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_56721371","title":"Redefining rights in America : the civil rights record of the George W. Bush Administration, 2001-2004 : draft report for Commissioners' review","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Office of Civil Rights Evaluation"],"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":["Civil rights--United States","Affirmative action programs--United States","United States--Politics and government--2001-"],"dcterms_title":["Redefining rights in America : the civil rights record of the George W. Bush Administration, 2001-2004 : draft report for Commissioners' review"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS54680"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["xiv, 166 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Bush, George W. (George Walker), 1946-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"scrlhp_seattlecrlhp_rep","title":"Research reports","collection_id":"scrlhp_seattlecrlhp","collection_title":"Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Washington, King County, 47.49084, -121.83583","United States, Washington, King County, Fort Lawton, 47.65862, -122.41396","United States, Washington, King County, Seattle, 47.60621, -122.33207"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004/2008"],"dcterms_description":["These in-depth historical essays explore fascinating issues and incidents. Each is fully illustrated with photos and newspaper articles. Graduate and undergraduate students in History and Labor Studies at the University of Washington produced these articles. Contents as of viewing the web site on 9/5/07 consist of: The Chicano Movement in Washington State 1967-2006, Part 1, Political Activism by Oscar Rosales Castaneda; Christian Friends for Racial Equality 1942-1970 by Johanna Phillips; By Right of Discovery: United Indians of All Tribes Retakes Fort Lawton, 1970 by Lossom Allen; United Indians of All Tribes Meets the Press: News Coverage of the 1970 Occupation of Fort Lawton by Karen Smith; American Indian Women's Service League: Raising the Cause of Urban Indians, 1958-71 by Karen Smith; Indian Civil Rights Hearings: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Comes to Seattle, 1977 by Laurie Johnstonbaugh; Challenging Sexism at City Light: The Electrical Trades Trainee Program by Nicole Grant; The 1920 Anti-Japanese Crusade and Congressional Hearings by Doug Blair; \"Pride and Shame\": The Museum Exhibit that Helped Launch the Japanese American Redress Movement by Allison Shephard; Battle at Boeing: African Americans and the Campaign for Jobs 1939-1942 by Sarah Miner; The 1965 Freedom Patrols \u0026 the Origins of Seattle's Police Accountability Movement by Jennifer Taylor; After Internment: Seattle's Debate Over Japanese Amricans' Right to Return Home by Jennifer Speidel; Seattle's Electrical Workers Minority Caucus: A History by Nicole Grant; Blocking Racial Intermarriage Laws in 1935 and 1937: Seattle's First Civil Rights Coalition by Stefanie Johnson; Susie Revels Cayton: \"The Part She Played\" by Michelle L. Goshorn; Black Longshoreman: The Frank Jenkins Story by Megan Elston; La Raza Comes to Campus: The New Chicano Contingent and the Grape Boycott at the University of Washington, 1968-69 by Jeremy Simer; Revels Cayton: African American Communist and Labor Activist by Sarah Falconer; Victorio Velasco, Pioneer of Filipino-American Journalism by Erik Luthy; Cannery Workers' and Farm Laborers' Union 1933-39: Their Strength in Unity by Crystal Fresco; The Local 7/Local 37 Story: Filipino American Cannery Unionism in Seattle 1940-1959 by Micah Ellison; The Seattle School Boycott of 1966 by Brooke Clark; Tyree Scott and the United Construction Workers Association by Trevor Griffey; The Black Panther Party in Seattle, 1968-1970 by Kurt Schaefer; Organized Labor and Seattle's African American Community: 1916-1920 by Jon Wright; and Race and Civil Rights in the Washington State Communist Party: the 1930s and the 1940s by Shelley Pinckney."],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project Web site"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","African Americans--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Race relations","Seattle (Wash.)--Race relations","King County (Wash.)--Race relations","Seattle (Wash.)--History--20th century","King County (Wash.)--History--20th century","Seattle (Wash.)--Politics and government--20th century","King County (Wash.)--Politics and government--20th century","Civil rights movements--Washington (State)--Seattle","Civil rights workers--Washington (State)--Seattle","African Americans--Politics and government","Black Panther Party","Black militant organizations--Washington (State)--Seattle","Black nationalism--Washington (State)--Seattle","Black power--Washington (State)--Seattle","African Americans--Politics and government","Segregation--Washington (State)--Seattle","Segregationists--Washington (State)--Seattle","Indians of North America--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Indians of North America--Politics and government","Hispanic Americans--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Hispanic Americans--Politics and government","Latin Americans--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Latin Americans--Politics and government","Filipino Americans--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Filipino Americans--Politics and government","Japanese--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Japanese--Politics and government","Social movements--Washington (State)--Seattle","Social justice--Washington (State)--Seattle","Labor--Washington (State)--Seattle","Employees--Washington (State)--Seattle","Labor movement--Washington (State)--Seattle","Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Mexican Americans--Washington (State)--Seattle","Agricultural laborers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Vineyard laborers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Boycotts--Washington (State)--Seattle","Christian Friends for Racial Equality","Quakers--Washington (State)--Seattle--Political activity","Christians--Washington (State)--Seattle--Political activity","United Indians of All Tribes Foundation (U.S.)","Fort Lawton (Seattle, Wash.)--Siege, 1970","Sieges--Washington (State)--Seattle","Fort Lawton (Seattle, Wash.)--Press coverage","Indian women--Washington (State)--Seattle","Indians of North America--Press coverage","United States Commission on Civil Rights","Seattle City Light","Electricians--Washington (State)--Seattle","Electricians--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Women electric industry workers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Electric industry workers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Electric industry workers--Training of--Washington (State)--Seattle","Women labor union members--Washington (State)--Seattle","Electric utilities--Washington (State)--Seattle","Public utilities--Washington (State)--Seattle","Public utilities--Employees","Public utilities--Employees--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Public utilities--Employees--Training of","Training programs--Washington (State)--Seattle","Employees--Training of--Washington (State)--Seattle","Sexism--Washington (State)--Seattle","Propaganda, Anti-Japanese--Washington (State)--Seattle","Immigrants--Washington (State)--Seattle","Japanese--Washington (State)--Seattle","Alien labor--Washington (State)--Seattle","Japanese Americans--Washington (State)--Seattle","World War, 1939-1945--Japanese Americans","Japanese American Citizens' League. Seattle Chapter","Japanese Americans--Evacuation and relocation, 1942-1945","Concentration camps--United States","Detention of persons--United States","Reparations for historical injustices--United States","Japanese Americans--Reparations","Aircraft industry--Employees","Aircraft industry--Employees--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Machinists--Washington (State)--Seattle","Machinists--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","African American labor union members--Washington (State)--Seattle","African American women employees--Washington (State)--Seattle","African American women civil rights workers--Washington (State)--Seattle","African American women--Washington (State)--Seattle","Boeing Aircraft Company","Aeronautical Workers Union (Seattle, Wash.)","Liability (Law)--Washington (State)--Seattle","Police--Washington (State)--Seattle","Police--Complaints against--Washington (State)--Seattle","Police--Community relations--Washington (State)--Seattle","Police brutality--Washington (State)--Seattle","Police misconduct--Washington (State)--Seattle","Resettlement--Washington (State)--Seattle","International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Local 46 (Seattle, Wash.)","Electrical Workers Minority Caucus (Seattle, Wash.)","Interracial marriage--Law and legislation--Washington (State)--Seattle","Interracial marriage--Washington (State)--Seattle","Marriage law--Washington (State)--Seattle","International Longshore and Warehouse Union","African American stevedores--Washington (State)--Seattle","Stevedores--Washington (State)--Seattle","Stevedores--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Centro de la Raza (Seattle, Wash.)","United Farm Workers Organizing Committee","Chicano movement--Washington (State)--Seattle","Vineyard laborers--California","Vineyard laborers--Labor unions--California","Boycotts--Washington (State)--Seattle","Labor disputes--California","University of Washington","Mexican American students--Washington (State)--Seattle","United Mexican American Students (Seattle, Wash.)","Grape Strike, Calif., 1965-1970","Mexican Americans--Civil rights--Washington (State)--Seattle","Mexican Americans--Civil rights--California","Mexican Americans--Politics and government","African American communists--Washington (State)--Seattle","African American labor leaders--Washington (State)--Seattle","African American political activists--Washington (State)--Seattle","Political activists--Washington (State)--Seattle","African Americans--Politics and government","Communist Party of the United States of America (Wash.)","Filipino Forum (Seattle, Wash.)","Filipino students--Washington (State)--Seattle","Filipino Americans--Washington (State)--Seattle","Filipino Americans--Newspapers","Press, Labor--Washington (State)","Labor journalism--Washington (State)","Journalists--Washington (State)--Seattle","Newspapers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Labor movement--Newspapers","Labor literature--Washington (State)--Seattle","Canned foods industry--Employees--Washington (State)--Seattle","Canned foods industry--Employees--Alaska","Canned foods industry--Employees--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Canned foods industry--Employees--Labor unions--Alaska","Cannery workers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Cannery workers--Alaska","Cannery workers--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Cannery workers--Labor unions--Alaska","Agricultural laborers--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Cannery Workers and Farm Laborers Union. Local 7 (Seattle, Wash.)","International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union. Local 37 (Seattle, Wash.)","Segregation in education--Washington (State)--Seattle","School integration--Washington (State)--Seattle","Racial discrimination--Washington (State)--Seattle","Private schools--Washington (State)--Seattle","Black Student Union (University of Washington)","United Construction Workers Association","Construction workers--Washington (State)--Seattle","Construction workers--Labor unions--Washington (State)--Seattle","Construction workers--Political activity","African American construction workers--Washington (State)--Seattle"],"dcterms_title":["Research reports"],"dcterms_type":["Collection","MovingImage","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/research_reports.htm"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Anything quoted or copied from this site must credit: \"Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project  www.civilrights.washington.edu\""],"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Cayton, Susie Revels, 1870-1943","Jenkins, Frank, 1902-1973","Cayton, Revels, 1907-1995","Velasco, Victorio A., -1968","Duyungan, Virgil","Simon, Aurelio","Scott, Tyree, 1940-2003","Uhlman, Wesley C. (Wesley Carl), 1935-","Dixon, Aaron, 1949-","Dixon, Elmer","Gossett, Larry"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vhs_crmva_rising","title":"Rising Black consciousness","collection_id":"vhs_crmva","collection_title":"Civil Rights Movement in Virginia : An Exhibition on Display February 7 - June 19, 2004","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, 37.54812, -77.44675"],"dcterms_creator":["Richmond Times-Dispatch"],"dc_date":["2004"],"dcterms_description":["Section of online exhibit focusing on the growth of interest by African Americans and whites in the experience and influence of African Americans in United States history as well as the rising acceptance of the idea of \"Black Power.\" The page contains one black-and-white photograph from the Virginia Historical Society and the Richmond Times-Dispatch.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of: The Civil Rights movement in Virginia (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Civil Rights Movement in Virginia Collection (Virginia Historical Society)"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Virginia","Civil rights movements--Virginia","African Americans--Civil rights--Virginia"],"dcterms_title":["Rising Black consciousness"],"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/rising-black-consciousness"],"dcterms_temporal":["1965/1999"],"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}],"pages":{"current_page":328,"next_page":329,"prev_page":327,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3924,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}