{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1736","title":"District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-05-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School enrollment","School districts","Student activities","Students","Parents","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and ADE project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1736"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["91 page scan, typed","50 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e\u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, five orders; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT u.foilfm~cPuRT -\"'EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAY 0 7 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff;-- vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER ~~M~~ No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED MAY -8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua lntervenors have moved for a second extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For cause, Joshua Intervenors state that they are in settlement talks with LRSD on the issue ofLRSD's unitary status, and that \"additional time is needed to continue these discussions.\" Although Joshua's counsel has asked to extend the response time until May 20, 2002, I take judicial notice of the fact that he is a candidate for the Arkansas Senate; and the primary election is on Tuesday, May 21 , 2002. Accordingly, I am granting Joshua Intervenors an extension until and including May 30, 2002. I do note that the chances of another extension are remote, at best. DATED this ( tff day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE w~/iULE ss ANotoR~7F9R CP ON ~(}y BY ~ ~ 1 7 595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN D1STRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. l , et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , lntervenors, 4:82cv00866 RECEIVED MAY - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG ORDER The parties are notified that Judge J. Thomas Ray is the U. S. Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. Dated this 6th day of May, 2002 . . /11:L ' ------ JY ry{, ~ . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ~CP ON -0.-1 f?\"\"r: BY , c.,,,,,. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 596 A072A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT CO_B~J~Jk1 ~1?ouRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ER~l DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAY 9 2082 LITTLE ROCKS,CHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VY. IVIT\\L~n 1V1ALK., CLE.RK. B . \\J y .:OT A ~ --- y. - - Ut:t''.Ct:tKK V. No. 4-:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On January 3, 2002, I was assigned this twenty-year-old action, which over the years has come to be known in this District simply as \"the school case\" (docket entry #3570). Pleadings in the case now occupy hundreds of feet of files in the District Court Clerk's office, and the magnitude of the appeals in the case has led the Eighth Circuit to adopt a policy of rotating the case to a new appeal panel every five years. Thus, by necessity, the decisions I make will be built on the footings and foundations poured by other District Court and Appellate Court Judges--their decisions have shaped the current contours of the case. On March 15, 2001, approximately nine months before I inherited this case, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a pleading which could result in a watershed ruling--a Request for Scheduling Order and attached Compliance Report ( docket entry #3410) aimed at obtaining \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" Id. Subsequently, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed an Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3447) in which they challenge the LRSD's contention that it is entitled to A072A a judicial declaration that it has achieved overall unitary status. On January 25, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry#357 l) referring the issue of unitary status to a mediator. In doing so, it was my understanding that the LRSD and Joshua both had requested mediation as a means of promptly, efficiently, and finally resolving that issue. Over ninety days have now elapsed, with no report that progress has been made through mediation. I was somewhat sanguine, but the lapse of time with no report of progress has dampened my optimism. 1 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after filing its Compliance Report, the LRSD filed a Motion for an lrnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket entry #3580) and supporting Memorandum Brief (docket entry #3581). On May 6, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry #3595) granting Joshua's request for an extension of time and allowing them until and including May 30, 2002, to file their Response. The recent actions of the parties, in placing the issue of unitary status back before me, appears to be a clear signal that mediation is not succeeding and that settlement negotiations have stalled. Therefore, the Court intends to decide, soon, the issue of unitary status raised in the LRSD's March 15 Motion. Inheriting the case at this point (I hope its shadow is falling far to the east) has required me to review an enormous amount of material just to try to determine where we are.2 Although 1On April 18, 2002, Joshua filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #3592) that alludes to the parties having engaged in \"settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status.\" I have heard nothing further from the parties regarding these settlement discussions. It is most unlikely that any future requests for extensions will be granted because of \"settlement discussions.\" 2The fields of education and \"school litigation\" also have a jargon of their own which a neophyte must attempt to absorb. -2- A072A IRP.vR/~ it may be old hat to the parties, I believe it will be helpful for me to set out in some detail where I find we are and, just as importantly, where I intend to go. I. Where I Find We Are On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the LRSD's January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). On April 10, 1998, the Court entered an Order ( docket entry #3144) approving the Revised Plan. Section 11 of the Revised Plan specifically describes the procedure the LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status At the conclusion of the 2000-0 I school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 , indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD 's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. On March 15, 200 l , the LRSD filed the required \"Compliance Report\" ( docket entry #3410),3 which describes section by section the LRSD's alleged \"substantial compliance'\"' with each provision of the Revised Plan. The Court entered an Order (docket entry #3414) establishing May 18, 2001, as the 3 Although not required by the Revised Plan, on March 15, 2000, the LRSD filed an Interim Compliance Report (docket entry #3356). 4 The Revised Plan does not define what \"substantial compliance\" means, but, as Professor McCormick teaches us, it takes \"a skillful definer to make it plainer by multiplication of words   the explanations themselves often need more explanation than the term explained . .. . \" 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 341, p. 430 (5th ed. 1999). -3- A07?A --- deadline for challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report. Subsequently, Joshua moved three times for extensions of that deadline ( docket entries #3415, #3429, and #3443). Finally, the Court entered an Order (docket entry#3445) establishing June 25, 2001, as the final deadline for Joshua to file their Response to the LRSD's Compliance Report.5 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to the LRSD 's Compliance Report ( docket entry #3447). In this Opposition, Joshua argues that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with various specifically enumerated sections of the Compliance Report and describes the nature of the LRSD's noncompliance under each of those sections. Importantly, Section 11 of the Revised Plan explicitly provides that the \"challenging party'' has the burden of proving that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Counsel for Joshua has acknowledged on the record that the Court has \"given us and by agreement we accept the burden of proof' ( docket entry #3464, transcript of July 9, 2001 scheduling conference, p. 26, lines 14-17).6 Almost immediately after Joshua filed their Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report, the Court began a series of telephone conferences with counsel (docket entries #3348 and #3349) to establish a schedule for conducting evidentiary hearings on Joshua's challenges to the Compliance Report. During the June 29, 2001 telephone conference, the Court set aside July 5 5During a telephone conference on June 29, 2001, the Court described in some detail the circumstances surrounding the three extensions of this filing deadline ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, pp. 24-25). 61ndependent of this judicial admission, the Court specifically ruled that, under the plain language of Section 11 of the Revised Plan, it was agreed that any party, such as Joshua, who challenges the LRSD' s compliance will bear the burden of proof ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, p. 26, lines 11 -21). -4- A072A (Rev.8/82) and 6 and August 1 and 2 to hear evidence from Joshua regarding its challenges to the LRSD's \"substantial compliance\" with the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3461 at p. 25, lines 22-25, and p. 26, lines 1-9). The Court also made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence ( docket entry #3461, pp. 54-55). Because Joshua has the burden of proof, the Court allowed them to put on their case first. On July 5 and 6, 2001 , Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services (docket entry #3462, transcript of July 5, 2001 evidentiary hearing and docket entry #3463, transcript ofJuly 6, 2001 evidentiaryhearing at pp. 274-340) and Dr. Les Carnine, the former Superintendent of the LRSD (docket entry #3463, transcript of July 6, 2001 evidentiary hearing). During his cross-examination7 of these two witnesses, counsel for Joshua sought to elicit testimony proving that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with three specific obligations under the Revised Plan: (1) \"Good faith\" implementation of the policies, programs, and procedures described in the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1. l ); (2) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3-5.3.5, 5.4, 5.6.1, and 2.7.1); and (3) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures regarding various aspects of student discipline (sections 2.5 and 2.5.1- 2.5.4). After taking the first two days of testimony, the Court conducted a hearing on July 9, 7This technically was \"direct examination,\" but since the witnesses were associated with an adverse party, it was, in effect, cross-examination. -5- AO 72A 200 I, to schedule the remaining days necessary to complete the evidentiary hearing on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3464, transcript of scheduling conference held on July 9, 2001). Counsel for Joshua, in response to questions from the Court, stated that he believed the LRSD 's three most serious areas of non-compliance under the Revised Plan were failing to remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; continuing a policy of disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions; and failing, in good faith, to properly implement the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 26- 29). With the agreement of counsel, the Court set aside August 1 and 2 and November 19 and 20 to complete the evidentiary record on these three discrete issues ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 45- 46, 51-52, and 60-61 ). In formulating this schedule, the Court indicated that it would hear six hours of testimony on August 1, November 19, and November 20, and three hours of testimony on August 2. The Court ruled that these twenty-one hours of anticipated testimony would be divided equally between Joshua and the LRSD, so that each side would be allowed ten and onehalf hours to put on their respective cases on the issues of good faith, student achievement, and student discipline (docket entry #3464 at pp. 62-64). Finally, at the close of the July 9 scheduling conference, the Court engaged in the following colloquy with counsel, that makes it clear everyone knew and understood the three issues that would be tried to conclusion during the hearings on August 1-2 and November 19-20: MR. HELLER: But I just want to be sure we have heard Mr. Walker's case before we present ours. THE COURT: Yes, that's correct. That's correct. In other words, and these will be discrete issues, and I say they are discrete. Discipline and achievement, and I agree that there is some linkage there between the two. But those things, achievement particularly, is what is bothering me. -6- A072A (Acn,A / R'J\\ And discipline, maybe Mr. Walker can make me think that discipline ought to be bothering me too, and I guess it is to an extent because of the way the District has presented it. But still, there is some improvement there. MR.WALKER: Here is the other thing. Throughout this whole thing, the concept of good faith is present, and I don't th.ink we are going to have separate sections where we present good faith evidence. Part of what would be presented, as we are presented with Dr. Carnine and Mr. Babbs, is evidence to show that they had no intention of doing what they said they were going to do, and they really did not do it. So, that will be addressing good faith. THE COURT: Well, of course, you are free to do that. I have personally observed that Little Rock, I think, has been much, much better in recent years than it was when I first got the case .... (Docket entry #3464, p. 65, lines 16-25, and p. 66, lines 1-23.) In the August 1, 2001 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua called and examined Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of the LRSD, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction ( docket entry #3493). At the beginning of the August 2 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua re-examined Dr. Mitchell, and called and examined Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent responsible for handling discipline in alternative education settings, and James Washington, the ombudsperson for the LRSD ( docket entry #3494). During his examination of these four witnesses, counsel for Joshua again sought to elicit testimony regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations related to good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; and to eliminate the disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions. At the conclusion of the August 2 hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had -7- AO 72A used eight of his allotted ten and one-half hours ohime. The Court made it clear that counsel for Joshua could elect to rest his case and use the remaining two and one-half hours to cross-examine witnesses called by the LRSD or he could forego cross-examination and continue to call witnesses. Joshua's counsel indicated that, after he called a few \"brief' witnesses at the beginning of the November 19 hearing, he intended to rest his case and reserve his remaining time for cross-examination (docket entry #3494, pp. 950-954). At the beginning of the November 19 evidentiary hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had decided to rest his case on the issues of the LRSD's good faith compliance with implementation of the Revised Plan, the implementation of programs and policies designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, and student discipline (docket entry #3558 at pp. 14-15). After the Court denied its Motion for Directed Verdict on those issues, the LRSD proceeded to call three witnesses: James Washington, Dr. Linda Watson, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their respective direct and crossexaminations of Mr. Washington and Dr. Watson on November 19. However, counsel for the LRSD was not able to complete his direct examination of Dr. Lesley (docket entry #3558). On November 20, counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their direct and crossexaminations of Dr. Lesley. After counsel for Joshua concluded his cross-examination of Dr. Lesley, he sought to call several \"rebuttal witnesses\" in what he estimated to be his remaining \"25 or so minutes\" of the original ten and one-half hours of time (docket entry #3559, p. 573). Counsel for the LRSD objected and suggested that \"the time left for Mr. Walker is just about zero\" (docket entry #3559, p. 573). -8- A072A The Court resolved this dispute by making the following unequivocal ruling: THE COURT: But I will tell you what I will do, I will give you [Mr. Walker] twenty-five more minutes. Now that's it. (Docket entry #3559 at p. 575, lines 21-23; emphasis added.) Although counsel for Joshua urged the Court to \"keep an open mind on aJ~owing Joshua more time,\" the Court refused to reconsider its ruling. The Court also made it clear that, if counsel for Joshua intended to call members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") as rebuttal witnesses, their testimony would count against his remaining twenty-five minutes of time (docket entry #3559 at p. 583, lines 9- 12). Thus, at the conclusion of the November20 evidentiary hearing, six days of testimony and hundreds of exhibits had been introduced in connection with what Joshua identified as their three strongest arguments against declaring the LRSD unitary: ( 1) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the \"good faith\" obligations contained in the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; and (3) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Furthermore, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD had both rested their cases on these three issues, and all that remained was for Joshua's counsel to use his remaining \"twenty-five minutes\" to call rebuttal witnesses.8 On December 11, 2001, the Court conducted a scheduling hearing to discuss issues and 8Counsel for Joshua indicated that these rebuttal witnesses might include the staff of ODM, Dr. Ross, and Dr. Roberts. -9- AO 7'?A witnesses that would be presented during a five-day evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28 (docket entry #3597). At the beginning of the hearing, the Court noted that Joshua had twenty-five minutes of\"true rebuttal\" testimony that remained to be heard on the three discrete issues which had been tried to conclusion during the six previous days of hearings (docket entry #3597 at p. 5). The Court requested that counsel for Joshua identify the issues and witnesses he intended to cover during the upcoming five-day evidentiary hearing. Counsel for Joshua identified the following areas of the Revised Plan which he intended to attack to prove the LRSD was not in substantial compliance: ( 1) extracurricular activities; (2) advanced placement courses; (3) guidance and counseling; (4) the student assignment plan; (5) no middle school evaluation; (6) the Cook School closing; (7) housing desegregation; (8) interdistrict schools and monitoring student recruitment; (9) staffing and funding incentive schools; (10) alternative education; (11) compliance standards; ( 12) desegregation plan modification; and ( 13) the academic achievement gap ( docket entry #3597 at pp. 6-19). Counsel for Joshua estimated it would take three full weeks to put on his case regarding these issues ( docket entry #3597 at p. 19). LRSD's counsel strenuously objected to Joshua expanding their attack on the LRSD's substantial compliance to include essentially every section of the Revised Plan. First, counsel noted that: (a) section 8.2 of the Revised Plan sets forth a detailed procedure for raising compliance issues; and (b) Joshua had failed to utilize that procedure to raise any of the foregoing compliance issues before filing their June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. Similarly, counsel noted that Joshua had never raised any objection to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 (docket entry #3597 at pp. 21-23). -10- AO 72A /Rev.8/82\\ Second, counsel noted that Joshua was now raising challenges to the LRSD's substantial compliance with sections 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.3--provisions of the Revised Plan that were not challenged in Joshua's June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3597 at p. 23). Finally, counsel stated his much different understanding of the purpose for the December 11 scheduling hearing: I thought the purpose of what we were going to do today was to narrow the issues; get this down to some very specific issues, talk about what specific evidence was going to be needed to litigate those issues, and then set some very limited time frames to get the case on a track where the Court and the parties can fulfill their responsibility to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. (Docket entry #3597 at p. 24). In resolving this contentious dispute between counsel regarding the scope of the issues that remained on the question of unitary status, the Court first noted that counsel for Joshua had already presented his strongest evidence on student achievement and student discipline, the \"areas of [the LRSD's] compliance [with the Revised Plan] that he [counsel for Joshua] thought were weakest.\" Next, the Court identified four remaining issues related to unitary status that Joshua would be allowed to cover during the hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) guidance counseling; (3) extracurricular activities; and ( 4) the LRSD's overall obligation of good faith under the Revised Plan (docket entry #3598 at pp. 31- 32).9 The Court went on to explicitly describe how it intended to conduct the final five days of 9The Court concluded that advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities were issues closely related to the issue of improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, the Court indicated that Joshua would be allowed to present evidence on student achievement but only for the limited purpose of explaining how the LRSD's policies, programs, and procedures regarding advanced placement courses, -11- AO 72A ,n .... . . n ,n,..,\\ evidentiary hearings: THE COURT: But this is what I would like to do. Instead of giving you three weeks, I would like to, which I don't have, by the way, what I would like to do is give careful attention to achievement, guidance and counseling, and related matters such as advanced placement and extracurricular the week ofJanuary 28th . Again, I think good faith is always an issue and you can always bring that up. But I would like to confine vour focus to those matters and then, I would like to make a ruling, I would like to have everything on those matters submitted to the Court, so that I can make a ruling with respect to them. And if necessary, give the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to give us further guidance. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would just prefer that. And I think that that would be something the District would like. It might bring this matter to closure more quickly, one way or the other. (Docket entry #3597 at pp. 36-37; emphasis added). II. Where We Go From Here Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstanding job of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow me to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD 's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 1 For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. This means I must now address only two issues still hanging fire. guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. 'From my review of the transcripts, I hardly see why it should take five days for the additional evidence (two days would seem to be time aplenty), but Judge Wright has dealt with this case for a long time, and I will defer to her call. -12- A072A /Oou 0 / Ct ? \\ First, at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001 hearing, Judge Wright allowed Joshua twenty-five minutes to put on \"true rebuttal\" testimony relevant to three discrete issues: ( 1) the LRSD's good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to insure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Having never been one to place too fine a point on time-keeping, I will allow Joshua thirty full minutes to present \"true rebuttal\" testimony directed at these three precise issues. After this brief rebuttal testimony has been received, the record will be closed on the issue of the LRSD's substantial compliance with those sections of the Revised Plan related to the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 2.7.1, 3.4, 5.1 , 5.2, 5.2. 1, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2, 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3, 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3, 5.3.1-5 .3.5, 5.4, and 5.6.1) and student discipline (sections 2.5, 2.5 .1-2.5.4). As early as practical in June, I intend to schedule a short evidentiary hearing to allow counsel for Joshua to present this \"true rebuttal\" testimony. I would also welcome a stipulation or other arrangement that would allow this extremely brief and limited rebuttal evidence to go into the record, without the need for a formal hearing. Second, I need to establish the basic ground rules for the final evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the LRSD has achieved unitary status. Before beginning the six days of evidentiary hearings last year on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's request for unitary status, Joshua's counsel agreed to arrange his evidence so that he presented his strongest arguments against unitary status first. Thus, I must conclude that the record now contains all of Joshua's strongest evidence ofLRSD's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations under -13- I I AO 72A /Rev.A/A?\\ the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1.1). Nevertheless, consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the Court will allow Joshua to present additional evidence of the LRSD 's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directlv to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith. Similarly, in putting on evidence regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities, counsel for Joshua may present evidence regarding how those issues adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. However, the Court will not allow counsel for Joshua to introduce any new or cumulative evidence on the issue of academic achievement, a subject that has already been thoroughly and extensively covered by Joshua's presentation of their strongest evidence during last year's six days of evidentiary hearings. The Court will enter a Scheduling Order within ten days setting aside up to five days (probably in June and/or July) to conclude the evidentiary record on the remaining factual issues relevant to the question of whether the LRSD is entitled to a declaration ofunitary status. Prior to entering that Order, the Court will conduct a telephone conference with counsel for all parties to set the dates during which this evidentiary hearing will take place. \u0026lt;)Tn DATED this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,_, _\"TH RULE 58 ANO/OR~ fR_;: () ~o/10/0 a-~ Gj1 ~ UNITEb ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -14- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al MAY 2 0 2002 KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER u.frJJR1~PuRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This is to confirm a telephone conference will be held today, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel are to carefully review the Court's Order of May 9, 2002 before the telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2002. .u J d,. ln\\n  ,-~:1~,-f-.( UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE ord.LRSD 599 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL '' DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT c- 1\\STER!~\\ CJiST9'CT ADV ~r--1c; Ac; ,M~Y 1 5 2002 RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2002 Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~l\\Ott MOttllORlltG Yesterday, on May 14, 2002, an on-the-record telephone conference was held with the lawyers for all the parties. During the telephone conference the following schedule was adopted: l. A final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School District's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status was set to commence on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.; and to conclude on Friday, July 26 at 5:30 p.m . The time will be divided as follows: a. At 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 22 the Joshua intervenors will be given 30 minutes within which to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright; b. -2- The remaining forty hours of trial time will be divided equally (twenty hours and twenty hours) between the Joshua intervenors and the Little Rock School District. The Joshua intervenors must notify the Court, on or before July 9, 2002 of the amount of time, out of their twenty hours, that they wish to reserve to present rebuttal evidence. 2. I expect to take testimony from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 22 (with an hour for lunch); and from 8:30 to 5:30 p.m. on each of the following four days (with an hour for lunch each day). 3. On or before June 21, 2002 the parties are directed to identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included, of each witness 's anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address. 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre - marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances . S. U. S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray will conduct a hearing commencing at 8:30 a.m. on July 9, 2002. At that hearing, all exhibits will be presented, and pre-marked references will be two-blocked ; the witness lists and accompanying witness statements mentioned above will be submitted ; and evidentiary objections and motions in Ii mine will be submitted (it is likely that -3- 1 will later rule on most of the evidentiary objections and motions in limine, - although Judge Ray may issue some rulings during his hearing). 4. By 5 :00 p.m. on Monday, August 19, 2002 the parties must file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Little Rock School Districts Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status. 5. It is re-emphasized that the parties will be required to present evidence within the limits set in my order of Thursday, May 9. 6. Counsel are instructed to interview and prepare witnesses for rifle - shot presentations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12.~ay of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITI-J?.llj-E 58 AND/~~)~ FRCP ON 1/J\"-/-Dr'sy_.~~--- RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 May 21, 2002 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Dennis Hansen Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: DennisH@ag.state.ar.us Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy a Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-styled case, which I am filing with the Court today. Very truly yours, 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 Cover Letter May 21, 2002 DRH/dpn Enclosure cc: Ray Simon Scott Smith Q:\\Civil\\MarkH\\Open Files\\deseg\\2002\\ c orrespondence ~ ~ Ll~~~iJ  R Hansen DAessnimstsa nt A ttome y General \\ltr cover 5-2 I -02drh.doc IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF lltS6RE6AT!ON MOillTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to state for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel the following: 1. Mark A. Hagemeier recently resigned from his position with the Office of the Attorney General. 2. Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General will be representing the defendant, ADE in this matter. 3. All correspondence and filings should be forwarded to the attention of Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock AR, 72201. Wherefore, the defense respectfully requests that Dennis R. Hansen be substituted as the attorney ofrecord for defendant ADE Respectfully submitted, MARK PRYOR, Attorney General By ~ L(-i44t. Dennis R. Hansen #97225 Deputy Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prien Tower 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-1315 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, do hereby certify that I have served the foreg~ument by mailing a copy of same by US. Mail, postage prepaid, thisj}s+ day of , 2002, to the following: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen AO 72A (Rev.8/82) FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUiPf\"i D!Srn:c--T \\CH' '~IC: l'I C: FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS M1\\Y 2 8 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. 8y: _________ _ DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Pending before the Court is Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602). In that Motion, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education asks that Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen be substituted for Mark A. Hagemeier as its counsel of record in this matter because Mr. Hagemeier no longer works for the Attorney General 's Office. The Court finds good cause for granting the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to substituted Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen as the attorney of record for Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Dated this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE .. :, c-1 ,~d e.!.: 53 t/:l.:,/OP~7~(~)i,:RCP 5'/17/01/ -- ---~ ---- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f\u0026lt;,'.':' ? t 11- ? EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS1~  t.LL,. WESTERN DIVISION By:MES W. McCORMACI(, CLER/( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED MAY 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DE;-:, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \" [ LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for a three-year term assuming substantial and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] 1 The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year [to] 1 .E....,__g_,_, Sturgis v. Skosos, 977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 be a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 2 The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at--) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at--). On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an \"[O]pposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report.\" The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e., on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2 .1 ( general requirement of good faith compliance); achievement) ; 2.5-2.5.4 ( student discipline); 2.7.1 (program evaluation) ; 3 2.7 2.12.2 (academic (general 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment, the terms assessment and evaluation are, at times, used interchangeably. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation, until, in 2 requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate .. ); 6.0 to 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a. ); Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Carnine); Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion, this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore, do not respond to LRSD' s argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [ LRSD Mem. - the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See,~, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra, 977 S.W.2d at 223 ( \"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3 Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement ( at 37-40), and Program Evaluation ( at 40-46) . An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of a concept of \"substantial compliance. 11  Intervenors' fact.ual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix.' Summary of the Evidence I. Student Discipline A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and \\ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to school discipline. 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set  Intervenors dispute, in the argument, LRSD' s repetitive suggestion [....,Jl_,_, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 4 forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2. 5. 2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; .. 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriata disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of indi victuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 5 6. 7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 2000) ( 2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discriminatibn and policies on discipline records); revision of student handbooks; creation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building ... \"; staff development; a decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD; the sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools; and expansion of the number of alternative learning sites. [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities; directing principals to comply with the handbook; informing students and parents of standards; and employing the ombudsman. [at 15] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards; in-service training; and implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson). [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6 addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan); establishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and ... work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"; increasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work. [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such- plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the \"Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is as follows: Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. [at 16] (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6. 0 through 6. 7 ( general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline. [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on school discipline, at pages 24-26. 7 (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students; the decrease in the number of students committing offenses; the sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"). [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of - general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [ at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman; steps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services; and a description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8 services related to over 450 incidents. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved. [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2 .12. 2 ( investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in ... discipline (Section 2.5) ... 165] 5 \" [at (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above). [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan.\" It added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with [the] Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9 D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14; March 2001, at 24; Tr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21; at 55, 22 to 56, 15; at 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in ex 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer, 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more, 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). Suspension Index by Year\")] [CX 743 (\"Discipline ( 9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24); Watson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 14- 21; at 113, 14 to 114, 1; ex 743] 7 (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [ at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr., 11-19-01, 'at 25, 16-19] 7 On June 14, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. It sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the number of students subjected to one or more suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of overrepresentation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. 10 reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell); Tr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14; at 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson); ex 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\"); see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [g__,__g_,_, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15; March 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals, . whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16; 128, 6-18; 149, 10 to 150, 25; 155, 7-12; 161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data, Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11 A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up of teachers, administrators, support staff, that are helping to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] ( 16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \" [has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in d~scipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had \"prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"Not to my - knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8; see also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, because apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12 (18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to -- and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, 16-25; emphasis added] (19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. 8 The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. 13 A. Because I took -- once the report came out. we discussed it in the cabinet. and it was the decision at that time that we would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them, didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, we were not going to address the issues. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25; emphasis added] ( 20.) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had -- you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools, Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14 Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree . [Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] ( 21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be e xpected to accomplish . The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114 , 4 to 119, 8; see also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)] . E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan ( 2 2 . ) Section 2. 5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the requisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement [ ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [.E....,__g__._, Tr., 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6 . 1, 6.2, 6. 3 , 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline . Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the requirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2. 5. 3, and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming t hat LRSD substantially 15 complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [ at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr . Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [ CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000dd( 4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance) . . Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] 9 (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [ ex 672-76; Tr., 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with 9 LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16 regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline; the system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6 , 13 . The LRSD did not implement any programs , policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools or personnel. See paras. 12-18. (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [ Section 2. 5. 4 J , and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20; compare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter; and, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, 16-19], and the system's major witness on the topic, testified: \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSO Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline, is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. \" [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following. [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Or. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time ... we would not respond or do anything\"; \" issues.\" See para. 19. . we were not going to address the II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of AfricanAmerican Students A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan ( 29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and\\or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this revised plan. 2. 7 .1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 19 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6. 4. Utilization of moni taring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; ... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem ( 3 o. ) Two aspects of Section 2. 7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design [ ing]\" programs and other initiatives; rather, the initiatives must also be \"implement[ed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years, Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if you will remember, and in fact -- if I can find the document, and I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20 that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort. where I felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing different, not that I am not -- I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely. but we are getting there .... [At 450- 51; emphasis added] (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] ( 33.) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for 'LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999) 1 0 and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. The State requires local districts to give benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics in grades four and eight. These instruments are 21 (Grade 3, Fall 1998) .ii On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level ( \"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of AfricanAmerican grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels ... , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13]= ( 34.) The federal educational program known as \"Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56; Tr., 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9; \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" March 15, 2002, 'Tab 5, at 9 J ii For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report, at 56. i 2 The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22 Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68; see 20 u.s.c. Sec. 2701] ( 35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title I programs. The March 2000 interim report described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The staff found that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignment between the Title I programs and the reaular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68; emphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr., 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else .... [Tr., 11-19-01, at 199-200] (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 Title I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding (i.e., originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] ( 39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.1 at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan, alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24 development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32; see also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures, some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed durihg 1998-99 and the Board of directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. The March 2000 report stated that \"PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD . \" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99; see also id. at 25 90 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: Implementation of standards-based, inquiry-based instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers and 4 5 3 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is a vitally important part of the new literacy program. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 200113 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2. 7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students ... \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. 13 See March 2000 report at 43, 44, 4 7, 48, 49; March 2001 report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 26 ( i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA ( \"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives  11 [CX 719, Policy IHBA] (ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R \"Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers \"of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [ i] is not performing on grade level (K-4); [ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8); and [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, 27 geometry, and\\or algebra.\" \"School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. 11 The regulation further provides: The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1. 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2. 7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, is also apparent. (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] ( 4 3. ) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999 11 the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91 ] (44 . ) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that -- particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get all that done. It has to be followed up over and over and over. And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so much. The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207, 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the Pre-K-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. 1  The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional develop-ment . . 'In study after study, it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \" [ LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status.\" 29 investing in curriculum materials.' ... [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the \"Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level of participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based; 2 - partially implementing standards-based; 1 - minimally implementing standards based; O - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30 follows: \"4 - excellent; 3 - good; 2 - fair; 1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 32 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents a trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on the data provided, the District is in an active transition from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2. 4 ( on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000-01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] ( 48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3; compare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000 11 [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 (49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include . . an examination  of the different forms of inter-ventions. II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum, LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the \"Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51.) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether the new PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations to document the level of implementation is a problem. This weakness not only resulted in a late identification of poor implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32 Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, State Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination, which measure mastery of knowledge and skills, identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra; see also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, eight percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, yes, AfricanAmerican students were eight proficient. Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33 o. And a major part of your explanation for that result is that those students. in terms of the curriculum they had received. had not been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math. right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, 20 percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. o. And do you think that. again. that part of the reason for that was that the curriculum those students had had not covered many of the strands in the state benchmarks for literacy? A. Yes. [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21; emphasis added] (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were -- 4th grade literacy 19%; 4th grade math 14%; 8th grade literacy 18%; and 8th grade math only 49.c I 0. See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the gradeappropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34 new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004) . 1 5 (55 . ) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks; (b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2. 7; or ( c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than, as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras . 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 1 5 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of deli very of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). ( 57.) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 - 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on, \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such; the staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such, violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36 III. Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years, Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct, about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]; Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie) . i 6 (60.) The LRSD did not \"[develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . \"during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell); see also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 Carnine)] to 3 7 9 , 18 (Dr. (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show, at best, continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at \"See also ex 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [ i J the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01); [ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6. 6 times ( 1998-99), 4 .1 times ( 1999-2000), and 3. 7 times ( 2000-01); [ iii J the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01); and [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 1996-97 through 2001-02 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last {2001- 02) years of the six year period. [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances; [ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances; [iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 instances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [CX 741, at 1] ( 62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[lhg_._, Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the ORA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program, Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use ORA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black, from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 obligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students , \" See paragraphs 41-55. ( 65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 11 which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part 5 of the plan. Third. The assessment obligation is annual in nature. ( 67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w] ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably \" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions, that compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40 this proposition, when called as a witness by the Joshua Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to ( e) . (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver from State or District rules includes an evaluation design 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See ex 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. (CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44; emphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites, inter 41 alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [ at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [ at 52], and \" [ t ]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda August 1999.\" [At 53] approved by the Board of Education in (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" -- a title which is repeated at a later point in the discussion. The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to \"evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation, as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12; see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD \"voluntarily undertook .. obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \"assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22; 243, 6 to 249, 14; see also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel) ] 17 The content of paragraphs 1 7 Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment from a \"program evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23] -- a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year. \"In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment'' as 42 (a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook obligation.\" [this] (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program, and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr. , 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, 23; at 389, 18 to 392, 18; at 400, 16 to 401, 22 (Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, inter-encompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43 nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley); at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 334, 5-14 ; at 495, 16 to 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley); Tr., 11- 20-0l, at 321, 21 to 322, 22; at 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9; at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below par. See para. 49. (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47; March 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44 \"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000 11 was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721; Tr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell); Tr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated ... [11] programs .... 11 [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001; there is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [ dd J The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001; it was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45 [hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727; Tr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is a collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728; Tr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [ j j] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship, dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729; Tr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief, undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2. 7 .1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46 Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [ two of] the parties ... \"[LRSD v. PCSSD, li, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)] -- the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaskui County Special School District, No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum, this court is called upon to apply the parties ' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)J The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation, and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteriaa is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\"); they form \"the law of [this] case.\" 1 8 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47 Construed as an entirety [seen. 1 at 1, supra], the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. [At 1199; emphasis added] The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are, first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable; \"[t]he consent decree did not state the time of its duration.\" See 139 F.3d at 1198. 48 the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, \"serious\" matters. given their subject matter, involve The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable .from one context to another. Like 'reasonableness,' ... 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance .... [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra J, Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49 B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on race.\" See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious.\" Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . \" [Sec. 2.5; emphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of life. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore, \"the law of this case.\" The (behavior failure to implement the modification plans) provisions can not of be Section 2. 5. 4 dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50 of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans; the LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C. Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] \"[T]he circumstances of [this] case ... \"[Fortin.supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program -- a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements of federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum, implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula, provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth J not performing well, and moni taring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43-51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so -- and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine); see para. 62. The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]; there have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At 1. para. BJ Manifestly, a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52 \"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Se    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16863","title":"Ozell Sutton interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Sutton, Ozel"],"dc_date":["2002-05-06"],"dcterms_description":["Interview discussing his memories of L.C. and Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas Women","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","African Americans","Civil rights workers","African American women"],"dcterms_title":["Ozell Sutton interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16863"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gsu_ggdp_5481","title":"William Ide oral history interview, 2002 April 29","collection_id":"gsu_ggdp","collection_title":"Georgia Government Documentation Project","dcterms_contributor":["Kuhn, Cliff"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Ide, R. William, 1940-"],"dc_date":["2002-04-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Georgia State University Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Government Documentation Project","https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/1508"],"dcterms_subject":["Race relations","Civil rights movements","Legal aid","Lawyers","Washington and Lee University","American Bar Association","Georgia Legal Services Program"],"dcterms_title":["William Ide oral history interview, 2002 April 29"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ggdp/id/5481"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Ide, R. William, Interviewed by Cliff Kuhn, 29 April 2002, P2002-03, Series Q. Georgia Legal Services, Georgia Government Documentation Project, Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library, Atlanta."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 hour, 37 minutes, 16 seconds of audio spread over 3 sides of 2 tapes, and a 53 page transcript."],"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Ide, R. William, 1940-","Powell, Lewis F., Jr., 1907-1998","Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16813","title":"Theodsin Cooper interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Cooper, Theodsin"],"dc_date":["2002-04-28"],"dcterms_description":["Interview about her friendship with Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","African American women civil rights workers","Medical care"],"dcterms_title":["Theodsin Cooper interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16813"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16789","title":"Annie Abrams interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Abrams, Annie Mable McDaniel"],"dc_date":["2002-04-12","2002-04-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas Women","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Civil rights movements","African American women"],"dcterms_title":["Annie Abrams interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16789"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999","Bates, L. C., 1901-1980"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_35","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-04","2002-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/35"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\n\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 3 o 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General -y{\\~~~ ~--~~ MARK A. HAGEME~ #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen~ 11 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the. infqrm~tlpr,je'~y~\\labi'~ ifM~r~IiI~:i:ilJliii'Q~\n::lhi':A.. q~!ctila{~:~\ntR\nJ Equalization Funding fo'fFY 01/02, sLibjecftq][~ijpdic~djustrn:i3ht:: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 8 . Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;f,~~~ii,ai~~l~ll~1~~@:~:,vct1~ifli~~~arch'3JJ'~ma.2J'JR~:'6.:B~~aI~Ja'm8JgffEX C. Process and distribute State MFPA 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Qh fy1afchf C:ibci2, disttibutior116f$iate EqU~fi~jfBh f'D/\\dihg fq[FX'.oJ.%02:w\nr~ as.t611ows: LR.SD '~ $38,318,228 NLRS6\\ $20.~69,908 pcssD \u0026lt;$39,767,42b LRSD - $52, 189,~57 NLRSD - $28,093\n868 PCSSD - $54}!08:571 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March31\n2a02 for FY 61102, subject to periodic adjustmellts. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2 Actual as of March 29, 2002 ~Ji~\n~~lf it:ft:.~lt\\~ii~~}~tl!~t~r01\n~~~c~~ati: ~~~~~\n/~-~~~~:iir~1 Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Bas~d on t'Re informiitiori avalfable, the A.DE calculated at March 31,-2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periqdic adjustments. . G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at March 31, 2002, totaled $8,136,297. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1 Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 ois1r1ptvQHt'r8t:Rx::1t1zo2t~t M.~l~rt:~J\nr2002~~tet t,B:::~\n:i?.::rz:~g ,, NLRSD%$1403 839 ss6.::*I\nJs:1It'\n:ij12\nt~'iiWl{~\n~~~j1{m~ia:18? ~x=:6':rza:r~tMarar :f1\n-2602 .=su BJecIt o pehbd12 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;~~~--\"~,,,1tlll~~~11!!W~ A.tM~i~tt:i\n{J:n,go,02tlb\"~Lfq!Jow.16.H1~am@~bJ~:a@ .r 6fi_fi.,X:,.QJ102_,rni lillll M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program . In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process . The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 IL MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process , external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled . Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities fo'r the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 15 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E of this report. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes , acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing , if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9 00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2 00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing C Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 2 4 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool , and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports . In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in AD E's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the re vised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkans.a$State soafa.of EdlJciltlBB'l ~vlewed and approveid\"the PMT and its executive sunWnary forthe inOr\\tti.of r,,AafcK\n31 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties . During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning . A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan , and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees , assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established , and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI F. of this report. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of April 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa , the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, ie , Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 4 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative , \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000 The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming , 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students) , 6) how to correctly interpret scores . This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session . The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 44 VI REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training . The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum . A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrc\n3tors at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses . She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting . On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan , representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a val idated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SA T-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 51 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 53 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97 /98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30 , 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SA T-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9 00 a.m , Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1741","title":"District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) stipulations and supporting documents.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-04-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. State Board of Education","African Americans--Education","Students","School integration","School districts","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","School administrators","School employees","School enrollment","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) stipulations and supporting documents."],"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/1741"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["112 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR - 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of March 1, 2002, the Arkansas Department of Education files the following six (6) agreements: 1. Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority 2. Transfers dated August 26, 1986; Stipulation for Recommendations Regarding Magnet Schools dated February 16, 1987; 3. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated March, 1989; 4. The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31, 1989; 5. Memorandum of Understanding between the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas; and 6. Agreement between the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas dated March 19, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General #94127 Assistant Attorney Ge al 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 1, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 -- ( IN THE UNIT~D STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DiSTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and defend~nts Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), and Arkansas State Board of Education (\"State Board\"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers: The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation of majority-to-minority transfer provisions is contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2. Eligibility: ADD-1 a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating distiict which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. c. Prior to the transfer of any student, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good standing, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application. 2 ADD-2 le I I I I II ' f  ;~ ;r_ . ' ~,.-, \\~ ::f; d ._ 4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av lability of space in schools and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state standards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the home district, which shall be communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer. during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first If,, semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a tran s fer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate a~ their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside. 3 ADD-3 I I I 8. Host districts shall not have the authority to remand tr sfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. Once admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same general standards, academic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request. This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention, counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspension and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-cuiricular and other) and shall not suffer any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ADD-4 I . . '- - I I I I I I \u0026amp;: - - I -~ ~ ~ ' -. ~ 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of tl 1sporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option of (1) ?aying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts ih accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school di~tricts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all add-ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food servic8, and restricted federal program costs . (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro-rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5 ADD-5 I - , previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall esti~ate the full-ti~e equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to C. the State in September of each year when payment begins. A correction will be made in January of each year. Payments shall be made by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected . . The .students transferred to the host district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the 3istrict. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers fr om his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State aid (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. (he students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the n_u_mber _u_s~d to calculate regular 6 ADD-6 I d. state aid for the home district. All transfers of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate prcg~ams and rescurces, as identified in the IEP, at the host sch0cl. The provisions contained herein do not apply to I magnet schools and programs. I 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Little Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of not upsetting that balance through the operation of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfe~ Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of the Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 ADD-7 ;, violations of any law or regulation and, specifically, shall ne : be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departu~es from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected school. Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF DIS EDUCATION (l~ \u0026lt;~ 2258L 8 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT prised 28o/o of the membership in extracu ricular activities. PCSSD plan, Appen G. An affirmative recruitment plan will e implemented to remedy underreprese tation in activities where it occurs. PC SD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the desegregation plan represent not nly a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving unitary school district. While much rem ns to be done, much has been accompli ed. Accordingly, this portion of the PC SD desegregation plan is hereby appro d. School \u0026amp; Program Carver-Basic Skills Math-Science Williams-Basic Skills Booker-Arts Gibbs-Foreign Langu ge/ International udies Mann-Math-Sciences Arts Parkview-Arts-Perf rming Arts Total The curriculum emphasize the magn theme and all magnet students must f ly participate in magnet courses. As we as the magnet theme, all magnet school will have strong academically- oriented curricula. New magnets r expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for in subsequent sch ol years beginning 1988-89 under the pro sions of the Order of September 3, 19 . Any party may present applications or a magnet school or program not la r than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implem tation. The Committee's decision and recommendation shall be submitted to the parties no later than N ovember 15. The MRC shall make its recommendat  n to the Court not later than De- 15. IMPLEMENTATION parties propose that the District Co rt order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the 1 7-1988 school year. The host district all provide to the MRC and to the parties EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following described recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs: Grade K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 Target Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 its implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. FINANCING The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half () of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid. and one-half () the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district's debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet program. The host district will provide separate accounting and budgeting information regarding the magnet program to the Magnet Review Committee for review. ~ ' =- EX .H l B J.. t, ,IT A : RECOMMENDA- 1ING MAGNET OLS rties have agreed to scribed recommendaiview Committee for rmulating its recommagnet schools. ND THEMES $reed to recommend school locations and ;et Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 1 - at the time a bmitted to the Court. TCING , the financing formuYiagnet Review Com; held on January 29 formulas require the :) of the actual costs renovation of magnet ~ customary state aid cost of educating the mding those schools. .t any district which 1dent to fill an allocat- 1t is not occupied by ill be required to pay .s its full liability for per child cost of the .ervice payment, both ;, for the construction schools in the magnet district will provide and budgeting infor e A net program to ~ ttee for review. LITILE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 371 Cite as 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) INTERDISTRICT served for the shadow area in the host TRANSPORTATION PLAN district. The remaining seventy-five per The State Board of Education remains centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated committed to underwriting the entire actu- to each of the three districts in proportion al cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M to that district's percentage of county-wide transfer students, which includes the cost students at each school level (elementary, of transporting these students for extra- junior high, or senior high). At the elemencurricular activities. The districts agree tary level each district shall allocate its that transportation of magnet/M-to-M stu- seats in proportion to the racial ratio dents should be performed utilizing mea- present in such district at the elementary sures which are most cost efficient. The level. At the secondary level, each district interdistrict transportation plan shall not shall allocate ail its seats on the basis of be used as a means to seek compensation 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the for additional transportation vehicles un- total number of seats assigned to the less such vehicles are directly necessary North Little Rock School District shall not because of the interdistrict transportation exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 plan. New full -sized school buses pur- seats being allocated to the North Little chased in order to transport magnet/M- Rock School District from Parkview. to-M students will be added to the total It is understood that seat allocations will transportation fleet costs and applied on a not be made by district to a particular pro rata basis to the transportation of mag- school, but only by elementary, junior high net/M-to-M students. The cost of any oth- and senior high level. Therefore, a particuer vehicles purchased to transport isolated Jar district will be permitted to use its magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated allocated seats in accordance with the deaccording to their actual use in transport- sires of its students subject to space limitaing magnet/M-to-M students. Each dis- tions in particular magnet schools and the trict agrees to separately account for the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M stu- there is oversubscription among the disdents and to make those records fully avail- tricts by race, grade or school each district able to representatives of the State Depart- may make a recommendation to the MRC ment of Education at any reasonable time. for its approval regarding actual distribu- The parties agree that the Interdistrict tion of seats. The three districts agree Transportation Plan for both magnet that each district will establish an open schools and M-to-M transfers will be admin- enrollment policy for magnet schools and istered by an Interdistrict Transportation will be permitted to determine how children Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be com- will be selected for the magnet seats alloposed of the Transportation Director or cated to each district pursuant to that poliother designee of each district and a repre- cy. This provision shall not prohibit the sentative of the State. The parties agree establishment of geographic preference arthat any conflict may be determined by a eas where appropriate. U.S. Magistrate acting as a Special Master In the event there are unused seats by for the District Court. any district then persons on waiting lists to SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student population which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following formula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re-attend  from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet school will be considered as an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M i. 372 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT transfers which in part recognizes that if M-to-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by any of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially have the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a co_nstitutional violation. LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. ADMINISTRATION The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Re-  view Committee shall establish a Magnet/ M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall include community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation planning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intervenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District Isl ______G_ e_n_e_J_o_n_es ______ North Little Rock School District Isl _____J_ a_m_e_s_R_._S_m_it_h_ _____ Little Rock School District Isl ____ J_e_s_se_L_._R_a_n_c_if_e_r ___ _ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____ M_a_r_c1_a_A_. H_a_r_d_in_g ____ _ Arkansas Department of Education Morris F. Holmes Isl ---------------- The EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITIE REPORT TO THE COURT Eastern District of Ar ansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Ark sas 72203 Dear Judge W ods: The Ma t Review Committee submits for your onsideration the attached report includ g nine separate recommendations con ming magnet schools in Pulaski unty. ----------~---  --- -- ---- PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) ..  EXHIBIT 1 3 i  I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT r. II. Introduction ..... General Provisions. CONTENTS Magnet Funding Calculation Magnet Surplus Credit ...... . A. B. c. D. E. F. Magnet Operational Charge. . . ... G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. o. P. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools. Continuation of Existing Funding .... Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs .. . Conditions to Settlement. . .. . Act 34 Exemption. . . . . . .. . Staff Development ........ . Recognition of Autonomy ...... . District Budgets . . . . . Prohibition of Punitive Action ..... . Rededicated Millages .... . Limit of Liability ...... . Majority to Minority Provisions. Consent Order. . . . . III. State's Role in the Desegregation Process . A. Monitoring Compensatory Education. . . . . . B. Statement of Support for the Plans . . . . . c. Petition for Election. . . . . . . D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation. . . . . . . . . . . E. Elimination of the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . F. Commitment to Princit,les . . . . . . . . G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . H. Test Validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. In-Service Training. . . . . . . . . . . J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers . K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates . . . . . . . . ... L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff . . . . . M. School Construction. . . . . . ii . . . . . . 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 IV. Dismissal of Litigation .. . . . - . . . . 18 A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release.~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts. . . ......... 19 C. Reserved Issue . . . . . . 19 V. VI. Attorneys' Fees ... The LRSD Settlement. VII. VIII. A. B. The A. B. c. D. The A. B. c. D. Payment Schedule and Terms . Loan Provisions. PCSSD Settlement. . . . . Financial Settlement . . . . . 1. Magnet Payments . . . . . 2. Other Payments. . Staff Development. . . . . . . Food Services. . . . . . Housing. . . . . NLRSD Settlement. Magnet Payments. . .... Compensatory Education Payments .. Additional Payments ....... . Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs. IX. Execution ....... . ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Release of Claims - State Attachment B Release of Claims - LRSD Attachment C Release of Claims'- PCSSD Attachment D Release of Claims - NLRSD iii 20 22 22 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 36 36 I. Introduction The Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") Desegregation Plan (January 31, 1989), the Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 ( \"PCSSD\") Permanent Desegregation Plan (October 3, 1988, as supplemented February 15, 1989), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") Desegregation Plan of March and October, 19 8 6 ( as amended or modified through February 15, 1989 or by operation of this settlement agreement) and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (February 15, 19 89) ( the \"Plans\") hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination. Continued litigation regarding funding and other issues may make more difficult and further delay effective implementation of the constitutional obligations of the State of Arkansas and the three Pulaski County school districts (the \"Districts\"). This settlement of the issues concerning the Districts, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") and the State of Arkansas in Li t'tle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (\"this Litigation\")  is in the best interest of the students, patrons and staffs of the Districts and the people of the State. 1 - The superintendents of the Districts support the settlement and it has_ received the unanimous approval of their respective boards of directors. The business community as represented by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also supports the settlement and the Plans. That group has pledged the strong support of its membership to help the Districts achieve many of the goals of the Plans. The black plaintiff intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance pledge their support to the Plans and this settlement. The settlement is also supported by Knight (LRCTA, PACT, NLRCTA and the AEA). The Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") and the Governor of Arkansas support the settlement. II. General Provisions A. Magnet Fund~ng Calculation . Each District's magnet students will be included in the calculation of that District's table rate in determining State aid to be paid under the MFPA formula or any future funding formula. B. Magnet Surplus Credit Any cash surplus remaining in the magnet school fund for a given fiscal year after all expenses and receivables for that fiscal year have been accounted for (including a payment to the host District for administrative costs) will be returned to Districts and ADE as follows: (1) NLRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year to the extent surplus funds are available: (2) If additional surplus funds exist following the payment to NLRSD, PCSSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available: (3) If additional surplus funds exist following the payments to NLRSD and PCS SD, 2 the LRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available. (4) If additional surplus funds remain following the payments to NLRSD, PCSSD and LRSD, the ADE will be refunded its magnet operation payments to the extent such funds are available. This  provision will remain in effect for seven years beginning with the 1988-89 school year. The payment to the host District for administration of the magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year will be 3.09% of the magnet school fund. In future years, the payment to the host District for the administration of magnet schools will be the same percentage of the magnet fund as the state-determined percentage of the host District's budget attributable to administrative costs. C. Magnet Operational Charge The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Cammi ttee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event. 3 The parties will review the operational charge on an annual basis but will not increase the charge solely for the purpose of creating a surplus. Calculations in paragraphs II.B., VII.A.I. and VIII.A assume a $3,100 operational charge. D. Restrictions on Fundina Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet  schools other than under paragraph II E. below. The Districts obligation to contribute funds to magnet schools shall be limited to their paying their portion of the costs of the six existing magnet schools pursuant to the Court's order of February 27, 1987. Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver Williams Gibbs Booker Mann Parkview 613 515 351 660 935 991 E. Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: 4 (1) The State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) using the formula employed by the State during the 1987-88 school year modified by the inclusion of the number of students from each District attending magnet schools in the calculation of that District's table rate for distribution of MFPA; (2) Majority to minority student transfer incentive payments to the host and home Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation; (3) The State's share of Magnet Review Committee allocated; expenses as currently (4) Transportation to the six existing (5) magnet schools; Transportation of majority to minority transfer students between the Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation; and (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. 5 ., The funds paid by _the State under this agreement are not intende~ to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas. F. Comoensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs The settlement payments described in this agreement are exclusive of any funds for compensatory education, early childhood development or other programs that may otherwise be due LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which students residing in territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of such students if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education), PCSSD or NLRSD under present and future school assistance programs established or administered by the State. The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. G. Conditions to Settlement This settlement is conditioned upon approval by the Districts' boards of directors (already done) and the State Board of Education (already done), the certification of the classes and class representatives by the court (already done), the 6 . ' execution of the releases attached hereto as Attachments A, B, C and D, the dismissal of the State from this Litigation with prejudice consistent with the terms of Attachment A, the approval of the terms of the settlement by the court and the enactment of legislation prior to August 15, 1989 either (1) making provision for the funding of the Settlement or (2) authorizing the Arkansas State Board of Education (State Board) to enter into a consent order which directs the State Board to make the payments which would fund the obligations of the State under the Settlement (already done) . As used in this agreement, \"final approval\" means after all these conditions have been satisfied. If final approval of this settlement agreement is not obtained, no statement in the agreement may be used for or against any party as an admission of liability intent. H. Act 34 Exemption No sums received by t.h e Districts pursuant to this settlement shall be regarded as included within the definitions of total local resources, net local resources, gross current revenue, or miscellaneous funds pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 6-20-301, et seq. or pursuant to any amendments to those sections which may hereinafter be enacted. 7 .. All funds received by the Districts pursuant to this agreement, . including any interest or earnings thereon, will be exempt from Sections 8 and 11 of Act 34 of 1983 (A.C.A. Sections 6-20-307 and 6-20-319) as amended or as may be amended, with the following exceptions: (1) For the 1989-90 and later school years, all MFPA funds received by the Districts, as calculated in accordance with A.C.A. 6-20-302 (1987 Supp.), including the portion of that calculationrepresented by the Districts' magnet students, will not be exempt; and (2) the funds received by the Districts for any compensatory education, early childhood education, and other statewide programs contemplated by paragraph II.F. will be exempt only if the funds are exempt in all other districts in the State, and if so, those funds which are exempt cannot be counted by the Districts as expenditures satisfying Act 34's requirement that 70% of net current revenue be used to pay certified personnel. I. Staff Development To facilitate the Plans, the ADE authorizes each District up to four \"release days\" per year for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Those would be divided as two release days per semester. Further, two such release days, one per semester, shall be provided for the 1991-92 school year. 8 These \"rele~e days\" will have the effect of shortening by ~our days in each of the first two years and two days in the last year, the student contact/instructional days contained within the Districts school .calendars. The parties recognize that any detriment which might result from the reduction of contact days will be outweighed by the benefits derived from the staff development training (which will include all appropriate desegregation training and specialized training in strategies designed to reduce the level of achievement disparity between black and white students) and the increased efficiency and competence of the trained teachers. It is further understood and agreed that these release days shall be in addition to any staff development days currently required or which might be required in the future by ADE or other State authority. J. Recognition of Autonomy The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 9 K. District Budgets The Distric~s may utilize the receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to _balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of retaliating legislation) against the for the purpose of Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts .  M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 10 all of the millages and consequently not all of the millages sought .to be rededicated have actually been rededicated. The parties agree that the court's order of December 29, 1986 (reinstated January 7, 1987) should be corrected to include all millages of the Districts which would otherwise expire before or during the year 2007. Pursuant to this settlement, a corrected order has been submitted to the court for approval following final approval of the settlement. Upon approval, the order will be delivered to the responsible county officials. N. Limit of Liability The State's financial liability under this Settlement beyond that set forth in II.E. and II.F. shall be limited to $129,750,000 to be paid as set forth in Sections V, VI, VII and VIII herein. O. Majoritv to Minority Provisions (1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of  the Arkansas General Assembly, the receiving district /  for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to Section 6(A) of said Act. (2) The State will continue to make payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that -the host district receives its average cost of , , educating a student fQr each M to M transfer stud~nt enrolled in the host district. (3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and in PCSSD, all M to M payments generat::id by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payments to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. the This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. ( 4) .-Beginning _the irst -year an -Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCS SD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by .b oth districts to operate Interdistrict Schools. P. Consent Order The parties consent to the entry of an order containini the requirements of Act 1 of 1989, Second Extraordinary Session, to the extent it is not inconsistent with this settlement. 12 III. State's Role in the Desegrecration Process A. Monitorincr. Comoensatorv Education The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor, through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). If such petitions are filed, the undersigned parties will not object based upon lack of standing. ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the court. Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State .  A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensato~y education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following execution of the settle.me.nt agreement. B. Statement of Support for the Plans The State, Districts and Joshua will provide to the court a statement of full support for the Plans 13 _, upon final approval of the settlement. This statement of . support will not be construed to burden the State with additional funding obligations beyond those existing at the ti.me of the execution of this agreement except those specifically set forth in this agreement. C. Petition for Election The State will join LRSD if LRSD petitions the court to allow it to hold a millage election. D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegrecration The ADE will research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the General Assembly as soon as practicable. ADE will not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation, and the other parties will notify ADE of any regulations which they believe would have such an effect. If any regulation is demonstrated to have such an effect, the regulation will be modified or repealed or an exemption will be provided. The Districts, Knight and Joshua will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. E. Elimination of State Funding for the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service has ceased and the funds were reallocated 14 to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation. F. Commitment to Principles The State remains corrani tted to the following principles: a. There should be a  remediation of the racial academic achievement disparities for Arkansas students. b. Special education classes and gifted and talented classes should not be racially identifiable. c. The ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegre-gation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State. G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement The ADE, with the assistance of the Court's desegregation expert(s), will develop and will search for programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students. If necessary to develop such programs, the ADE will employ appropriately trained and experienced consultants in the field of remediation of racial achievement disparities and/or hire as staff members persons with such training and experience. The remediation of racial achievement disparities shall remain a high priority with the ADE. H. Test Validation ADE will conduct periodic reviews of tests used in the State's testing program to determine if students' race, sex, or culture adversely affect their test scores. If bias is found in any test, that test will not be used unless modified to eliminate the bias. I. In-Service Training ADE will establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs of desegregating school districts. Such programs will first be made available to the Districts. J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers The Districts will annually supply ADE information identifying the subject areas in which they have actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers. The ADE will then obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher  16 graduates in those subject areas and make such information available to the Districts. ADE will seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and to other districts in the state through recruitment efforts both in and out of state, and at the same time shall develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty, subject area and area of certification. K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates The ADE will work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to secure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attending Arkansas colleges and universities who commit to  become teachers in Arkansas, including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs. L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff The ADE will develop and implement a plan to identify jobs and consultant positions within the Department  in which minorities are underrepresented and will recruit and employ minority applicant_s for those positions so as to create a balanced, desegregated staff at all levels. , .., M. School Construction The ADE will. develop criteria for site selection of new schools, major school expansion and school closings. ADE will require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or major school expansion provide a desegregation impact statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect. ADE will not recommend or approve the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative impact on any District's ability to desegregate. IV. Dismissal of Litigation A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release The State conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. The  settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of and compliance with the terms of the release of all claims against the State affixed  hereto as - Attachment A. The settlement of the State's liability, while contingent on the district court's approval, is not contingent upon court approval of any District's plan or a finding of 18 unitary status for . any District. Further, the settlement is c~ntingent upon a determination by the district court that the settlement is binding on the classes of all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students, their parents and next friends. As part of this settlement, the parties stipulate that the Joshua Intervenors are proper class representatives under and otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and support their approval. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of the releases of the Districts attached as Attachments B, C and D. The parties pledge to diligently pursue acceptance of the settlement by the court. B. Agreement Regarding Litiaation Among Joshua and the Districts Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further liti~ation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. c. Reserved Issue The Districts and Joshua contend that ADE has the authority to regulate private schools and should exercise that authority to insure that private schools comply with the same educational standards that are applicable to p_ublic schools. ADE is not persuaded that it is vested with such authority. The parties therefore agree that the issue of State regulation of private schools is not settled by this agreement and may be presented _ to the court for resolution at a future date. As this settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the State as a party to this Litigation, the ADE agrees to make a special appearance following such dismissal -for the sole purpose of responding to a motion filed by any of the Districts or Joshua seeking the resolution of the single question of its legal authority to regulate private schools and require them to comply with certain educational standards. A finding that the ADE has such authority shall not be used by any party as the basis for any State liability for the period prior to such finding. V. Attorneys' Fees LRSD agrees to make no additional c !aims for attorneys' fees and to hold the State, PCSSD and NLRSD harmless for all pending LRSD claims for attorneys' fees against the State, PCSSD and NLRSD. If necessary to enforce the hold harmless agreement, the State will be entitled to deduct the amount of any payment for LRSD attorneys' fees made after the execution 20 of this agreement from any payment due from the State to LRSD under this agreem~nt more than five months after the . attorneys' fees payment is made. The State, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Ful)d, Inc . . (LDF). The fees will be paid upon terms set forth below for the work performed in this Litigation and other litigation which preceded this Litigation beginning with Aaron v. Cooper, Graves v. Board of Education and their progeny. The payment to LDF is on behalf of, and for the work of, all attorneys who have worked with LDF on behalf of the interests of black children in the Districts, to desegregate schools therein, over the duration of the Litigation. The amount is exclusive of the payments heretofore made by any of the parties. The State's portion of the fee will be $750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars); . the LRSD' s portion shall be $2,000,000 (Two Million Dollars); the PCSSD's portion shall be $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars); and NLRSD's portion shall be $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars), which shall include settlement of fees for the voting rights action also ' pending in this court of which settlement on the merits is contemplated shortly. All such payments shall be due and payable on final approval except for the payments due from the PCS SD and NLRSD. The PCSSD payment shall mature six years from the date of final approval of the settlement. The NLRSD shall make two payments each in the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) no later than 10 days of final approval of ., , the settlement and July 1,. 1990, respectively. The State will advance LRSD's share. of the fees and reduce total payments due LRSD under this agreement by that amount. The amounts will be deducted in the final years of payment to LRSD. The parties are satisfied that over the thirty-three years of this Litigation, Joshua and its predecessor parties, all of whom have been represented by attorneys for the LDF have expended time and incurred costs for which they have not been compensated. The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this Litigation over the last five years, that the payment is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of ti.me to counsel for the o~er parties. The parties also agree for purposes of this settlement that Joshua is a prevailing party for purposes of relief. VI. The LRSD Settlement A. Payment Schedule and Terms The State will make the following payments to the LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which  the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for the education) on or before the dates indicated: 22 - (1) Payments for compensatory education progr_ams and other desegregation expenses will be as follows: Within 10 days of Final Approval $4,475,000 January 1, 1990 3,475,000 July 1, 1990 4,609,250 January 1, 1991 3,609,250 July 1, 1991 4,747,528 January 1, 1992 3,747,528 July 1, 1992 4,889,954 January 1, 1993 3,889,954 July 1, 1993 5,036,652 January 1, 1994 4,036,652 July 1, 1994 4,057,460 January 1, 1995 3,057,460 July 1, 1995 2,985,131 January 1, 1996 1,985,131 July 1, 1996 1,844,811 January 1, 1997 844,811 July 1, 1997 1,266,770 January 1, 1998 266,770 July 1, 1998 152,387 . January 1, 1999 152,387 $59,129,886 - 23 (2) The State will make additional payments to LRSD totaling $13,870,114 over a seven year period as set forth below: Within 10 days of Final Approval $2,000,000 7/1/90 $2,000,000 7/1/91 $2,000,000 7/1/92 $2,000,000 7/1/93 $2,000,000 7/1/94 $2,000,000 7/1/95 $1,870,114 These payments are cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees for LRSD provided for in an earlier signed version of this settlement. B. Loan Provisions In addition to the above-mentioned payments, the State agrees to provide loans to LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for  their education) .between July 1, 1989 and July 1, 1999 in a cumulative amount of not more than $20,000,000.00 on the following terms: (1) . Each loan will be amortized over a 20-year period to be paid in full to an escrow account established by the parties as described below with 20 24 equal annual payments of principal begin~ing seven years following the execution of the loan: (2) No more than $6,000,000 will be loaned in any biennium and no loan will be made before July 1, 19891 (3) Each loan will bear interest beginning seven years following the execution of the loan at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum, such interest to be paid annually at the time of the annual principal payments to an escrow account established by the parties as described below; (4) The proceeds of the loans shall be made payable to a trust governed by a trust committee consisting of the Director of the Department of Education {or designee), the LRSD Superintendent {or designee) and a designee of Joshua.  The loan proceeds shall be used for desegregation purposes including, but not limited to, school construction or renovation, salaries of instructional personnel, equipment purchase of instructional and supplies, program development and implementation costs, consultant,s' fees and and staff development training of LRSD principals , and teachers to promote desegregation. The loan proceeds will not be utilized directly or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates; (5) The loan(s) will be secured by a first lien in favor of the State on existing, extended or new millages (whichever the State chooses}, such first lien to be assured by an opinion letter to the benefit of the State from LRSD's bond counsel; ( 6) LRSD and the State will establish a joint escrow account into which all principal and interest due on loans made under this agreement will be paid. If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the  composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students} , the escrowed funds will be 26 paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven . If the 90% goal is . not reached by December 31, 2000, the escrow funds will be paid to the State and any outstanding loans will continue to be repaid according to the schedule set orth in this agreement. The intent of this subsection is that LRSD will receive twenty million dollars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement as described in this subsection is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amount of all loans plus interest if LRSD does not reach its goal. VII. The PCSSD Settlement A. Financial Settlement PCSSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of PCSSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA, the State's role in the Granite Mountain transfer and compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by PCSSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of PCSSD students. 27 ., 1. Magnet Pavments The ADE sha~l, beginning with the 1989-90 school . year, make . payments of school aid for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD which shall in turn reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per PCSSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for PCSSD magnet students or may make such ~id payments for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD. If the latter option is selected, then PCS SD shall make total payments to LRSD of $3,100 per year for each PCSSD magnet student or the appropriate pro rata share of said $3,100 if  such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available u~der II.B. herein. 2. Other Payments (a) The State shall make the following six scheduled payments to PCSSD: Within 10 days of Final Approval $3,000,000 07/01/90 07/01/91 07/01/92 07/01/93 07/01/94 28 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 (b) The State shall make the following payments as cash equivale?ts in lieu of the Temporary Formula and the transportation aid adjustment set out in an earlier signed version of this settlement: Within 10 days of Final Approval $1,000,000 7/1/90 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 B. Staff Develooment $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 PCSSD is exploring the utility of a program under which all certified staff would experience three college hours of course work in Black History or other similar course offering. PCSSD is exploring and evaluating this concept to facilitate its efforts to reduce the achievement disparity between black and white students. ADE and PCSSD recognize and understand that such a program, if it required PCSSD to fully fund presently prevailing college tuition charges, would be prohibitively expensive. ADE pledges to use its best efforts to work with appropriate Arkansas colleges and universities to facilitate a special arrangement which would significantly reduce the cost of such a program to PCSSD and 29 make it financially possible to implement. ADE . assumes no additional financial responsibility pursuant to this commitment. c. Food Services LRSD agrees  to contract with PCS SD for any food products which LRSD can obtain from PCSSD at the same or lower cost than LRSD can obtain the same quality products from other vendors. D. Housing ADE agrees to use its best efforts to influence appropriate state agencies to assist PCSSD in its efforts to promote and secure scattered site housing in the PCSSD by securing and providing, to the extent feasible, state owned or controlled land suitable for such use. VIII. The NLRSD Settlement NLRSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of NLRSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA and to compensatory education needs .  The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by NLRSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of NLRSD students. A. Magnet Pavrnents The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD which shall in turn 30  reimburse LRSD at he rate of $1,550 per NLRSD magnet school student ~eing educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for NLRSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for NLRSO magnet students directly to NLRSD. If the latter option is selected, then NLRSD shall make total payments to the LRSD of $3,100 per year per each NLRSD magnet student or the appropriate pro-rata share of said $3,100 if such students  are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. B. Compensatory Education Pavments Beginning with the 1989-90 school year and continuing through the 1995-96 school year, the State will, on July 1 of each year, pay NLRSD $389,025 (a total of $2,723,175 for the seven year period). C. Additional Payments As additional compensatory education assistance, beginning with the 1990-91 school year and continuing through the 1996-97 school year, the NLRSD will receive payments to support the reduction of the percentage of the total black student population that 31 is in its special education program. The formula fbr such payments is_ as follows: (1) The first step is to determine a Base Year, or starting point, to which placements in further years will be compared. The October 1, 1987 general enrollment data and the December, 1987 special education count will be used to establish this base and calculations pursuant to this formula will be based on those counts in future years. On October 1, 1987, the NLRSD had 4083 black students, including those attending magnet schools, (Total Black Population - \"TBP\") and 805 black students were in special education, including those attending magnet schools, (Blacks in Special Education - \"BSE\") in December, 1987. Thus, 19.72% of the District's total black population was in special education ( \"Black Placement Rate\"). (2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below and solely for determining the amount of these formula payments, the NLRSD will receive the State Base Equalization Rate (SBER) multiplied by the special education weights for the difference between the number of black students actually in special education  and the number that would have been in special education if there had been no reduction in the BPR since the Base Year. Because of delayed year financing, the student counts will be taken in school 32 _., years 1989-90 through ~995-96 but payments for those counts will be made in 1990-91 through 1996-97 using the payment year's SBER. By way of illustration, if the TBP in 1989-90 is 4212, applying the BPR for the Base Year would result in .1972 x 4212, or 830.6, black students in special education. If the actual number is 772, the District would be entitled to payment for the special education weights (average .714 per student) for 58.6 students, which would result in 41.8 weights. (3) Since the District cannot control placement decisions in other districts, for purposes of this formula black students who transfer into the NLRSD already placed in special education by their original school district will be excluded from the count of TBP and BSE for their first year of enrollment in the NLRSD to the extent that those incoming transfers exceed black students in special education who transfer from the NLRSD to other districts. For example, if 52 black special education students  transfer into the NLRSD between the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years while only 37 transfer out, 15 black students would be excluded from the TBP and ESE in 19 89-9 0 for the purpose of this formula. Thus, the NLRSD would be counted as only having 4197 TBP instead of 4212 and 757 BSE instead of 772 and would be paid for the special education weights associated _, I  i \\. ( with the difference between 827.6 and 757 BSE, i.e., 70.6. (4) As further support for the reduction of black students placed in special education and solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the payments, the NLRSD will be entitled to payment for the special education weights associated with the difference between the number of students removed from special education in the NLRSD and placed in the regular program in the NLRSD and those moved from the regular NLRSD program an_d placed in special education in the NLRSD. For example, if between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the District removed 83 black students from special education and placed 64 in special education, the District would be paid for the special education weights for an additional 19 students, which would result in 13.6 weights. (5) A list of names (and identification numbers, if available) of the special education students referred to in paragraph ,3 and 4 above, will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education, before any payment is made under these provisions. (6) Because of delayed year financing, the operation  of this formula will not result in any additional funds until 1990-91. Presently, the SBER is $1,944.55 and, asswning a $74.00 per year 34 increase, it would be $2,018 in 1990-91. Using the above examples, ~his would generate $129,757. (7) The District may continue to receive payments under this formula only through the 1996-97 school year {inclusive) but in no event will the District receive more than $2,344,055 cumulatively through the operation of this formula. The limit of the State's obligation under this formula is $1,276,825. If the amount of the payments exceeds $1,276,825, LRSD and PCSSD agree to pay those excess amounts up to the point that either (a) the over-all payments to NLRSD under this formula reach $2,344,055 or (b) the expiration of the formula, whichever comes first. (8) Any payments required of LRSD and PCSSD under paragraph (7) will be shared on the basis of 75% for LRSD and 25% for PCSSD. (9) If, when the formula expires, the fonnula has generated less than $1,276,825, the State will pay the difference between what it has paid and $1,276,825 to LRSD and PCSSD on the basis of 75% to LRSD and 25% to PCSSD. (10) Any payments made pursuant to this formula will be separate from the District's usual MFPA payments. D. Description of Additional Comoensatory Education Programs Within fifteen days of the final approval of this settlement, the NLRSD will develop a description of the compensatory education programs to be developed with the additional compensatory education funds made available through this settlement and will petition the court to amend NLRSD  s Plan accordingly. The State, Joshua, and the Districts will support the NLRSD in this effort. IX. Execution A. This Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, is executed as revised by counsel with authority of their clients this 28th day of September, 1989. LITTLE BY'l ~~q~~~::;2:~~~- Christopher Helle One of Its Attorneys * * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By~l \\h.-nn-1,(Q.,'n,- ~_1/amuel Jones / / i~e o/ts Attvs ./ 36 * * * * * NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRI~ By: , ~ t). sifpnw. Jones ~ One of Its Attorneys * * * * * ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF :::CA~~~ H. William Allen One of Its Attorneys .. * * * * JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: ~ ti Id, ih\u0026amp; ( b t,/A s \"JR) d6hn W. Walker J One of Their Attorneys .. * * * * KNIG~RVENORS By: )~ Pauz?/ Ward One 6 Their Attorneys . RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE For and in consideration of its payments and commitments set forth in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the State of Arkansas, its constitutional officers, elected officials, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors including, but not limited to, the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond 2 the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth -Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current members of that board named in the Litigation. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced payments or commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By=-~-----,.---------- Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By ~P:-r_e_s_i.,. .a~e-n-:-t-,----:B=-o-a-r\"\"\"'a=--o-f-=--=-o-:-i-r_e_c_,t-o-r-s- EXECUTED THIS day of WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 * * * * * -------, 1989 by: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 BY----,--,,----,----,,--,,,__.....,.. ___ _ President, Board of Directors By: -M-. -S-am-u-e=l J-o-n-es- -------- One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By: -S-te-p-h-e,n- -W-. -J-o-n-e-s- -------- One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By __ __,...,,------------,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. BNyorm-a-n -J-. -C-ha-ch-k-in- ----- One of its Attorneys and JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By ______________ _ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By ____ ...,,.,,--,,.,,._ _______ -,--__ _ LRSD Class Representative By ____ ...,....,,-----.---.---.---- President, Little Rock,  Arkansas Branch of the NAACP BY.,.,..,,.........,~----,,-----------,-\"T\"\"\"- NLRSD Class Representative and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP ByP-C:S:S-D- ::C=l-a:s=s- -R-=ep:-r-e-s-e-n-t-a-t-i-v-e,- --- EXECUTED this --- day of WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 4 * * * * * ------, 1989 by: KNIGHT INTERVENORS By _________ --,-_____ _ LRCTA Representative BY__,. _____________ _ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys By _________ - _____ _ PACT Representative By __________ - ____ _ NLRCTA Representative ....... RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the LRSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, successors agencies, (hereafter departments, their predecessors and collectively . referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutic~al or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and ATTACHMENT B 2 that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. . It is further understood and agreed that the litigation I now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Coooer v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v.  Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. 3 EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By-::-.--,----------=--,,---:----- By: _______________ Chairman, Board of Directors H. William Allen One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED THIS --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By: _M_ __s am_u_e~l__J_ o__ n_e_s_ _____ One of its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By __ ,_ ___________ _ President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By __ -,-___________ _ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By-----,-:-------,-----,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of _______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DE_FENSE FUND, INC. By _____________ _ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys and By ______________ _ LRSD Class Representative ByP-r-e-s-i-d,e-n:-t,- -L--i.t-t-l-e= -R-o=c:k-, -,----- Arkansas Branch of the NAACP JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220l ByJo~h-n= W--. -W=-a-lk-e-r= --c--------- One of its Attorneys 4 By :--::Nc-:L-=RS=o::--::c::-:1.-a=-s-s-=R-e_p_r_e_s_e_n_t,...a_t,...1.,.. v-e-- and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By- =-==-==-=---=-'=-----=,-----,--.,......,..--- PCS SD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BRyic~ha-rd- -W.- -R-oa-c-he-ll- ----- One of its Attorneys RNIGHT INTERVENORS By -L=RC-=TA= =R-e=p-r-e--s-e=n-t-a-t-i-v-e-, ---,------- By= -===--==-------,--....,.....,,------- PACT Representative By =NL- R=C- T=A ::R=e:p:r-e-s::e:n-t-a-t-i-v-e- ,-------- RELEASE bF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PCSSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the PCSSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern ATTACHMENT C 2 - District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the.terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for tl}e Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Zinnamon v. Pulaski Countv School District, LR-C-68-154) ( the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the P.CSSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the  event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. .... 3 EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By: --,---,,----------,--,,------ Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT _By_--,-------,,--,=-----,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED THIS --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 7i201 By: ____________ _ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ByC-h=a-i-rm,-a--n-, --B-o--a-r,d, --o-f- -D-.i-r-e-.c,t-o--r-s- - * * * * * EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By ----~------------ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By=---=----,,_-...,,....-,=--::--:----:--- President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. By _____________ _ Nonnan J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys and By~-=~=---,,,_------,------ LRSD Class Representative By=---=----,--,,.....,.~-=-__,,-,--....,...---- President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP .. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. l 7 z:i c _ ...Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - By -:J,_o,..h-n--=w-=--. -w-a-=1-=-k_e_r _______ One of its Attorneys 4 By _____ ~=------,-----,--.,-,---- NLRSD Class Representative and Pre  idant of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By ______________ _ PCSSD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BRYic-h,a-rd- -W,.. -R-o-a-c-h-e-ll- ------ One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS By ___________ -=-------,------- LRCTA Representative By --------,,--------,------- PACT Representative By __________ -,-____ _ NLRCTA Representative f . __., _ RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE NLRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Considerationa), the undersigned parties do hereby discharge the NLRSD, its release, acquit and forever directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth ATTACHMENT D 2 Circuit and that the tenns of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Graves v. Board of Education of North Little Rock School District and Davis v. Board of Education of the North Little Rock School District (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the NLRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and  all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. l  ' 3 EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By ___ ---:-:----,--=---=--=---,----- President, Board of Directors ByCh=ris-to-p-h-er- H-e-l-le-r ----- One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED THIS day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By: ____ - _______ _ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By __ - ______________ _ President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By _____________ _ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By...,,.-;----:-------,,---,,---,----- Chairman, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. ByN~o-rn--ia-n- --J-.- =C,h-a--c-h:k-i-n- :--:------- By .,....,,.......,..,..----,c-::----------,----- LRSD Class Representative One of its Attorneys and BPyr=es-id-e-n-t-,: -L=it-tl-e- -R-o-c-k-, ----- Arkansas Branch of NAACP .... JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 7228J BJyo-h=n -W-.= W--a-lk-e-r- -,.--------- One of its . Attorneys 4 ByN=L-R-:S-D:: :-C::l:a--s-s:: :R-::e--p-r-e::s:-e-n--t-a-.t,i.v..e., ..--and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By~---------...,,..,,-------------- PCSSD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 By-_____________ _ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS ByLR~C-TA= .R.,e,p.-re=s-e-n-t-a-ti-v-e- -,,------ BPyA=CT- =Re-p-r-e-se-n-t-a-ti-v-e- -------- ByNL=RC-T=A --R-e-p:r-e=se-n-t~at-i-v-e- ------- H . WUJ..lAM Au.DI S..V.t\u0026gt;M J.-.o:so:-- All.EN LA w FIRM A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A TIDRNEYS AT LAW 1200 WORTiiEN BANlC BUll.DING LITn..E Roa:, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 374-7100 'Tll.l:CCl'Y ,,01, )74, Jt,)J May 31, 1989 Re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 Nl1'A MOSl;R llGAJ. ASSlST A! John W. Walker, Esq. Christopher Heller, Esq. Stephen W. Jones, Esq. HAND DELIVERED M. Samuel Jones, Esq. Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In accordance with Ill .A. of the Pulaski County Desegregation Settlement 1-.qreement of March, 19 89, we are enclosing an Arkansas Department of Education plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education in the three school distrjcts. The settlement agreement does not provide for filing or even submission of this document to the Court at this time. However, we are sending copies to both Judge Woods and ~r. Mccutcheon so that they may be aware that this requirement of the settlement agreement has been met. We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified after receiving your comments and after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville. Sincerely you~s, ALLEN LA\\\u0026gt;! FI RM H. William Allen HWA/nm Enclosure cc: The Honorable Henry Woods The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. bee: Dr. Ruth Steele Sam Bratton, Esq. Sharon Streett, Esq . Marion J. Starling, Jr., Esq. EXHIBIT :i ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PULASKI COUNTY DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the school districts in Pulaski County. The ADE defines compensatory education programs as those programs which are directed at improving the academic performance of black students whose academic achievement has been adversely affected by racial discriminatory practices within the school. The state believes that the compensatory effects of the programs should be measured by the extent to which disparities in educational achievement between minority and majority students are reduced. Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the primary area for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an equitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal accountability to the tax payers of Arkansas. Monitoring responsibilities for desegregation effectiveness by necessity mu s t permeate all elements of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial programs. Therefore, it shall be the goal of the ADE to provide extensive monitoring and evaluation of the Agreement. The primary focus of the process shall be a continuous assessment of the remedial effectiveness of programs supported partially or fully by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and services receiving special funding include: 1. Compensatory Education 2. Magnet Schools 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits the state to: 1. Direct funding to the districts (within the limits provided in the Agreement) 2. Principles of desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement disparities 1 - b. Standardized test validation c. Racial balance in special programs d. Minor.i ty recrui t .mcnt and employment 3. Site selection crlteria for school construction or ~xpa.nsion 4. Staff development release days for the three districts through 1990-1991 S. Tw~nt.y m.i l lion dollars loan to Little Rock School District to develop programs for rem~diating achievement disparities and for other programs and initiatives which fncilitate desegregation 6. Selection of an agreed standardized test to satisfy the lo~n forgiveness of the Agreement Further, Section III-A of the Agreement states: ,, .. The ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports t~ the partiP.s and the court. MDn.itoring by the statP. shall be independent. of that of the other parties. 3. As a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modifications or changes in such programs being imp)emented by the districts \\but not for il reduction in the agr~ed level of state funding). ~- Any recommendations made by J\u0026gt;.DE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the state. Jl.l though, the J\u0026gt;.DE: moni taring shall be independent of that of t:ie other parties, the districts are advised to establish a11 internal monitoring p1an. The purpose shall be to determine and document that: 1. Th~ desegregation plan was, or is being implemented on a timely basis, 2. lneguities do not exist and/or do not recur; and 3. All students are afforded an equitable education. 2  !SGNl TOHHIG ~he monjtoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as perceptual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monitoring visits should provide evidence that the school s.ite is representative of the pluralistic nature of the Arr,erican Society. Moni tor:1 ng tcc1ms shall be selected by the Director, J:-.rkansas Dep,ntment of Educ at ion (ADE), General Di vision. The teams shall include ADE personnel and may iuclude others as designated by the Director. Monitoring visits .shall be conducted according to a schedule e;-:;tc:1blis11cd by the l\\DE.  The rnoni toring process shall include announced and unannounced visits. M~nltors shall record ~vents and conditions during site visits. Monitors shall observe and report. findings only. Each district shall include in the six-year pla11 and ~nnual .sc:h0ol .improveillcnt pL;.n:s appropriate objectives to c1ch.ieve c0mpliance with each court order related to the Agreement. The ADE shall monitor the six-yec1r plans and ;innual school improvemC'nt plans t0 dE::t~rmine prouress toward uchieving educatio11al equity. District plans should provide evidence of 88w.pliur.ce with co~rt orders and 3 process to ascertain progress . -  'The AD\"E shall identify relevant dat.a necessary to formulate conclusions and recommendations. Data should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and regulations ar~ developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Ev.5.dencc that student assignments to schools, classes and pr,)grams at each organ.izat ional }eve) are made wit.hout b :i.as. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process. S. Evidence that tr2vel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-blc:1.ck stude-nc.s and the percent~ge of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe-r\u0026lt;::entr.19e of non-black students transported for d~segregation. G. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are nun-discriminatory. 8. EvidencP. that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and ::1ssigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating .school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricula and (:o~urricula activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. 11. Evidence of diverse representation on appointed distr:i ctwide and school-bilsed commi tteP.s. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance aL school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 4 I i 1, -'-- 1). E~idence of success related to Majority to Minority 't \"t alJsf er s. Evidence that magnet schools arc an effective lnlerdi~trict remedy for racial balance. The collection of data shall include at least the fol1owing: A. Enrollment/.Att.endanc1:: 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional programs. 2. Enrollment by rnce, gender, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional program fo~ each magnet school. ]. Nwnber of non promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and nontransported. B. Test Data 1. 2. 3. ArY.ansas Minimum Performance Test results by race, gender, grade, school and socioeconomic status (SES). Nwnber of eighth grade1.s failing to attain mastery after the first, second and third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. Nw11ber of eighth graders that are non promotes for failing to a t tain mastery after third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. 4. Metropolitan Achievement Test - 6th Edition or other national normed tests as may be adopted by the :Z..DE. Results should be given by race, gender, grade, school, SES and teacher. 5. Number of 11th and 12th graders by race, gender, school and guidance counselor who take the PSAT, ShT or ACT. c.. .Staff 1. Number of Full Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) classroom teacl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 2. Number of F.T.E. school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience . 3. Nwnber of F.T.E. counselors by race, gender, school, years of experience. s - ~ . 5. 6. 7. ,... 0. Numher of F. 'J'. E . ):inderg3.rtP.n teachers by race, 0ender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. lib.ra:cians by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. department. hcr1ds by race, gender, scliool, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience. N'.m,ber :::,f F.T.E. centr:11 office positions by job ~ategory, race, gender, school, years of experience. D. Policy and Program Information 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. 2. ?o}icies and regulations related to student entrance 3nd exit criteria for course offerings and special st.ate funded programs including: ~- Magnet Schools h. Comperisa tor:,, Educ:a tion c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 3. Student assig1ment policies, rules and regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment h. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Library Usage g. Student Records 5. Copir.s of current negotiated agreements with all employee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high scl1ool programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state dese...gregation funding). 6 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. ~11 legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensa~ory Education Program cost 5. Magnet school cost F. Student Discipline 1. Number of discipline referrals by school and teacher reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, school services, district and buildin~ leadership, special state funded programs and educational equity summarized by race, gender, attendance zone, sc:hou1 and grade. H. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade level, by sending and rE:ceiving district. ;..nalysis of data shall bE: conducted by appropriate ADE personnel ond other persons as designated by the ADE director. Additional data may be required of the districts, a~ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring reports. A schedule for submitting the data shall be established by the ADE. Si!lce the monitor .i.ng is massive antl encompassir,g, thE: ADE shall establish monitoring priorities as follows: 1. Programs and services supported by special state desegregation funding including compensatory education, magnet schools, majority to minority transfers and related transportation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation identified as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 1t.0ni t.oring ncti vi ties shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistance Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a t.cam of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one te.am member will be an education professional from th~ J\u0026gt;.DE. The Equity Assistance Ct:?nter may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring acti ,1i ties. REPORTING The ADF. sr1al l provide a written report to the parties and the Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on FeDruary 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or 11earest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. TI1e written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs and serviccs receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financial and program information. The Ji.DE Desegregation Assistance Team shall provide technical assistance and support as necessary to implement monitoring and reporting responsibilities. Current team members are: Administration Emma Bass Sterling Ingram Robert-. Shaver Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Elizabeth Gaston Jncentive Schools C;uolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Ear)y Childhood TBA Curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Student Services Brenda Matthews Ma1g.ie l'o,;ell Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Special Education Diane Sydoriak Renny Abraham Staff Development C'-ayle Teal Jackie Dedman 2taff Attornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean iJcEn':.ire MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the 11 Settlement Agreement 11 ) between the Little Rock School District ( 11 LRSD 11 ) and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas , acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education ( \"ADE \" ) will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs , Booker , Mann and Parkview) ; and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State ' s magnet funding obligation so that the State is required t o provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4,065 seats ; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4 , 065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Plan, LRSD reorganized its includes middle schools; and its Revised Desegregation and Education schools into a new configuration whi ch WHEREAS , the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court ' s approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools ; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than t hey did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement ; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court , in which it asserts that the State ' s magnet school funding obligat ions are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its s hare of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; - in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and EX HI B l:T 5 WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolv~ their differences concerning the effect of LRSD ' s restructuring on the State ' s obligation to fund the six original magnet schools . THEREFORE , it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State ' s obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court ' s order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation. ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at S of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD ' s and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended , as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE ' s ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. ff Executed this!:!_ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By=~--------------- Christopher Heller 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School Di:strict (\"LRSD\"), and the St ate of Arkansas (the ''State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Jvfike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the Staie are parties to the l 989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"] 989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes cen ain obligations on the State bur cont ains no provision st ating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unit ary and released from federal court monit oring and supervision but is concerned that if it is decl ared unitary the State may seek to 1erminat e it s obligations under the J 989 Settlement Agreement; \\\\THEREAS, pursuant to Section VJ .B. of the 1989 Settlement Agr eement, th e State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twemy milli on dollars), and there is present ly a dispu1e between the State and the LRSD as to whether tho se loans ,:vill be fo rgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the ] 989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the S1a1e's current funding formula fon public school distric1s, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fonding whi ch 1he State must distribute through the fo rmula; WHEREAS, how LRSD sm.,ctures its bond debt affects LfSD's per pupil revenue; Page J of 8 EX HIB IT b WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to S1rucrure its bond debt' so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following te~s and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good I faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the tennination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11. 8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February )9, 2001. 3 . ln order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts 10 attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek tci modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up lO arid including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to pangraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaskj County Special School District, and/or the North Litile Rock School District obtain panial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3 . l Provided, however, that this Agreement does 1101 li~it, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State\\ability to seek modification or tennination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Setllement Agreement (including P age 2 of 8 - as follows: 4_] The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen mmion dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section YI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. ,Any and al1 funds in the joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of i the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000_00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl_B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July l, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 .3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is rel~eved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these Joans irno a joint escrow account established by 1he State and the LRSD pursuant to Section  Vl.B of the l 989 Settlement Agreement. 4-3 For puJ7Joses of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. Jn the event an ord'er granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court super,vi sion as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Coun but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections YI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the St.ate the cuinulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2_ 4.4 The Parties shal1 promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VJ.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement fhat is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 43 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limi1 ed to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Panies shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable re solution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Setllement Agreement. ln the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropria1e with regard to said loans, including but not limited to sedung appropriate relief fi-om the Court. In the event such1relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the panies related to its negotiation or execution. shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD Page 5 of 8 .. 4 .6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Coun approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4 .6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and ~bligations of the Panies shal1 I remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the ,Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Panies may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate reljeffrom the Coun. )n the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms oftrus Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execu1ion. 6. This Agreement will 1erminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if fhe LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from couT1 supervision by June 30, 2004 . 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed m the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CJV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Coun shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out oft his Page 6 of 8 - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legaJiry of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. 1t is speci:fically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion=with the Joshua Jnten,enors. I 9. AJJ covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the ~ay of Ma~ch, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 \"~ / , , / 'l n\" , ~ nl'l.1 f 'T\u0026gt;V / T'\\V \" l l\"\\ r- A\"\"-, LITTI.,E ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRJCT BY: AR.KANSAS DEPARfMENT OF EDUCATION BY: / Page 8 of 8    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1738","title":"District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Retirement","Insurance","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Students","African Americans--Education","School enrollment","School attendance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order."],"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/1738"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["64 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order dated March 1, 2002; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, order; Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, second motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    \\: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR -1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") files the agreements identified below and attached hereto as required by the Court's order filed March 1, 2002: I. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD; 2. Early Childhood Special Education agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD andNLRSD; 3. Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: unitary status, sale of bonds and $20 million loan. 4. Memorandum of Understanding between the LRSD and the State re: magnet seats. 1 5. Agreement between the LRSD and Knight dated February 6, 1999, re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1Attached is what the LRSD believes to be the final draft of that agreement. Counsel for the LRSD could not locate an executed copy of the agreement in their files. - 6. Agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua and Knight dated February 8, 1999 re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 7. Settlement Agreement between the LRSD and PCSSD dated February 9, 1999 re: pooling agreement and teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 8. Agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 re: past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring of the LRSD. 9. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as modified and incorporated into Section 4 of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Section E of PCSSD's Plan 2000 (not attached). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989 (not attached). The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31 , 1989. Magnet Stipulation dated February 16, 1987 (not attached). M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986 (not attached). Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCTA regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BYoiu~:c. t-~d' Fendley, Jr. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 1, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 A. COVER PAGE Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program , PROJECT TITLE Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 1. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT a. Institution Little Rock School District and University of Central Arkansas Please check ~ categcry: Recruilment -L Preparation __ Professional Dev. b. Street/P.O. Box_ __- -\"9'\"'4. .1.7. \"--\"G\"\"e'\"'\"y\"\"er-'S\"\"p'-'-r'-'-in_,g=-s.:..R:.:o.:a=-d_ ___c . City Little Rock GRANT APPL/CATION NO. d. County ___ P-'u=la~s\"'\"k'\"\"i ___________ e. State_\"\"'A'\"'R ___ f. Zip Code. _ __:.7-=2=20=9._ __ _ g. PROJECT DIRECTOR(S) Name _ W.;..:.;:a:.:.:n.:d=-a ,B:.:a:.;:s:.:.:k:..:.;in:.:.s..:a:.:..:n.:d..;.Ka::ac.:.:.th.:.:.;lee=-=n'-\"A..,t,.,,ki::..,.n:::..s _______________ _ Email: WFBaskila)MCC.LRSD.Kl2.AR.US Telephone: 501-570-4144, 501-224-7736 and 501-450-5429 Department: Career and Technical Education Fax: 501-570-4144 and 501-224-7736 2. NAME(S) OF COLLABORATING SCHOOL 3. NAMES, TITLES AND PHONE #'S OF COLLABORATING SCHOOUCOLLEGE OFFICIALS Dr. Kathleen Atkins, Chair of Early Childhood and Special Educ. 501-450-5429 DISTRICTIS) AND COLLEGES Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special School District, UCA, UAPB, UALR, and Henderson PERSONS WHO WILL PROVIDE INSTRUCTION (name and department) A Dr. Alvin Futrell, ColleQe of Education at Henderson and Dr. Kathleen Atkins, ColleQe of Education at Univ of Central AR  Or. Bill GeiQer, ColleQe of Education at UALR 3. Or. Dorethea Davis, College of Education at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 6. PROPOSED FUNDING 7a. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT a. Grant Request $ 47,400 .00 (#) OF APPLICANT INSTITUTION(S): b. Applicant Match $ 48,050 .00 .00 7b. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (#) OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS SERVED: c. Cooperating Partner Match $ $ 1---------------+--------------i d. Other .00 Ba. PROJECT START 8b. PROJECT DURATION e. TOTAL $ 95,450 .00 JANUARY 1, 2002 12 MONTHS 9. PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 10. 11 . AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANT ACTION TAKEN a. Awarded ____ _ b. Rejected ____ _ :eturn for amendment _____ _ d. Withdrawn _____ _ NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 12. FUNDING a. Grant Award $ b. Applicant Match $ c. Cooperating Partner $ Match d. Other $ e. TOTAL $ TITLE: DATE: TITLE: DATE: 13. REMARKS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOT Program Director Chair/Early Childhood TOT Project Director Chair Early Childhood ...;  EXHIBIT \\_--------~------..J-----~---------~1 I !,. IC 8. PROJECT ABSTRACT Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program Please type. Complete all items on both sides. This form will be submitted to the Governor's office. PROJECT TITLE: Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 INSTITUTION: University of Central Arkansas PROJECT DIRECTOR(S): Wanda Baskins (Little Rock School District) Dr. Kathleen Atkins (U.C.A) PARTICIPATING LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District Category chosen ___X _T eacher Recruitment and Retention _____ Teacher Preparation ~ ___ Teacher Professional Development (check which area) Mathematics Science __ Foreign Language __ Special Education NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPANTS: _330 _In-Service Teachers --- Pre-Service Teachers _50_ College Faculty _350_ Other (Explain) Celebration in Teaching Program Banquet and Hall High Symposium PROJECT RATIONALE (Brief statement of assessed needs) : According to The National Education Association we are facing the most critical teacher shortage in history . Nationwide, some 2.4 million teachers will be needed in the next 11 years because of teacher attrition, retirement, and increased student enrollment. An estimated 6 percent of the nation's teaching force leaves the profession and 7 percent change schools per year. The National Center of Education Statistics report twenty percent of all new teachers will leave the field of teaching within three years, while nearly fifty  percent of new teachers in urban areas will exit the profession their first five years of teaching . As we face higher teacher attrition rates and decreased number of graduates in teacher education programs, public school student enrollment will continue to increase. By 2008 public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, and approximate 2 million increase over today's enrollment. - While research based statistics on teacher shortage in Arkansas are difficult to locate, districts in the state are finding that hiring new teachers is becoming more problematic (\"School Districts Make Sweet Deals to Attract Teachers,\" Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1999). The Arkansas Department of Higher Education 2 disseminated data in 2000 on the number of graduates with Baccalaureate and Master's Education Degrees in Arkansas from 1994-1999. This data indicates fewer number of students graduated with education degrees jiSE and MSE degrees combined) in 1999 than in previous years. Clearly this will have an impact on the . ilability of future teachers. Recruitment of future teachers must also focus on quality. With the current state and national emphasis on student achievement, we must recognize in order to improve student achievement we must improve the quality of teaching. Our future teachers of Arkansas must receive preparation programs that ensure the building of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a qualified teacher. The Teachers of Tomorrow Program seeks to continue long-range teacher recruitment efforts for Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts by promoting and expanding the future teacher clubs/classes and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. Although fewer college students are pursuing teaching careers, the redesign of the Teachers of Tomorrow Program using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet and Pro Team curriculum is encouraging. The Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) funding is vital for the enhancement of secondary and middle school classes being offered, and is needed to help provide networking opportunities for educators in the state who are interested in teacher recruitment and retention. \"For many, the pre-teaching experience acts as a springboard to college, career, and personal relationships where learning can be applied and nurtured.\" (May 2001 Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.) 3 GOALS (Statement of specific learning and performance objectives for participants): 41,als of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, TOT 2002, are to: 1) implement elective classes designed to encourage secondary students to consider teaching as a profession (using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet curriculum) 2) promote networking and recruitment opportunities between public schools, two-year colleges, and four year institutions 3) develop an awareness about the teacher shortage in Arkansas and 4) complete training/certification of two Teacher Cadet trainers. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (ABSTRACT} which will be shared publicly (200 words): The Teachers of Tomorrow program seeks to continue its long range teacher recruitment efforts for Arkansas by promoting and expanding the existing Teachers of Tomorrow program and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. The activities will include: providing materials and training for secondary school teachers to implement the Teacher Cadet class (senior high school) curriculum developed by the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment.  conducting a statewide Teacher Recruitment Conference in fall 2002 that is designed for secondary and higher education students, public school administrators and faculty, and teacher educators.  providing the means for two Arkansas teachers to become Teacher Cadet trainers (by completing final cycle of training in Little Rock summer workshop).  designing and distributing a teacher recruitment pamphlet for students in two-year colleges . .  supplying Teachers of Tomorrow Clubs and TOT coordinators in the tri-district area with support in order to plan student activities and carry out various collaborative activities.  Expand elective classes to include middle school students exploring teaching as a career (using the South Carolina Pro Team Curriculum).  Create a TOT website which will include a database for club and class participants. Institutions involved in the Teacher of Tomorrow collaborative include: Little Rock School District, North - ittle Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, Henderson State University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and University of Arkansas at Little Rock. 4 . .03/ 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 I t \u0026gt;    EQUITY Pl.FIL SERVICE .. I( : ~. .- 2-1-20. 02. 1.0 ;~ 14 . F.'R (JII! TO:';'l~ i\"---------~ ~- ------------=---- : . :  .. I ' I ; ; CONSOLIDATED PRESCHOOL ' GRANT APPLICATION FOR I ' SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ; : RELATED SERVICES : :::  : I .. . . ,   ~ L  \\ . . I j ; .. ' ; ; ' I I . I I SECTION6J.9 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH I I DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT ' I. -AND STATE FUNDS /: I :1 : I' ' ~ ' ' ' : : fi ' i ; ' : ; ' ARKANSAS DEPARTivfENT OF EDUCATION ., : , ; ' 2001-02 .. ' : ,. f .. I .. i ; I .. ; . . '. ' ., : ; J .. ' : -- - -- ..  i l .~ IC p~ 02/16 P . 002\"'01 .1 i: ! .. , i ' :t ., '  ' . I ; : : - '' i ! ii !/ ~ -. '  ! ' : ; EXHIBIT z ' I I i '  ' . ;., , - 1: : . ,. :i l !! I I EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '34900254 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVlCE AGENCIES . Adopdon of Proccdul\"C$: The applicant agrees to implement Spectal Education and Related '. Srrvi~~: Procedural \u0026amp;cp,tremuit:l and Program Standards and S~cial d11catlon Ellgib/Jily ; Cr/Jeri a and Program Guidelims for Childrun with Dlsabilitie$. Ages 3  21 to ensure that it  provid~ special eduwion services to emlble clu1dren with disabilities, ages three to; five~ to ' participate in regular educational programs and that each child has a properly developed , inc,vidualized education program. ; AdvJSory Committee: Where several LEAs consolidated their prcschool .scmccs, the applicant :. agrees to establish a local advisory committee. The committee must consist of the special ; edu~tion supervisors from participating LEAs and at least one superintendent. The committee : will be co-chaired by the early childhood coordinator and a LEA special education supervisor : select~ by the committee. The committee will meet at least bi-monthly, DocumentAtion of each meeting will be kept en file. : A!,istive Technology: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300,308, shall ensure that . assistive technology devices or assistive technology~ or both, as defined in 34 CFR 300.5 ,  300,6, are made available to a: child with a disability if required as a part of the child's (1)  Special Ed1.1cation under 34 CFR 300,26, (2) R~ated services under 34 CFR 300,24, or (3)  Supplementary aids and ser'.Vices under 34 CFR 300,28 and 300,SSO(b)(2), : Child Ctrc: The applicant assures that preschool grant funds shall not be used for the securing ' ofbasic child care and that these monies be used only for the provision of special education and rcl~ted services rend~ by,. a qualified provider. It i\u0026amp; pemussible ro expend preschool grant funds to pay costs associ.ited with a regular daycare placement when it is determined ~hat: ' l,;'~stidr educational placement-is needed to provide :a Free Appropriate Public Education ' (FAP.E) to a child, and  . ,. I ~- ; ; ' '  2. ::sbch:educarlqnal placement is necessary to satisfy th~ provisions of the cl\\ild's individualii=  , : education program (lEP). The decision to place a child'\"in, a rc:gula.r daycare program -win be made on a ca1\u0026amp;-by-asc oasis, The State guidelines for a Integrated Preschool Settine must be used in determining a child's ; riee.d(for,an educatjonai pla~ent in a regular daycare program .  1., : , . . Complaint ProcufuttS of ID State! The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 660, ' ~ that it will provide a. copy of the wrinen procedures fur Complaint Management to parents of children with disabilities when they llre notified of their procedural safeguar\u0026lt;is, 2 .. .. , ' I PAGE 03/16 P.003-'014  :i ; 1 i ' I ,''- . 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 'i ;_  . :I . l\". FR-, 21-20 02 10~ 14 ~: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: ';),q~e0c:54 , Coordination of Projects: The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 76.580, as~ : to the extent possible, it coordinate each of its projects with other activities that are in the same ; geographic area served by the project and targeted groups. Appropriate methods of coordination  include:   l. :Planning the project with organizations and individuals who have sinu1ar objectives or concerns; : 2.  Sharing information, facilitie~, staff, services or other resourc~;  J .. ~ngaging in joint activities such as instruction, needs assessment, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance or swf training; ;. 4., 1N?_t ~uplicating or counteracting the effects of funds used under 9thcr programs; ilild S. Using the project funds to increa.(e the impact of funds made available under other programs , . :for the same purpose. Dls:ciplinnry Information: The applicant, in accordarn:e with 34 CFR JOO .Sl9  300.529, ' as~r'es thnt it will maintain in the records ofa child with a disability a statement of any current  or -previous di5ciplinary action that has been taken against the child and transmit such statei:nent -~ to th~ same extent that such disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the  studt;tt records ofnondisahled children. If the State has such a policy, and the child transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any of the child's records must include: both the child1 s current individuaftz;cd education program and any such statement of current or previous disciprmary action that has been taken !lgainst the child. ' Idui!:itional Responsibilil)'! The applicam agrees to provide special education and related  services on the behalf of assigned LEAs for duldrcn with disabilities, ages three to five; under  Section 619 of IDEA 97. The applicant will develop an inter-agency agreement with the: : appropriate Head Start pro,rain for the provision of special education a.nd related services as specified in the Memo~-um ofUndersr.anding (between the Arkansas Department ofE.ducation and !_iead Start) consi!tent with the federal regulations for Head Stcrt, Public Law 102A01 . . E1cess Cost: The applicant, in accordance ',l,,'ith 34 CFR 300.184  300.185, a.$SUres that funds pr9ided under Section 619 of IDEA 97 wit! be used Q!ll:l for excess costs. Extended School Ycsr: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.309, shall ensure that ~ded school year $er-vices are available as n~ as to provide a m:e appropriate public education. H~r.ing Aids: The applieant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.3031 shall ensure that the hearing aids wom in school by children with hearing impairments. including d~ are functioning properly . . . . I : . -: .. . : ; :,, PAGE 04/16 P,l!IEM'01,q -I !: rnunv PUPIL SERVICE T0:'3'1~4 Least Restrictive Environment: The applicant, in accord Mee with 34 CFR. 300.SSO - 300.556, assures it has adopted the policies and procedures of Special Education and l~laled Serv/\"3: Procedural Requirements and Program Standards, Section IJ, pages 1 and 2; and Section 17, pag$2. I L\u0026amp;2J lnterngcncy Committee: The applicant agrees to establi$h a local interagency committee comr.osed oflocal agencies and int~ parties for the dissemination of information and to establish a network of services. The committee will meet at le~ quarterly. Documentation of attendees and minutes of i;aeh mc::ting must be kept on file. Meet[nis: The applicant agrees that individuals employed under this application will p81t!cipate in training institutes and scheduled meetings sponsored by the Arkansa. Department of 4.u~tion, Sp~ial Edu~tion. I N o.n~crimhultioa and Employment of tndividuala wil.h Disnbilitics: The applicant assu~ that the program assisted under. Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be operated ,n compliance with Title!45 of the Code ofFedenl Regulations, Pa.rt 84. (A formal ast:Urance statemem should be on -~e with the U.S. Dept. of Health and Hllman Services.) , I Nonsuppbnting: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.230, usures that funds prqvided. under Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be used to supplement and, to the cctcnt ptjlciicablc, increuc the level of State a.nd Local funds e,\u0026lt;pended for the education of children with disabilities, ages three to 6ve. and in no case to supplant those State and Local funds. :: ..- :; ,, : . Nti~ber or Days for l\u0026gt;ired Services: The prcscltool instructional calendar shall consist of200 days of direct services .funded by the prescltool grant. The first day of services can be Jio earlier th~\\August' 1. Dim:t services will cease by June 30. An audit will be peronned to verify sctvice delivery of200 days; Faiturc to comply will result in an audit e,c~on. Please provide a school calendar or llstin.g of day per momh that services will he provided. Please use the caJ~dar included in the application. Personnel Devdopment: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR. 300.221, assures that it ba.-. tiled':with the State information to demonstrate that (1) all personnel necessary to cany O'llt Section 619 o!lDEA 97 within the jurisdictign of the agency are adequate!y prepared cons~ wi~ the requirement of 34 CFR 300.380- 300.382, and (2) to the extent the public agency determine! appropriate, it shall contribute to and use the Comprehensive System of P~onnel Development of State established under 34 CFR 300.135. 1 f, . . Foliciet .and Program, Consistent with EUgfbillty Provisions: The appficant. in accordance withi 34 CFR 300.220, assures that it has in cffcc:t policies.. procedure! and programs- that are ~$istei,t with Stare policies and procedlftS established under 34 CFR 300.121 - 300.156 . . The applics.nt mUSt have on file with the State polici~ and procedu~ on the following: (l} Child Identification, (Z) Confidentiality, and (\u0026gt;) Individualized Education Program. I I ' 4 ': I ' . / PAGE 05/16 P,00S\"014 / . 1: .; 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 l1 : ~~~ ;10:1~ FROM: . j iii . EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TOt94980a54 iL\\ ,  .-;,, Procrdund Safeguards: The spplicant, in accordance with 34 CPR 300.500 - 515 300.517 incorybrat~ by rcfcn:nc~ tile proi:ed1.2~ of the SEA in Special Education and Relatfd  Stsl'Vices: Procedural Reqz/iJ-emrmts and Program Standards., Sections 4 through 16. , \"ro,grnm Options: The applicant, in aoc;ordance with 34 CFR. 300.124, usures compliance with th~provi~on of.a continuum ofser-lice options. The program options that arc designed to meet thejull educational goal in pre.school education are as follows: 1. , Preschool class on the public school campus 2. Regular p~hool (including Head Start)  3. Special Day Service Facility licensed by Developmental Disability Services  4. 'Home ServiQ?S 5. Itinerant Service - Services provided to children through an itinerant mode for intensive _;_ ,  :.i?struction which may~ developmentally appropriate or therapeutic. Primary use of.this '  service may be speech-l11nguage pathology given by a qualified provider or special instruction . by an e.u-ly childhood special education consultant teacher. 6 .. '. '.Hospital 7. Re!idential  Note: Each child mu!t be presented with at least three placement options (settings) wh~re the IEP can be appropriately implemented.  P~t~tion in tvnlu!!rion Procedures: The applicant, in ~ccordance with 34 CFR 300.530. ' 300.536, adopts by reference the procedures of the SEA in Special EducaJJon and Related . Se.ry/ce3: Procedural Requirements a,id Program Standards, Sections 4, 6 and 7.  I f   , , Pul\u0026gt;l~c! Control of Funding: The appUce.nt assures that control of funds provided under Section '.. 619 qflDEA 97 and Statc/I.oc.al funds committed to Special Edu.cation in accordance with Ark 6de Ann. 6-203 l 0 and title to property acquired with those funds is in a public agency for the ._ \\lSCS and purposes-authorized and as provided in the Mansas Department of Education, School  and :Educational Service Cooperative F'inincial Accounting Manual. . .. J:lccdrd, lhld Reports: The:applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.240, agrees to ;provide information as may be neceasary to enable the State Education Agm:;y to perf'mm its duticz, and  the applicant agrees to -keep such records a, the State Educ:itional Ageney may require to ensure '. rhe'~rrectness and verification ofthe iruorma.tio~  Rctciltion of Records: Education Department General Adrninisir:\u0026gt;tive Regulations (EDGAR) 34: CFR. 76.734 requires that recipients of Section 619 funds retain for five (5) years after completion of the activity for which they use grant or subgrant funds, any record needed to fully show compliance with pn)~ and administrative requirements. The Special Education Office !fas been advised by the U.S: Department ofEducation, Office of. Special Education Programs, 5 PAGE 07/16 .-.-,w. .. I   I I I I; Ii !' ~: 1 .. ... ,''. EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ that~ include individualized education progmns (IDs). The ilRplir.ant as,w~ to take all of the necessan: steps to retain nil records for at tesst five (S} years after tbe completion of the activitv S~ces :ind Aid.s That Also ~enetit No.nd.i!abled Oindren: The applicant, in accordance with: 34 CF'R. 300.235, as!ures that costs of special education and related services and supp/ementary aids and services provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to 2 ,}illci with a disability are in accordance with the individualized education program of a. child, even if one or more nondisabkd children benefit from such services. . I . Gtn~rnl Education l\"n,visiona Act: The applicant assures that it will comply with :the assurances set forth below as stated in the General Education J\u0026gt;rovisions Act in compliance with 20 llS.C. 1.232 e(b)(J),(S),(7),(A)\u0026amp;(B),(S) and (9). The general application submitted by a i pu~li~ asency under subsection (a) shall \u0026amp;et forth assurances -   1)  1'hiU the public agency will administer each program covered by the application in  accordance with all appUe2ble statutes. regulations, program plans, and applications; ; 2) : That the control of funds pr.ovided to the public agency under each program and titl~ to : property acquired with those funds, will be in a public agency and that a public aiency will  . :~minister those funds and property;  : 1' 3) .. That the public agency will use fiscal control and :fund accounting procedure\u0026amp; that will ensure  .' P,roper disbursem~ of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to that agency under each \\ ;:program; t) ;i'l:h~t the public agency will make reports to the State agency or board and_ :to :,the .. ) Commissioner u may reasonably be necessary to enable the Stare agency or board: and:the ;: .. -Commissioner to perform their duties and that the public asency will maintain such records, J ncluding the records required under Section 437, and provide access to those records, as !he  St~te agency or board or the Commission~ deem necessary to pem,rm their dutic~ 5) . That the public agency will provide reasonable opportuniti~ for the participation QY ~e~ : parents, and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals in the planning for an ;  : operation of each program;  6) ,That any application. evaluation, periodic program plan or report refating to each program : will be made readily available to parents and othet memben of t~c general public; 7) . That in the case of any project involving construction - A.) The project is not inconsistent with overall Staie plans for the construction of school facilities, and 6 . ,,, : PAGE 08/16 P.007\"81~ .j ., ! j. I  1 ; . i ! !:\u0026gt;Ul4'.:H:H 352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '3\"t~  / B) 1n developing plans f'or construction, due consideration will be given to excellence of   architecture and d~ign and to c:ompliance with standard~ prescribed by th1: Scc:~buy under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to emure that fkcilitica ' ' construeted with the use ofFedcral funds are acc:!Ssiblc to and usable by individuals with disabilities; . . . I S) '.That the public: agency has adopted emctive procedures for acquirilli and disscmi~atirig to teachers and admmistrators participating in each prosram significant information from , cduational research, demonstrations, and .similar projects, and for adoptini where  I '  appropriate, promising educational p~cticcs developed chrough such projects; and 9) .: That none of the funds expended undc:r any applicable pYOgnm wtll be used to ' acquire equipment (Including computer software) in any inStance in which such acquisition results . , . _ir,i a direct financial benefit to any organization representing the interests of the purchasing ,.. :: entity or its employees or ~y affiliate of such an organization.  Notice of Required Actinn~ by tbe SEA . The SEA is required under Section 619 of IDEA 97 to pr~vide notice to public agencies of the foll,o~ing actions: Direct Services by the Seate .Educ:ttion Agcnty: The Arkansas Department cf Education (ADE), Speci~l Education.Unit has the responsibility to ensure that the provisions of a free appropriate public education (F APE) are met for eligible stud~s with disabilitie5, ages 3 - 21. Consistent with the provision! afJ4 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 300.360, a State Education Agency (SEA) shall use the payments tlm othei:wiae would have been available to an LEA or to a State agency to provide special ed~cation arid r.cl~ scrvic:es directly to children with disabilities residing in the area served by that local agency, or for whom tha1 State agency is n:sponsiblc, if the SEA determines that the LEA or Stat~ agency - a. Hu not provided the infonnation needed to establish the eligibility of the agency undsr  Part B of lhe Act; . -~. Is unable to establish and maintain programs ofFAPE that meet the requirements of this , ',! I ; part; .. :c.  1s unable or unwilling robe consolidated with one or more LE.As in order to. establish and ; ,,'. ,; .; maintain the programs; or  , d. Has one or more children with disabilitiC$ who .can best be served by a regional or State program or service-delivery system designed t9 meet the needs of these childmi, 7 PAGE 10/16 P. 008-'e:. :, ., :J i I . , :: i , ;ii . r:: I . i i I ; ~: 1 ! 1r :l i 1:. i 1.JJ l I ... . !: .  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: 9\"1900254  ..: , ! , When It is brought to the attention of the ADE through: .  ai  The enforcement of a decision .from an Impartial Due Process Hearing; b.  A complaint invcstignrion under the Complain, Procedures of the State; . c: Compliance monitoring of a public s.gency; or ' .  ,: l A request from a parent or public; aicncy tha~ the SEA assume the responsibility for . Direct Services; , I . . '. th~:ADE, Special EducatiotrUnit will implement the following procedures before final action is ' tak;ai by the ADE to assume the provision of Direct Services to an eligible student(s) with ~'-, ~i~iliti~s, ages 3 - 21. 1.  The Associate Director for Special Education will: :  a; Provide written notice co the public ag~cy that the SEA ha.s re3$on to suspea t~t it is . not providing a free appropriate public education to an eligible student(s) with .  ; : , disabiliti.es. ages 3 - 21, on rhe basis of one or more of the conditions set forth in 34 CFR . 300.360    -:bl  State the sourcc(s) of the_ infonnatio~ that has led.the SEA to suspect that the district is . not providing a fu;c appropriate public erlucution for the student(s) in question. c. Appoint a Team to conduct an investigation onhe situ.stionfc;omplaint.  I ; ; l.  ,The Investigative Team will review the public agency's provision ofFAPE in light of the  ; 'conditions set forth in 34 CFR 300.360.  . . : 3 . . The Team will follow the procedures the ADE has ~opted for its Complaint Procedures of ' ; the, Slate, as provided for in 34 CFR 300.660  300.662. ; . :.; ; i . : . . . . : 4,:;1The.Team will provide a written report and submit it to the Associate Ditectot. S' .. iF'.ollowing receipt of the report. the Associate Director will notify the parties concerned as \u0026gt;to the findings of the !nvc.,tigative Temn.  6 . . : Showd sufficient _evidence exist -to demonstrate that the public agency is not providing F ~  as a result ofa condition in 34 CFR 300.360, the Associate Director \"'ill notify the puplic agency that the ADE. intends to take the neccasary 3teps to provide Direct Servi~c:s to an . '.. .eligible swdcnt(s) with disabilities, ages 3 -21, within the jurisdiction of the public'ageticy. 8 i :' PAGE 11/16 P.089\"1U\u0026lt;I ,i .i ; ! I .! . . . ! u~, ~ ~l~UU~ 10 ; ~~ OOlq~Ul3~L EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE J: -~1-2002 :nh1, ml'!= TQ:94900254 \"I . : r . . .. . ,. .   : r ., . , I : !; ~1 , . i 1. I I r,=- I :1 -,;   1! ' I_ l i \\ : ;: ,. ! r  1 :1 t J! ! l I I' 1'. ! '\"i' ;: ! ' ~ ~ .' ''. ; 7. ,The public agency will be provided notice that it h~ the opportunity for a hearing on this :matter before the State's chief e\u0026lt;.il.lcation official, (the Director of the AD), or his/her - ~~  ; \u0026amp;.  :To :avail itself of tM opportunity for a hearint on the proposed provision of Direct Services : by the APE, the Chief Administrative Official of the P\\Jblic Agency must $Ubmit a written request for a hearing to the Associate Director for Special E\u0026lt;iucation within 3 O days of notice or the proposed action by the ADE. - 9.  'Within ten (lO) busines; day.s ofretQpt by the Associllte Director afa written request by the ;-pilblic agency for a huring, the ADE Director will .set a mutually agreeable dtte, time and .location for the hearing and advise the Chief Administrative Official of the Public Age'rq of this in writing. 1 -: ' I .. _ ! . io. The ADE Director, or dcsignee, will consider the evidence presented by the Chief  Administrative Official of the Public Agi:ncy and the Associate Director for Special  'Education, or designee.    11. Within ten (10) business days af completion of the hearing. the ADE Director will submit :written findinss of fact, the decision and reasons fof the ruling with regard to the provision . ; -of:Pirect Services by the ADE. in compliance with 34 CFR 300,360. ; 12. lfthe AD. determines that its action v,,ag contrary to state or fodE:ral statutes or regul:itions '.t~at govern the applicable program, the ADE shall rescind its action . . ! . : .. J'.3. Public agencies will be notitied of their right to ap.peal a decision of the ADe Director to - ;~h~old IDEA- Part B funds to \\he Secretary ofqjucation, U.S. Departm\u0026lt;:nt of'Education. 14. The public age,cy must file a notice oFthe appeal wtth the Secretary wi\\hin 20 days after the : :public agency has been ~otitied by the ADE Director of the tinaf decision of the hearing. - 1.S. 1)lc .Associate Diraotor fbr Special Education will advise the Administrator, Grants ~f!d Dara )vfanagement, in writing as to when to witlihold and when to restore IDEA -! P~ B payments to che Public Agency. ; ! t ' ' I : WhJ ~~ ADE has det~ncd that it will assu~ rhe provision of Direct Services tci ensure F APE,. the A.OE may provide special education and related scr.-ices in sucll a manner and at !Uch lo~ons (including, regional or State centers) as the ADE consideTS appropriate.  i . Public Agency Compliance: If the SEA, in accord~ with 3 4 CTR 300: 197, after reasonable ~ notide .and an opportunity. fer a hearing; finds that a public agency that na.s been determined to , I '  I 9 ' ' l '  . '. PAGE 12/16 ~ .~ld'IOl\"' I  ,. 'i :j i :, ,, . _p3t 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 ~;-21-2002 : 10: i 7. FROM:  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'\\900aS4 ' j -   , I .  i .. l;,e-digi1\u0026gt;1e under mis :scdion ~ Awl1J to com9ly 'Mth acy reqwremem d~ed in 34 cat. 300:220 -300.250, the SEA shall reduce orma:y -not ~de any iiu1her psyments to the LEA or: stz1e ageney utd tho SEA is satl!ilcd that lhe eublic agency is complying w\\th that \\ ~~  ~ p-.i,lic agency in re.a:ipt o a notice desc:n'bcd in the first pan.graph of this section shall. by ,m~ of public~ take the mea.ues necessary to~ the pe:11de:'D)' of an action punmnt w this ~on to ~ \u0026amp;ttcntion of the publle within 1he jurisdiction of~~- -~ ~ out its funaion undet this secticn, each SEA shall co~dcr urt decisiOll resu11inl fi'om a hearing \"l,Illde:-34 CF.R. 300.S07 - 300.52\u0026amp; that is adverse ta the pubiie agem;y involnd iD'tbc ~sioca. ~cies 'Will ~c ~t othia infonnariOG by i.ignu,1 pa\u0026amp;e 10  . . .  I .  :. _m'ITfICATION . I,, ,:mt UNDERSIGNED A'U'l11ORl'ZED lW'RiS!:NTATlV?, RDOY CERTll\"Y UL\\T THE APPUCANT ACENCY,S GOVERNING BODY JIAS ~OPTE~ THE ,'BOV:t ASSURANCES AND lS Aw All or u.QU!.R.!l\u0026gt; ACIIOl\"iS )Y nm SEA . UUTIVE TO DIRECT SERVICES AND POBUC J\\GENCY COMPLIANO. '. :_ .. . ~ : . .' ; ?l'tith-Little a:d. Sdl:Xll ~ \"-nd~a.d.yQuldlXd~ i.f -~  '  ; ~ '.  ! :  !\" : . i ' ; :. \\ '. . ~ t  ~! -~ . ~  . . .  I  j 10 PAGE 13/16 I-' .16l.l'112l. .. ' ' t EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ Au.dlo~oo l:ctu\u0026amp;;atiou Sen-ice ooperaeive ~ Chilclhoo4-Spctjal Edua\u0026amp;n  2001~ ~oo, Y~ . ~ ~ol districts ~ below hn-c established an ~emo:Ji urviee c:oopcratiw  a\\:!mmistra.tive mangemem flit 1hc purpose or providhla =arJy r;hildhood spc:cial cducatiai services in accordance widi Ark. Code AM. 6-41-~ and Section cSl 9 ot'mt IDEA 97. The ; ~e of this coopcr.mve is: ' '  'lt\\-otstnct .k1Y ~ Little a:a: I.EA.Number Supcrin~d=t's Signature l!tx1h LiC:la lt)dC ~ , 1 . School District : LEA# Sc:hool ])istrict LE.All Superlnt;ndcnt's Signature  Su~cniicut s Sign~  ,.   School Disuict LEA# School District LEAi Superilltcndcnt', Si~ Superiutcndent' s SignDJre.  :: 1  School Dinrict I .i  , , ; :, .,, LE.A.# .,  .  I . Superintendeat's ~ - .. '' ;  'School District I.EA# School District LEA# ; ' I  48 PAGE 14/16 P.012\"014 .I, .:' F I ;i ! ., . ' ' ! EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'1900254 Authoriation . Ednca.tiOJl Senicc C-oop~tive E:nly ChilAood Sp,dal 1?:duc:i.1io~ 2001~2 School Y c:iT   The scl\\ocl districts listed 1,elow have established u educatioa service c:aoperadve . ..  ~e ammgement fonbe purpose o!providmg early childhood specai ~an '  ::: StJ'Yic:siaacariaDcc with Ark. Code Ann. 6-41-220 and Sccticn619 otlaeIDEA97. :tnc: ' ~ ~this COQye:iative is:  . .  'B:l.-ciec:ril%. ! QJ:i.lthm ~ Little lb:!( exi:z ., , Cooperative . 11ie sigr.atum bel0w verify !his arrangement 1M mtborize \\he above named coo~ to use . : : : funds a:pproprlllted by kt 1392 of 1999 to help provide services to three through nve 'fe3r old  ( i:bildd~isab-ilities.  .:;_~ ' ; '  . Si.penmen  s Signature Su~deu't' 1 Signattn .- :~9?Jl:'i 8)-03  Schoel District Soperintendem' a Signature .. . : I ; . lEAi . 1. : I.EA# .. , .... __________ _ Saperinttndeat'i Signature '! .  .,! .I;.._. - '-----,---- -~-- .,  , ,  Scllool Distiict LEA I  i . : Sc.~ool District LEA,# ,a School D~trict School District Supetiattndent' $ Signatite School District LEA :;, Superin~s SignatuR School District LEA. ,. I . ,. ' ,,I ' i EG!U11Y PUPIL SERVICE T0:~90025-4  Authorizatioa Educado11 Senice Cocp~tive bdy Owdhood Special Edutatio lOOI-G? School Year Th:\u0026amp; ~chool districts listed below haw eatabtisbcd m educatioa. iemce eoopermve . , ., - nistrative aaangeaicmfor1he purpose of-providing early childhood special edu.ciltioti sctvictt in accordance with Ark. Code Aim. 641-220 and Section 619 of the IDEA 97. ne name af1his eoopendiVe is: ,: I 'lri~ ?arly ~ ~ Y' tt''! );xx O:,oper.dive B\u0026gt;:02 LEANambl:r The si~ below verify this arrangement a:id authorize the above :named cooperative 10 use fun~ appropriated by Al:t 1392 of 1999 to hclp provide secvi~ to 'three through five year old (?hild~ with dist   I -'i  . './ ~  I ~ bx ED-01. School Dutrict . LEA# ': ' f .Superintendent's Signatutt  ' I LEA# Superintendent's Signaiure School District LEA# ;i I ,' '  1 : S11perinteo.d.el1t'1 s~ LEA# r i i . I  i ; ' . Supcrin~cndent's Sign\u0026amp;IUre School District I.EA# Superintendent's. sign~ School Di3aic:  LEA# School Dutrict ' LEA# Sup~e:nt's Sjgnatun, School :Oisaict , , ., PAGE 16/16 j\" ;  ' i ! VVr 1\u0026lt;.Vr V...L AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE STA TE OF ARKANSAS Ths Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board ofEducation, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as . the Parties. REC1TALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to tenninate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of$20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgive~ or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the State's current funding formula for public school districts, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula; WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects tRSD's per pupil revenue; Page I of 8 -,i EXHIBIT 3 VO/ 701 U..L .l.D.L1 .J..U . LlO rrt.A WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS I. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11 .8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001. 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts to attain complete unitary status and - release from court supervision. the State agrees that it will not seelc to modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3. I Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State's ability to seek modification or  termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8 ~UUJ court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or tennination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3 .2 The State agrees to cooperate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or tenninate the States' s obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following: (I) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement; (2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the State's obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; (3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undennines this Agreement; (4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any chaUenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. In recognition of the LRSD's efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSD's efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8 1.1:!JVV't U!\u0026gt; / ~0/U.l lllLI J. 0 . '10 r JU. as follows: 4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds in the joint escrow account estabfo;hed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the J 989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July 1, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4.3 For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete - unitary status and release from federal court supervision ~ of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 ~vvu subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of . interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4 .3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event th.is Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shaJI negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI .B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the tourt, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page S of 8 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, hut the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in fu)] force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shalf negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event stJch relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution. 6. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8 U~/ZG/U1 lHU 10:4/ t'AA - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. It is specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. AJ1 covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the '6ay of March, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 ~vvo UtS / l!l / Ul. 1.11LI .to : \u0026lt;11 rft.A ~vvo UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION H:lliligatioo~uget\\A,bi,su AG - Oacglmi\u0026gt;cll_lS_OI \u0026gt;8\"ffll'Lwpd Page 8 of 8 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 1192219941 Wll.LIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M . EI SEMAN, JR . . P. A . JOE O BELL . P. A . JAMES A BUTTRY , P. A . - EOERICK S . URSERY , P. A . CARE . DAVIS . JR . . P. A . M ES C . ClARK , JR. P. A . ,HO MA$ P. LEGGETT , P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSO N, P. A\". PAUi. B BEN HAM 111 , P. A . LARRY W BURKS , PA. A WYCKLIFF NISBET , JR, P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARR I S, P. A . J PHIi.LiP MALCOM . P.A JAMES M SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M SAXTON . P. A . J SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 , P. A . DO NALD H. BACON , P. A . WILllAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E COPLI N, P.A RICHARDO TAYLOR. P.A JOS EPH 8 HURST . J R. , P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY . PA Ci, F41STOPHER HEL LER . PA LAURA HENSI.EY SMITH . PA ROBERT S. SHAFER . P. A . WILLIAM M GRI FFIN 111 , P. A . MI CHAEi. S. MOORE , P. A . QlANE S. MACKEY . P. A . WALTER M EBEL 111, PA . KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WA00Ell. JR . PA see n J l ,),NCASTER , p A M GAYLE CORLEY . PA . ROBEAT 8 BEACH , JR . P.A J LEE 9ROWN . PA ,i.:.. ME S C BAKER . JR PA H.:.RRY A llCHT , P.A FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNE YS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO. 501 -376 -2147 June 5, 2000 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock , AR 72201 Re: Magnet Schools Memorandum of Understanding Dear Tim: SCOTT H. TUCKER, P. A. GUY Al TON WADE . P. A . PRICE C. GARONER. P. A. TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P. A . JOHN C. FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON . P. A. GREGORY O. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX , P. A . FRANC. HICKMAN , P. A . BETTY J. DEMORY. P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P. A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT OANIEL l. HERRINGTON IC. COLEMAN WESTBROOK , J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A , KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNSll 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY WILLIAM l. PAT TO N , JR . H. T . LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . Wlllf(lll'S OIIIUCT NO. 150 11 370 - 1506 I have enclosed what I hope to be a final draft Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Magnet Schools. draft incorporates your proposed \"insert A.\" Please let me of a This know whether this draft meets with your client's approval. CJH/bk Encl osure ... EXHIBIT 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the \"Settlement Agreement\") between the Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas, acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs, Booker, Mann and Parkview); and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State's magnet funding obligation so that the State is required to provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4 ,065 seats; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4,065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reorganized its schools into a new configuration which includes middle schools; and WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court's approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court, in which it asserts that the State's magnet school funding obligations are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its share of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolve their differences concerning the effect of LRSD' s restructuring on the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools. THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation . ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at 5 of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD's and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended, as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE's ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. Executed this __ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: ______________ _ Tim Gauger, Its Attorney LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ______________ _ Christopher Heller 2  AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RELATED TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 6th day of February, 1999 between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCT A\"), which is represented in this case by Knight, previously agreed that the amount of the teacher pay increase for the 1998-99 school year would be related to the amount of damages recovered by LRSD from the State of Arkansas on its teacher retirement and health insurance claims; and WHEREAS, LRSD, Knight and the other Parties to the Pulaski County School Desegregation case are expected to agree to a settlement of LRSD' s teacher retirement and health insurance claims which will result in an award to LRSD of an amount less than the full amount of its claims, which agreement and result is material to the validity of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That Knight agrees that LRSD teachers shall receive a 4.25% base pay increase for the 1998-99 school year and that this Agreement supersedes and replaces the following two provisions of the original agreement between LRSD and its teachers with regard to an increase in base pay for the 1998-99 school year: First, the language concerning distribution of a remedy in excess of LRSD's actual cost for teacher retirement and health insurance (paragraph 4 of the original Agreement); and second, the 4.5% base pay provision. 2. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, EXHIBIT i 5 .f - - - - -- ' 3. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 6th day of February, 1999. Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight Intervenors AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same ..  EXHIBIT / i 0 a: - monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and I 0% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall be regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 --------- I 0. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. st~eJones A)~ Attorney for NLRSD 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Trus Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 911t day of February, 1999, by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and PCSSD disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; WHEREAS, the district court's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement will likely result in a substantial payment by LRSD to PCSSD; WHEREAS, PCSSD may pursue damages from the State of Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's change from the Act 34 - funding system to the Act 917 funding system, pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That this Agreement constitutes consideration, in part, for the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 2. That LRSD's liability to PCSSD under the district court 's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement shall be capped at $450,000.00 for the 1998-99 school year and that neither district's liability to the other will exceed $400,000.00 per year for all subsequent years that the Pooling Agreement is in effect; 3. That LRSD shall receive 30% of PCSSD's damages recovered from the State of - Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's EXHIBIT 7 - change from the Act 34 funding system to the Act 91 7 funding system pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998. 4. However, in no event shall PCSSD's damages paid to LRSD pursuant to Paragraph 4 above exceed that amount of LRSD's loss in teacher retirement and health insurance damages resulting from the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas ' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 5. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, 6. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 9th day of February, 1999. 2 I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I HU18CHll N. F\"tOAT Ct82Zlt WILLIAM N. SUTTON. P.A . JAMES 1lf . MOOIIE IYaON M . US(MAN. Jfl . ,.A. JO( O. 8(LL. r . A . JOHN C. (CHOLS. r . A . JAM[S A . IUTTPtY. ,. . A . Ffl(OUUCI . UJHUIY. , .A. OSCAa ( . DAVIS. JII .  f'.A. JAM(S C . ClAtlf; . Jfl . , . A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN O[W(Y WATSON. P. A. PAUL a. l(NHAM Ill . P.A . LAJUIY W . IUfllS . P . A . A . WYCltllFF NISl(T, Jlll., r . A. JAMES EDWAlliO HAIIIIIS , P. A.. J . ,HILUP MALCOM, r .A. JAM[I M . ltMrSON, P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P .A. J . IHlrHUID flUIS(ll IU, P . A . OONALO H. IACON, P . A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT[II, r . A. IAIIIIY ( , COPLIN, P\".A. IIICHAJIO D. TAYLOII, , . A. JOS[P'H I. HUtllT, Jll ,, P.A. [UZAIETH flOll(N MUIUIAY, P .A . CHIIISTOPH(II HU. LUI , P .A. LAU\"A HENSLEY SMITH , l\" . A. ltOl(IIT S . SHAF[II, P.A. WILi.i.AM M . GJUFFfN Ill. , . A . MICHA(l S . MOOft(, ,. . A. DIAN( S . MA.Cl[Y , , . A . WALT(ft M . (au Ill , .. . ... . l(VIN 4 . CIIASS , P' . A. WtlllAM A . WADO(Ll, Jft . , r .A . John W. Walker FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLA!tK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCIC, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 June 10, 1998 VIA FAX and HAND DELIVERY JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Attorney's Fee Settlement Dear John: SCOfT J . LANCASH  . \" \"  M . OAYl( COIIIUY. r .A oauu I . l(ACH. Jlt . . ,  . J . U( ... OWN , f' . A. JAM(S C . 1141(11. J . P' . A HARRY A . UGHT . , .A . SCOTT N. lUCC(III . r . A . .JOHN ClA'flON \"ANDOll'\" P'  CUT Al TON WAO(. P .   f'l1UC( C . CA110Nl . ,.  TONIA,. JON(S. ,. A . DAVID 0. WUSON. P . A . J(FFlll('f H . MOOU. r  0AYID M . GIIAJ. P . A . CAllllA GUNN(lS S,-AINHOUfl. ,. A .IOHH C. IF(NOl(T . J . . PA . II. CMllll  TOl\"N(III LAWSON Cll(GO\"'f 0. fA'flO\" TONY L. WILCOX FIIAN C. NIClMAN l(TT'f J . 0(W0fl'f  .... A .. A J . ...... o l 'fNOA W. JONNSON JAM($ W . SMITH CllFFOO W . l'lUNl( ff OAHtll l. M(flllllNC:fON ALLISON .J . COIUtW(LL 1000  cu (LUN lot . OW(NS H(l(N( N . ATOUI .JASON I . N(NDA(N SUSANN. CHILDUIS IIIIUC[ a . TIOWUl o, covu WllLIAM J . SMITH a . S . CLAIU WILLIAM L. HT WILLIAM l. ,-AT TON. J H . 1' . lAllll[UR( . , . A . 16011 370 I 601 I will have delivered to you today a check from the Little Rock School District in the amount of $35,000.00 for attorney's fees in the school desegregation case. We have now paid you $100,000.00 based upon our expectation that we will be able to reach a complete agreement concerning past and future fees and costs in the desegregation case. In accordance with our telephone conversation today, we now have such an agreement subject to the approval of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. I expect the Board of Directors to approve our agreement at its June meeting. LRSD will make the following payments for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31, 1998. U or fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1,1,a---, 1998. - The payments described in this letter will constitute full anc complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please sign this letter l:iCI ::z: 00 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; Ill 1 It I I I I I I ,I I I I I - It I I John w. Walker June 10, 1998 Page 2 to indicate your acceptance of these terms and your willingness to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement containing these terms. Thank you for your cooperation. I will keep you advised of the progress toward approval of this agreement by the LRSD Board of Directors. The Joshua Intervenors agree to the settlement terms set forth in this letter. rney A PROF\"\":.SSIO~Al. CORPORATI0:-1 :\\TTOR..'-'EYS\"AT L~W 120J '\\J:.'CRTI;EN aANlC Bl,'U..OL'-:G LITi1..E Rea:. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 314-7100 -:-a.E:c::rl' CX'IJ n~l\u0026amp;ll :!ay 31, 1989 ~e: ~ittle ~eek School Dist=ict vs. Pulaski C~unty S?ecial School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 John W. Walker, Escr. Christopher Heller; Esq. Ste?hen W. Jones, Esq. M. Sa~uel Jones, Esq. ~ic~ard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In_ accorc.ance wi t:1 III.A. o:f the ?ulas}~i County Deseq:::-ega tion Settlenent .::..greement c-f .Ma::::-ch, l 9 8 9, we are enclosing an Arkansas DeDartment of Education ?12.n fer ~c~i toring i!uplementation of compensc.to~y educ2. t.ic:1 ~n t.he ~tree school c.istricts. The settleme!\"lt 2gree;:1e!lt does not !)rov:i.Ce :\"c::- :::..lir:c; . or -:ve\" submission of ~his document ~o the Cou::::-t a~ -;:::.:s time. :-:cwever, we are senc.ing copies to both Judge ;,oocs and Xr. ~cC~tcheon so that thev mav be aware that this re~ui=enent of t~e settlement acree~e~t has been met. We antici?ate that the enclosed olan ma'v be .nodified afte:::- :::-eceivinc .cur com.':lents 2.nc after-we learn more about the monitoring r~le ~hat will be untertaken by Eugene Reville. :rW.V:-im :Snclosure cc: The Honorable Hen=y ~ccts Sincerely yours, ALLEN !..A\\: FIF.N ~iJw_(JJJ__ H. William ,AJ,,len , ', The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. ~c~: Dr. Ru~~ Ste~le Sam Sratton, ~sa . Sharon St=ee~~, -~3~. Esa. .; 1 ~ lC EXHIBIT l l  One of the Att One for NLRSD WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS By ~~ -- M. Samuel Jones One of the Attorneys _for PCSSD ROACHELL By tJJ -=p-a--'-u-::1:--:~'-=-::-~-~------ 0ne of Knight the Attorneys for the Intervenors e - i\\RlQ.NS;l.S DEPJ..R.TMDIT OF EDUO..TIOH PULASKI COUNT'! DESZGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of ~ducation (ADE), to monitor the irople_~entation of compensatory education programs by t:he school districts in Pulaski Co~nty. The ADE defines comoensatocy educatiQ~_p.J:.agm~ as those o~qg;:_ams wnich are directed at .La,provina the ac2de:nj c r:e,..-=or:;;12:nce -0f-.bl2.ck s..t:udents whose acaaern.ic achievement bas been adversely affected  discriminatorv practices w  D...J:h.e school. Tb.e___state comoensato effects of the programs shouia:'oe it~es in eaucationa Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the ~rimary area 'for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an eauitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal a~countability to the tax payers of Arkansas. 1:-lonitoring responsibilities for ~esegregation effectiveness by necessity must permeate all elemen~s of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial progr~s- Therefore, it shall ~e the goal of the ~.DE to ?rovide extensive monitoring and eval\\!acion oi the Agreement. The primary focus of the orocess shall be a continuous assessment 0 the remedial effectiveness of ~rcgr~~s supported partially or f~lly by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School Districc vs. ?ulaski Countv Soeci2.l School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and serv~ces receiving special funding include: 1. ~pe~satory ~cucatio::i)) 2. Magnet Schools ~ 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits ~he state to: l. Direct funui~g to the districts (~ithin the limits provided in ~he Agreement) 2. Principles o~ desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement dispari~ies l ------ ------------------~ b. d. Standacdi:ed test yalidation R~~i~l bala~~e ir. ~pecial programs Minority !'ec:::-u.it:nenc a.nci employ;;ie!1t 3. Site selection c=lceria for school constructio~ or ~xpansion 4. Staff dcvelopme~c release days fer ~he t.~ree districts through _l990-l991 5. -r-... ~ni:-.y million dollars loan to Litt.le ~cc~: School Districc .:.o d~velo? programs for remediacing .a~~ievement disparities and or ~t~er programs and initiacives which facilitate desegregat.ion 6. Selection oi an a~:::-eed standardized test t.o satisfy the loan forgiveness of t.~e ~grcement ..,. .. 3. The ADE shall ~r~vicc 4egular w~it.t.~n ~cn~t.ori~g reporcs t~ t.hc ~art.ies anc tje court. Monitoring by t~e st.ac?. shall be i.idependenc of t.hat of the other parties. As a .last resor~, P.DE may petition the cou~t for modifications or changes in such programs ~eing implemenr.ed ~y ~he districts lbut ~ot fvr ~ r?.6uction in the agr~ed level of stata funding). 4. Any recommc:nca.:ic~s mci.,-:e  oy l\u0026gt;.DE shall :1oc ::or.n t.he basis of ~ny ~ccitior.~l f~nc.ing responsi~il:-::i2s 0f .:h~ _state. Jl.lthongh, i:'!.e .!..DC: rnoni::.;):!\":.:,g shall be inc..~?e?;dc:1c :::)= .::iat of t':le other par~ies, the dis~=:.c~s are advised to cs.:ablish an internal monitoring pla=-i. ~he ;:nr;-ose sha.ll be to det.e=mine anc. document:. that: \\. Th~ desegrega.:ion plan ~as, or is ce~~; implemented on a timely b.;sis, 2. Inequities do no.: exisc and/or do n~r recur; and 3. J\u0026gt;.11 ~tuden.:s a-:e afforc.ed an equi-::a::,le educa-=.ion. 2 L.. !.;CN 1 TOiUHG ~he monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitaticns, review ~ plans, review of statistical and administrative data as we11  as percep~ual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monito_ring ' isits should provide evidence that the school $lte is representative of the pl~ralistic nature of the Air,erican Society. Monitoring tcc:.ms shall be selected by the Director, Arkansas Department 0 Education (]illE), General Division. Tbe teams shall include ;h.DE personnel and may include others as designa-c.ed by the Director. Monitoring visits shall be contl~cted acco~a~ng to a scnedule ~stablishcd by -che i\\DE. The mor1i taring process shall include anno11nced and unannounced visits. Monitors sholl record ~vents and conditions during sit~ visits. Monitors shall observe and report f ind.ings only.  E:ach district shall include in the six-year plan and unxwal school improvement: plans appropriate objectives to c1chieve .;,.:impliance with each court orde:r rela.ted to the Agrcem\u0026lt;::nt.. The ADshall monitor the  si:;;:-vec:1.r olans and :i.nnua.i school improvement pLrns t0 de:t~r~ine progress towa!:d cchieving educational equi tY. District plans should prov-ide evid.ence of ~ompliacce ~ith court aiders and a process to ascertain progress. 'The AD'E shall identify relevant daca necessary to formulc::.te conclusions and recommendations. ~ata should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and requlaticns are developed and implemented to facilitate de$egrega,:ion. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achieve~ent disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence ~hat student assignments to schools, clc::.sses and prc:\u0026gt;grams at each organi:::at:ional level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the ~greement are used to facilitate the desegregation process . . 5. Evidenc~ that travel time to and =~cm schools is ~ot disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black scudents transportea =or desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe.~entage of non-black students transported for desegreg~tion. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the ne-=ds of a diverse student pop11lation . 7. Evidence of intern~l procedures for ensuring thr-t materials for appraising or counseling s~udents are non-discriminatoty. 8. Evidenc~ that cur~icular content ~na'instructio~al strategies arc utilized to meet: the diverse ne2ds of the student population serv~a. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and :i~signed in a 1nanner to meet ~he goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that nroce~u~es related to cxtracurricula and ;::o,:urricula 3.ccivit.ies are develooed and imolemented t.o identify and eli~inate =onditions.that resuit ir. participation th~t is dispr.oportionate to the studen~ population. 11. Evidence of aiverse representation on appointed dist.r.i.ct\\.Jic.e nnd school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to .ensure that oaicnt attendance at :.;chool function:~ 1::; not ,11.::proporti~nate t\".o the student population.  l). EJiden,::e of- succ~s:; relate:! to Hajority to Minor:..;:y ~-~a.tts!ars . ;_ 11. Evidence that magnet: schools are an eifective interdis~rict remed.t fo~ racial balance. The collection of data shall include ~t le~st the following: A. Enrol~nent/Attendance 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional prog 1:a.ms. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, .:ransported, nontransporced and instructional program fo~ each magnet scnool. ) . Numbe . .r. of non promotes by race, gender, grace, sch.ool, ::eacher, transported. and. n0nt.ranspor~ed.. B. Test Data Arr:ans;:..s Ninirr.um Performance Tesc results by race, gender, grade, school and :;ocioeconomic status {SES). N:umber of eighth graders failing to axcain 1nast.ery after the first, second and third ad.ministration of test. by race, gend~r, SES and school. Nwnbe= 0 eighth graders th2. t: are non promotes f _or failir.g ;:o at.tain mastery aft.er thi:::-d adrni:1istration of test ~y race, gender, SES and schoql. 14. Metr0politan ~chievement Test - 6th Editiun or other . national normed tests ~s may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race , gender~ grade, school, s~s and teacher. ~S .. ~umber of llth and 12th graders b~ race, gender, ~chool ~na guidance counselor who t~ke the PSAT, S~T or ACT. C:. St:aft , 1. Number of Full TimP- Equivalent lF.T.E.) classroom t1:acl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experien~e. 2. Number of ?.T.E. school-based aaminiscrators by job category, r2.ce, gender1 school, ye2.rs oi experience. 3. Nun\\b~r of F.T.E. counselors by race, g~nder, school, years ct CX?erience.  5 - -'\\ . 5_ 6 . 7 . 8. Numher of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E- librarians oy race, gender, school, years of experience. Numb~r of F.T.E. department heads by race , . gender, school, yea.rs of experience. Nt1mber of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience_ N'..llnber of =.T . E. cent~al offic~ positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. D- Policy and Program Infonnation 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities_ 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings ~nd special state funded programs including: ::'I.. Ma.gnet Schools h. Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 0  - ~   M - - -  3. Student assignment policies, rules ~nd regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Libr~~Y Usage g_ Student Records S.  Copies of current negotiated agreements with all e~ployee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by .funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 6 .. 2. Transportat:i on cost: and funding sour,ce. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory ~ducacion Program cost 5. Magnet school cost: F. Student Discipline 1. ..liW.IlP_er of discipl~D~ .. r .ef err.als _ by __ !,\u0026gt;chool and teacher repbri~d by ra~i.- gender, grade, subject and  teachers' ye:;.rs cf experience; .. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, ~ s_~ces, district ... c:3,I).Q. _ building ~rship, speclal s~ate funded programs and educational equity summarizeci.b~ace, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. ii. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade lev~l, by sending and receiving district. /' ~alysis of data _shall be __ conduct.ed by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated. by the ADE director, Additional data may be required of the c.istricts, a$ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring repor-.s. A schedule . for submitting the data shall be established by the Jl..DE - Si!1ce the moni torir1g is ~assi ,:e anci. e~~ompassir:.g, the A.DC: shall establishmonitoring priorities as. follows: 1. Programs and se~vices supported by special state. desegregation funding incluqing. compensatory educa~ion, magnet schools, majcri ty to minority transfers and related.transpor-.ation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation icient~fied as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 -. / ;t,onitoring activities shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistanc~ Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a Learn of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one team member will be an education professional from the }I.DE. The Equity Assistance Center may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring actiJi ties. P.EPORTING The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the . Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on February 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or - nearest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs end services receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. P11laski Countv Special School Dis~rict 1 et al . , No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financi2.l and program information. * The _ADE Desegregation \u0026gt;.ssistance Te~n s~all provide ~ech~i~al . assistance atid suzoort as necessary to implement monitoring ana ..,reporting respor_isibili ties. Current team members are: Administration Student Services Emma Bass Brenda l1a.tthews Sterling Ingram ~1argie Po.vell Robert Shaver Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Blizabeth Gaston Incentive Schools Carolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Early Childhood TBA curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Special Education Diane Sydoriak Benny Abraham Staff Develoomcnt c-aylc T2al Jackie Dec.man .:.taff 1'.t.tornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean i-lcEnt:.ire - - --- - -- Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. The districts have agreed not to hire teachers under contract with another district from one month before the start of a school year through the end of the school year unless the position at the hiring district is considered a promotion. EXHIBIT /j Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCT A regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. The LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association have agreed that a teaching position that becomes vacant after the first student-contact day will be filled with an intern teacher whose teaching contract will not be renewed at the end of the school year. At that time, the position will be listed as vacant and filled consistent with District policy and the PN Agreement. The intern teacher may apply for the position, but he or she is not entitled to any preference in hiring. -.. EXHIBIT 1 i IC \\5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED APR . -2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. It has reviewed the proposed submission of the LRSD and believes the LRSD has adequately described those items that are responsive to the Court's March1, 2002, Order. 2. Item 3 of the LRSD response is a copy of its agreement with the State. The PCSSD wishes to note that the only parties to this agreement are the State and LRSD. PCSSD was not involved in the negotiation of this agreement, is not a party to it and does not believe the agreement has any legal effect upon the PCSSD. Further, the PCSSD does not believe that said agreement could operate to affect or diminish or curtail in any manner those sums and payments which the State is obligated to pay to or on behalf of the PCSSD for the desegregation and other financial programs described within it. 327291-v1 3. Finally, a discrete section of the May 1988 \"Joshua Agreement\" retains vitality. It addresses student balance goals in the PCSSD and is referred to in each of the ODM monitoring reports concerning racial balance. The operative language is quoted by the Court of Appeals as follows: \"However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1378, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990). 327291-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 B -~..-=--:--f-..;..:_-:-:-:---:::-::~-:-:--+----ci a I 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 1, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 327291-v1 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., I ntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR .- 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NLRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 In its Order of March 1, 2002, the Court directed the parties to identify and submit copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case. The Little Rock School District has shared its list of agreements as contained in the LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as required by Order filed March 1, 2002, with the NLRSD. The NLRSD agrees that the agreements listed by the LRSD are in fact agreements among some or all of the parties. The NLRSD is not aware of any additional agreements. Therefore, the NLRSD adopts the Notice of Filing Agreements as its own. However, the NLRSD notes that it was not a party to Item #3, Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: Unitary Status, Sale of Bond and $20 million loan. Therefore, while the NLRSD agrees that this Agreement exists, it reserves its right to object to the legitimacy and/or scope of that Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P. A. 425 W. Capitol 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Si:WA)~ Stephen W. Jqnes (No. 78-083) I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons via U. S. Mail on this 1st day of April, 2002. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Bank of America Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 _......, ~\u0026lt;GW~ ephen W. Jones // RECEIVED APR - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING p= ;; ~ '''-=\"' I\"\"'' 1;= J l1 k= 4 1 a ~--=bl-.II U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARMl'1SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl~SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. :rv.tRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. _l,l\\MES W. McCORMACK CL:: :-;: .r- ' -,' --------~ PLAINTIB'F c.: - -~ DEFENDANTS JNTER VENO RS JNTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1. 2002 On March 1, 2002, the Court required the parties to identify any agreements, formal or informal, that existed between the parties. Joshua responds as follows: 1. Joshua Intervenors would be involved in monitoring activities involving plan implementation regarding the three districts. The Districts agreed to cooperate and otherwise facilitate Joshua monitoring. 2. Joshua was to be involved in Little Rock and Pulaski County with the selection of principals for certain schools; devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and were to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to either of the school boards for final action. 3. The parties were to cooperate in identifying programs, policies, and procedures which actually either worked or did not work to achieve expected goals of the settlement agreements and, where necessary, to either build upon such programs or to discard them and replace them with programs which had greater probability of success. 4. The districts were to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The State Department of Education, though relieved as a party, was expected to comply with the requirements of the Allen letter. The State Department was also expected not to forgive the Little Rock School District loan of 20 million dollars without the remediation goals set forth in the Consent Decree having been achieved. 6. There was a scholarship commitment imposed upon Little Rock schools, formerly - identified as Incentive Schools, which guaranteed every student of those schools who graduated from a Little Rock high school with a \"C\" average college tuition. 7. The State Department ofEducation and the parties were required to identify legislation and other state actions which had discriminatory impact upon black students. The State of Arkansas agreed to discontinue and to prevent continuation of those practices. 8. The agreement entered into between the Pulaski County School District and the Joshua Intervenors known as the Joshua Agreement. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors had hoped to continue their discussions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in seeking to identify other possible agreements but due to the absence of ODM Moniror, :Wlrs. Ann S. Marshall, we are unable to have that input before the filing deadline. Joshua, therefore, requests leave of court to supplement the foregoing understandings after Mrs. Marshall returns to her office. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing filing h counsel of record via United States mail on this 1st day of Ap  , 20 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN W,~~~1, c;_TT COURT \" ARl\u0026lt;~ NSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 3 Z002 , ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * JAMES Vi   fi , v. /Vi c 1...~li ACK, CLERK Qv , _ ,~ DEP.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR -5 2002 OfACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER The Joshua Intervenors' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status is GRANTED. Responses to the LRSD motion are due on or bef;:;ursday, April 18, 2002. DATED thid _ _ day of April, 2002. TATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~ 11;~ A~~/0 79(a) FRCP 589 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL v1 (),At:u l 1t i. f/4_ RECEIVED APR 1 7 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to the Joshua Intervenors' Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002 states: 1. The LRSD admits that it contemplated that Joshua would monitoring the LRSD's implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). The LRSD also admits that it agreed to \"cooperate or otherwise facilitate\" Joshua monitoring to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 8.2 and 8.3 and with the agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 regarding past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring, attached as Exhibit 8 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Joshua's April 1, 2002 filing. 2. The LRSD denies that it agreed that Joshua was to be involved in the selection of principals for certain schools; the devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and was to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval. 3. The LRSD admits that it agreed to \"cooperate\" with Joshua in identifying programs, policies and procedures which worked or did not work to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 2.7.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 3 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 4. The LRSD denies that it agreed to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The LRSD admits that the \"Allen letter\" represents an agreement among all the parties to this case. See Exhibit 11 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. The LRSD denies that there was an agreement not to forgive the $20 million loan to the LRSD from the State pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. To the contrary, it was not contemplated at the time the 1989 Settlement Agreement was negotiated that the LRSD would ever have to repay the $20 million loan from the State. 6. The LRSD admits that it agreed to provide scholarships to the extent consistent with-Revised Plan 5.8. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 6 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 7. The LRSD admits that the 1989 Settlement Agreement required the State to \"research and list\" laws that impede desegregation and obligated other parties to assist the State 2 in identifying existing or proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. See 1989 Settlement Agreement,  IILD. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 7 ofJoshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 8. The LRSD takes no position with regard to the \"Joshua Agreement\" identified in Paragraph 8 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:------,4-'li\"L,C--l_.__;_i~~~~~':L...:......- 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 17, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Offi~e of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 9NIHOllNOW NOllY93H93S3a ~o 3~1:1:fO ZOOZ 6 1 ~d\\f RECEIVED APR 1 9 2002 OFACEOF FILED U.S. DISTRICT GOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS . APR 1 8 2002  a3Al303t:t DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~ ' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. :tvIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Interveno~, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker; -P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. In accordance with the Court's orders ofJanuary 25, 2002 and February 12, 2002, Joshua and the LRSD have engaged in settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status. The parties agree that additional time is needed to continue these discussions. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. 3. Neither party will be prejudiced by the court granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including May 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) \\! , '' l ', , ~, By~d-    / . (, JJo n W. Walk.e r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 1 t 11 day of April ,, 002.  Jk,_\u0026lt;j( i V\"' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED APR 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its Response to those paragraphs of Joshua's filing which relate to it state: 1. Admits that it knew that Joshua would seek to engage in monitoring activities, but denies that Joshua has engaged in appropriate monitoring activities. 2. Denies that Joshua was to be involved with the selection of principals, denies that Joshua was to be involved in administrative plans, but acknowledges that Joshua has a role to play as respecting programs, policies and procedures as set forth in Plan 2000. 3. Admits that a role for Joshua is set forth in Plan 2000 regarding programs, policies and procedures regarding educational achievement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 as phrased, but acknowledges that Joshua is enterprising in its efforts to obtain information from the PCSSD. 5. 333093-v1 Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7. 6. Admits that a portion of the Joshua Agreement retains vitality as respects student assignment in the PCSSD. 7. Denies the remaining allegations contained in Joshua's submission. 333093-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 --- -- c--::J:-  ~ .,,.. r,, By J) I --\u0026lt; / ;  \\'- ) '-----' M. Samuel Jones Ill (76,,060) Attorneys for Pulaski-e\"ounty Special School Distr-ict ......._ ___ -- -.. - 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 25, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 333093-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette 0. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 M. Samuel Jones Ill (___) J . 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC-EIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 ~tttizit~~~;tA~~wltgt~~S'.~~g1iiil~il.~if~r~1,~1111,~,~-ftdl~-t~'aHhe 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation . 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1723"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1743","title":"District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Students","Parents","Education--Standards","African Americans--Education","Literacy","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School districts","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1743"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["14 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 - Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lcslc~ Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage \"\" EXHIBIT Anita Gilliam i Sharon Kiilsgaard l ~ l 1-28-020111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21 -23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables 30-42 Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 3: Gradel, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 32 Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 1-28-020112 Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-0 I, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 34 Table 7: Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 35 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 35 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 36 Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 3 7 Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students 37 Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students 38 Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 38 Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students 38 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students 38 Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 39 Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students 39 Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students 39 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students 39 Table 20: Cohort 1-All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 40 Table 21 : Cohort 2-All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 40 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students 41 Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students 41 Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 41 Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students 42 Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 42 Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o\" \"'?\u0026gt; I ~'o .. oi '\\- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question I-Program Effectiveness Research Question 2-Achievement Disparities Research Question 3-Professional Development Research Question 4-Four Literacy Models Research Question 5-Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6-Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 68-71 68-70 70-71 72-113 7~-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography - 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 1-28-020114 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 Cohort I-Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 163-166 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, Reading-All Students 202 Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black 203 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students 204 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 205 Appendices A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 200 I Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) \".2s-02011 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 1-28-020116 Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Education- just discussed among staff members. An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to \"provide valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future.\" In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for \"readiness,\" the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. This \"Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District\" builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19, 2001 , the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01 . Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from , but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data; it includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey; and it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test-not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to nonblack student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation . Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks' difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past year's kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year before--especially when this past year's end-of-year scores were higher than the previous class's end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on \"the improvement of the academic achievement of African American children.\" 1-28-020118 2 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Board's Strategic Plan, and the Board's Policy IL, the following research questions were established to guide this study: 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5 .2.1 a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 3. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use-Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only; ELLA and Reading Recovery; Success for All; and Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 5. What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) 6. Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined-the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on \"findings\" or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 1-28-020119 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. The District's statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level. Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewed-especially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineguality, which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the program's quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each school's results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the  determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 1-28-020120 4 Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writer's ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section III describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which \"readiness\" standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plan's design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section Vis a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS); the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA); and the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. \"PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.l of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan,\" \"Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01,\" and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-28-020122 6 '---- --- - - - - II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the District's 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed from the same research base on early literacy; they differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31 ). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.      Shared reading . Guided reading . Familiar reading . Modeled writing or shared writing . Interactive writing . 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I      Writing aloud . Revising and editing . Independent writing and conferencing . Phonetic skills . Classroom management. Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. Background on Program Reguirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan: Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 5dh percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Reguirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Se_ction 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2. 7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. Section 2. 7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. On January 21, 1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 1-28-020124 8 - ---- - - - To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize \"designed to improve ... the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" rather than to \"remediate\" that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools' School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998); the research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association; and from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following: Teachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of wellintentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). She explains that\" the cycle of failure often starts early in a child's school career\" arid that \"there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4.\" Therefore, as the child continues to experience \"failure and defeat,\" he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 1-28-020125 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I she states that \"supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years\" (326). She concludes: Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students' self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures frequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. .. . instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention ofreading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dorn, ~ ill ( 1998) urge teachers, therefore, to \"identify the strengths of young children and use this infonnation as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25).\" In these ways, schools can prevent failure. 1-28-020126 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01 .) The second section from the Revised Plan (2. 7. l) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African American students-and then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the program's implementation or replacing it. Section 2. 7.1: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of learning-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and grov.1h of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements--the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 1-28-020127 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The third section (5.2 .1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations: Reading/Language Arts Section 5.2. l: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 1-28-020128 12 --- ----            Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the District's program. 'A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned . A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cuniculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the District's general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $350,000 was expended in the purchase of reading and other cuniculum support materials during the past two years.  A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card.     Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance Report in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000 . An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001 . 1-28-020129 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. The Assessments Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, 'It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous\"' (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is summary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the child's preferred mode of identifying letters; the letters a child confuses; and the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. Word Test The student is tested over the most frequently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a child's \"readiness to read.\" (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 1-28-020130 14 he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The child's performance is scored by counting the child's representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skillsprimarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Teacher reads one or two pages 4. Child points and reads rest of story; teacher takes running record 5. Teacher asks print questions 6. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures; tells what is happening 4. Child reads story aloud; teacher takes running record  5. Child retells story 6. Teacher asks response questions 7. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud 5. Child predicts what will happen in story 6. Child reads complete story silently in another location 7. Child retells story 8. Teacher asks response questions 9. Child reads selected portion of text; teacher takes running record 1-28-020131 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (L~vels 28-44). \"Readiness\" levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  Kindergarten- Level 2  Grade I-Level 16; and  Grade 2-Level 24. The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on \"Definition of 'Readiness' vs. 'Proficiency\"' is a delineation of the District's efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of \"readiness\" for success at the next grade level. Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. \"Proficient\" is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading \"levels\" of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define \"proficient\" performance. To gauge which \"level\" is equivalent to how Arkansas defines \"proficiency,\" the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: 1-28-020132 16 Grade Level Readinl! Standards DRA Level Kindergarten Children at the end of kindergarten should Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or Gradel Grade 2 understand that every word in a text says sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple something specific. They can demonstrate this illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary competence by reading Level B books that they children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text have not seen before, but that have been appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that previewed for them, attending to each word in children can point as they read. The number of words in the seouence and l!Cttinl! most of them correct. texts ranees from ten to thirtv-six . By the end of the year, we expect first-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to: middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented read Level 16 books that they have not seen and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and before, but that have been previewed for them, elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content with 90 percent or better accuracy of word begins to move beyond children 's personal experiences and recognition (self-correction allowed). builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other When they read aloud, we expect first graders stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with to sound like they know what they are reading. natural language. Some description of characters and setting Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum out difficult passages. By the end of the year, support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or we expect first-grade students to be able to beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words independently read aloud from Level I books in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of that have been previewed for them, using difficulty. intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to independently read aloud middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and better accuracy of word recognition (self- elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content correction allowed). begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sett ing is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficultv. The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several states and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing \"proficiency levels\" developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that \"On Grade Level\" is defined by a kindergarten student's performance at levels 1, 2 on the DRA; grade 1 is levels 16, 18; and grade 2 is levels 24, 28. \"Above Grade Level\" is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten; levels 20-28 at grade 1; and levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the \"Approaching Proficiency\" levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten; levels 10-12 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2. 1-28-020133 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the \"Grade Level\" performance on the DRA was defined as level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. The State of Ohio defined \"Success Indicators\" for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy:  At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words.  By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization.  By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as \"substantially deficient.\" Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress-similar to the District's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2; at grade 1 level 16; and at grade 2 level 28. Ve-rmont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten; levels 16-18 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD staff or are very close. 1-28-020134 18 Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent definition of \"proficiency\" that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination, District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term \"Readiness\" to define the desired performance. When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004, then the staff can do some statistical calculations that will enable the District to set cut scores that reliably predict \"Proficient\" performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, \"the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers' ongoing observations of student progress over time within a literature-based reading program\" (p. 2). Over the next six years there were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spring 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers from various parts of the United States and Canada participated. (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  determining individual students' instructional text reading level;  describing his/her performance as a reader;  selecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction; and  identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA .. The findings were that both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct validity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Reading subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that \"the DRA validly measures a child's ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read\" (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instruction-for the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children that was adopted in 1998: Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of children's knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not reliable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks ... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing\" (20). Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the District's statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. Correlational Matrix, Spring 2001 ALT Reading RIT, ALT Reading Goal RITs, Observation Survey, and DRA Scores Goal I : Word Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Observation Observation Observation Meaning Literal Interpretive Evaluative Survey: Survey: Survey: Compreben Compreben Comprehen Word Test Writing Dictation sion sion 1ion . Vocabulary Reading RIT Score 0.937 0.940 0.922 0.917 0.280 0.467 0.638 Goal I : Word Meaning 0.839 0.805 0.815 0.255 0.438 0.602 Goal 2: Literal :: 1 .. 0.823 0.822 0.223 0.418 0.577 Comnrehension ; l ' Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension .. 0.795 0.1 99 0.410 0.535 Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension 0.207 0.413 0.574 Observation Survey: Word Test ' \" 0.276 0.351 Observation Survey: Writiug Vocabulary .. 0.442 Observation Suney: Dictation . . ' All correlations arc significantat the .05 level DRA 0.788 0.733 0.724 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 N's range from 1577 to 1684 1-28-020136 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has a value above .50--.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures learninghow- to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbach's Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a test's stability; that is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test. The lower correlation values of the  Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test. Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are administered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the student's performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each child's answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students' performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scores- those most likely to be influenced by bias. Students' spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then ifthere is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next year's fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 1-28-020137 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The staff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and writing skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teaching-one approach fits all-the opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, AP A, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 1-28-020138 22 - - -------- with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers; they measured the learning-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers; they provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and summative data; they were developmentally appropriate; their administration procedures met test administration standards for young children; and their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The AL Ts are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole from year to year. With the AL Ts, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each student's academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the AL Ts, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports cannot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the AL Ts, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RIT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a child's physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 1-28-020139 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Author's purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension A. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) B. Identify fact and opinion C. Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) D. Distinguish text forms E. Identify bias, stereotypes. Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: l . Writing Process A. Prewriting skills B. Drafting and revising C. Editing/proofreading D. Choosing appropriate format E. Sentence choice appropriate to purpose F. Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms 3. Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives 1-28-020140 24 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring learning-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. 1-28-020141 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council, (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the report's recommendations for early learners:       Prekindergarten: Preschool programs .. . should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are knovm to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction; to enrich children's vocabularies; to encourage talk about books; to provide practice with the sound structure of words; to develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters; and to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, \"sight\" recognition of frequent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of wellwritten and engaging tests at the child's own comfortable reading level. Children who have started to read independently, D'J)ically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge 1-28-020142 26    in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the understanding that the use of invented spelling is not in conflict with teaching correct spelling. Beginning writing with invented spelling can be helpful for developing understanding of the identity and segmentation of speech sounds and sound-spelling relationships. Conventionally, correct spelling should be developed through focused instruction and practice. Primary-grade children should be expected to spell previously studied words and spelling patterns correctly in their final written products. Writing should take place regularly and frequently to encourage children to become more comfortable and familiar with it. Throughout the early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided with two goals: (a) to support daily independent reading of texts selected to be of particular interest for the individual student, and beneath the individual student's capacity for independent reading and (b) to support daily assisted or supported reading and rereading of texts that are slightly more difficult in wording or in linguistic, rhetorical, or conceptual structure in order to promote advances in the student's capabilities. Throughout the early grades, schools should promote independent reading outside school by such means as daily at-home reading assignments and expectations, summer reading lists, encouraging parent involvement, and by working with community groups, including pu~lic librarians, who share this goal (7-9). Similar research is quoted, and similar recommendations are found in an earlier study from the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Then in April 2000 with the publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel in their report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, one finds similar findings and recommendations. The research-based practices for kindergarten and primary grades advocated by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in their 1998 position paper, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, follow: 1-28-020143 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I        daily experiences of being read to and independently reading meaningful and engaging stories and informational texts; a balanced instructional program that includes systematic code instruction along with meaningful reading and writing activities; daily opportunities and teacher support to write many kinds of texts for different purposes, including stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature; writing experiences that allow the flexibility to use nonconventional forms of writing at first (invented or phonic spelling) and over time move to conventional forms; opportunities to work in small groups for focused instruction and collaboration with other children; an intellectually engaging and challenging curriculum that expands knowledge of the world and vocabulary; and adaptation of instructional strategies or more individualized instruction if the child fails to make expected progress in reading or when literacy skills are advanced (10). This research base under-girds the work of Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model that is recommended by the Arkansas Department of Education and was adopted by the Little Rock School District. The alignment between the research on what works in early litera~y and the assessments selected by the District to measure children's progress in these pre-reading and early reading skills should be evident when comparing the list of recommended practices cited above and the descriptions of what is tested in the assessments described in the following section.  For example, \"knowledge about print\" is assessed in the sub-test on the Observation Survey called \"Concepts about Print.\"    The \"production and recognition of letters\" is assessed in \"Letter Identification.\" \"Recognition of frequent words\" is assessed in the sub-test, \"Word Test.\" \"Word recognition and reading fluency\" are tested in the \"Word Test\" and on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 1-28-020144 28   \"Writing words and parts of words\" is tested in \"Writing Vocabulary.\" \"Linguistic and conceptual knowledge\" is tested on the Developmental Reading Assessment, in \"Writing Vocabulary,\" and in \"Hearing/Recording Sounds.\" 1-28-020145 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. Description of Tables Numerous tables displaying test data for each of the three assessments used in K-2 literacy are included in this section. The District-level results only are reported. The tables displaying data for each school on the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and the Achievement Level Test are in Section IX. Tables lA, 2A, etc. include a calculation of the \"Percent Improvement.\" Some statisticians do not see value in this calculation since it sometimes may mislead a reader. For instance, it is possible to show a greater percent of improvement for a low-performing group than for a higher performing group, even when the lower group gained fewer total points than the higher group. On the other hand, many readers are familiar with the calculation since it is commonly used in the news media to report changes in stock prices, changes in the crime rate, and other reports on issues of interest to the general public. The evaluators made a decision to leave the calculation in the tables in Section V and in the analysis of those tables in Section VI so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions about their use. They are not used, however, in any way in arriving at the \"findings\" or recommendations for improvement in Section VIII. Table 1 Description Table l displays the mean performance levels of kindergarten black and non-black students in 1999-2000-both the fall pre-test and the spring post-test scores. The third set of data in this table, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the black student scores divided by the white student scores as a method of determining the achievement gap at each stage of testing. For instance, black students entered kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring 0.95, as compared to non-black students who scored 2.72. If one divides 0.95 by 2.72, he/she finds that entering black kindergarten students' scores were 35 percent of non-black kindergarten students' scores. The \"Growth\" column in the first two sets of data is simply a subtraction of the fall scores from the spring scores to determine the year's growth. One can compare/contrast the \"Growth\" columns for black and non-black students to determine whether black students were growing at the same pace as non-black students in terms of total points. The \"Growth\" column in the third set of columns, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the number of points gained by black kindergarten students divided by the number of points gained by non-black kindergarten students. This ratio then defines the degree to which black student growth approximates non-black student growth over the year. Where this ratio is equal to or more than l 00 percent, black student growth for the year equaled or exceeded non-black student growth. 1-28-020146 30 Table I: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and !'ion-Black Performance lllad, Students l'ion-lllark Studnr, II/II.II Rotio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 34.08 50.30 16.22 81% 96% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 3.05 14.91 11.86 57% 76% Conceots about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 9.50 17.56 8.06 69% 81% Writin2 Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 I 1.57 4.70 22.13 17.43 62% 66% Hearin1\u0026gt;/R~cordin2 3.58 17.02 13 .44 6.66 24.37 17.71 54% 70% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 2.72 7.12 4.40 35% 43% Table 1 A Description Table IA includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except for two columns. Rather than compute simply the number of points of \"Growth,\" as Table 1 displays, Table IA includes in that column for both black and non-black students a column called \"Percent Improvement.\" This column indicates the rate of growth. That is, the number of growth points in Table 1 for a given sub-test was divided by the fall score to calculate the growth rate for that year. By comparing the two columns, one can determine whether black students grew at or less/more than the rate of non-black growth on each sub-test. Table 1A: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, with Percent Improvement lll~ck Studrnls l\\nn-lllack S1udr111s Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 76% 34.08 50.30 16.22 48% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 547% 3.05 14.91 11.86 389% Concepts about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 119\"/o 9.50 17.56 8.06 85% Writinl! Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 11.57 395% 4.70 22.13 17.43 371% Hearin1?1Recordin2 3.58 17.02 13.44 375% 6.66 24.37 17.71 266% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 225% 2.72 7.12 4.40 162% Table 2 Description Table 2 includes the same data as Table 1 for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-0 l. Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Hlack s111drnt, !\\on-lllack Students U/MI Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 33.02 51.06 18.04 83% 97% 122% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 2.59 16.32 13.73 53% 82% 88% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.07 8.30 18.41 10.11 72% 87% 100% Writing Vocabularv 1.96 18.82 16.86 3.36 26.42 23.06 58% 71% 73% Hearim!/Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 4.66 25.69 21.03 46% 76% 83% ORA 0.35 3.56 3.21 0.85 7.47 6.62 41% 48% 48% Table 2A Description Ratio 129% 81% 96% 66% 76% 49% Table 2A includes the same data as Table IA for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-01. 1-28-020147 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2A: Kindergarten, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllackStull,nh 1\\011-lllack Stullcnls Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth , Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. Lener Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 80% 33.02 51.06 18.04 55% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 872% 2.59 16.32 13.73 530% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.o7 169% 8.30 18.41 10.11 122% Writinl! Vocabulary 1.96 18.82 16.86 860% 3.36 26.42 23.06 686% Hearim?1Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 807% 4.66 25.69 21.03 451% DRA 0.35 3.56 3.21 917% 0.85 7.47 6.62 779% Table 3 Description Table 3 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 3 displays grade 1 data. Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack St111knts 11/1\\ll Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Letter Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 49.54 52.96 3.42 96% 100% 157% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 7.89 18.34 10.45 73% 92% 106% Conceots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 15.70 20.91 5.21 88% 93% 108% Writin2 Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 15.65 44.04 28.39 87% 84% 83% Hearim!/Recordin2 17.25 30.87 13.62 21.98 34.l l 12.13 78% 91% 112% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 6.68 24.37 17.69 64% 68% 70% Table 3A Description Table 3A includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA. except Table 3A displays grade I data. Table 3A: Grade I, 1999-2000 Fall to SprinG Black and Non-Black Performance. With Percent Improvement lllack Studrnh l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Gro,.1b Percent 1999 2000 lmorv. 1999 2000 - Imorv. Lener Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 11% 49.54 52.96 3.42 7% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 193% 7.89 18.34 10.45 132% Conccots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 41% 15.70 20.91 5.21 33% Writing Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 174% 15.65 44.04 28.39 181% Hearin g/Recording 17.25 30.87 13.62 79% 21.98 34.11 12.13 55% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 289\"/o 6.68 24.37 17.69 265% Table 4 Description Table 4 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 4 displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020148 32 Table 4: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\on-lllack Student. 11/:\\11 Ratio Suh-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter ldenti Ii cation 48.95 53.01 4.06 49.66 53.08 3.42 99% 100% 119% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 8.49 18.53 10.04 68% 94% 115% Conccots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 16.11 21.22 5.11 84% 93% 122% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 16.15 45.44 29.29 80/c, 88% 93% HeaJinc,IRecordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 23.55 34.40 10.85 74% 92% 131% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 7.95 25.41 17.46 47% 71% 81% Table 4A Description Table 4A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 4A displays grade 2 data. Table 4A: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Studcnl, 1\\1111-lllack Student\\ Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmprv. 2000 2001 lmprv. Lener Identification 48.95 53.01 4.06 8% 49.66 53.08 3.42 7% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 198% 8.49 18.53 10.04 118% Conceots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 46% 16.11 21.22 5.11 32% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 210% 16.15 45.44 29.29 181% Hearin2/Recordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 81% 23.55 34.40 10.85 46% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 382% 7.95 25.41 17.46 220% Table 5 Description Table 5 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 5 displays grade 2 data. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print are not administered after grade 1. Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black aod Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\nn-lllack Srud,nts 11/:\\U Ratio Sul\u0026gt;-Ttst Fall Spring Growth Fall Sprini: Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Word Test 16.11 18.93 2.82 18.07 19.80 1.73 89% 96% 163% Writing Vocabulary 35.09 50.27 15.18 36.91 60.99 24.08 95% 82% 63% Hcaring/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 48.96 57.17 8.21 86% 88% 100% ORA 17.81 27.92 JO.II 24.21 36.00 11.79 74% 78% 86% Table 5A Description Table 5A displays the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA except Table 5A displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020149 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table SA: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllatk Studl'nls l\\cm-lllack Stud,nh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Grol'1h Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Word Test 16.1 I 18.93 2.82 18% 18.07 19.80 1.73 10%, Writinl( Vocabularv 35.09 50.27 15.18 43% 36.91 60.99 24.08 65% Hearinu/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 19% 48.96 57.17 8.21 17% DRA 17.81 27.92 JO. I I 57% 24.21 36.00 11.79 49\"/o Table 6 Description Table 6 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 6 displays grade 2 data. Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack Studl'nls 11/llill Ratio Sub-Telil Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 17.60 18.91 1.31 91% 96% 157% Writing Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 35.43 63 .97 28.54 84% 87% 91% Hearim?!Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 52.44 56.78 4.34 87% 91% 141% DRA 18.20 28.75 10.55 26.01 35.88 9.87 70% 80% 107% Table 6A Description Table 6A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 6A displays grade 2 data. Table 6A: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Stud,nts l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmnrv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 13% 17.60 18.91 1.31 7% Writin2 Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 87% 35.43 63 .97 28.54 81% Heari n11./Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 13% 52.44 56.78 4.34 8% DRA 18.20 2875 10.55 58% 26.01 35.88 9.87 38% Table 7 Description Table 7 displays black and non-black students' performance for a cohort of students as they moved from kindergarten in fall 1999-2000 to the end of grade 1 in spring 2000-01 . In other words, the table displays the evidence of two years of growth. Although the data include all students enrolled for the full year each of the two years, not just those who were in LRSD for both years, they provide a good picture of the growth of a cohort of students over a two-year period, while Tables 1-6 compared different groups of students at a given grade level. The black/non-black ratios that are displayed in the third set of columns were calculated by dividing the black student scores by the non-black scores. Where the growth is at or above 100 percent in the last column indicates that black growth over the two-year period was more than that of non-black growth, based on total points of growth. 1-28-020150 34 Table 7: Cohort I Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000-01 lllack Stud~nh Non-lllack Student, 11/lliB Ralio Sub-Tut Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Gro.,tb Fall Spring Gro,.th 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ralio Letter Identification 27.59 53.01 25.42 34.08 53.08 19.00 81% 100% 134% Word Test 1.75 17.33 15.58 3.05 18.53 15.48 57% 94% 101% Concepts about Print 6.54 19.76 13.22 9.50 21.22 11.72 69% 93% 113% Writing Vocabulary 2.93 40.16 37.23 4.70 45.44 40.74 62% 88% 91% Hearing/Recording 3.58 31.70 28.12 6.66 34.40 27.74 54% 92% 101,~ DRA 0.95 17.94 16.99 2.72 25.41 22.69 35% 71% 75% Table 7 A Description Table 7 A displays the same data as Table 7 except that instead of the number of \"Growth\" points being displayed in the third column for black and non-black students, the table includes \"Percent Improvement.\" This calculation was the result of dividing the number of growth points in Table 7 by the fall 1999 score for black and then non-black students to determine the growth rate. A comparison of these two columns will reveal the degree to which the program is especially effective for African-American students, as compared to non-black students. Sub-Test Lener ldenrificarion Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Heari nj!{Recordinl! DRA Table 8 Description Table 7A: Cohort I-Percent Improvement Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000--01 lllack S1udents Non-Black Studenh Fall Spring Growth Percenl Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 Jmprv. 1999 2001 27.59 53.01 25.42 92% 34.08 53.08 19.00 1.75 17.33 15.58 890% 3.05 18.53 15.48 6.54 19.76 13.22 202% 9.50 21.22 11.72 2.93 40.16 37.23 1271% 4.70 45.44 40.74 3.58 31.70 28.12 785% 6.66 34.40 27.74 0.95 17.94 16.99 1788% 2.72 25.41 22.69 Percenl lmprv. 56% 508% 123% 867% 417% 834% Table 8 is similar to Table 7, except that the cohort data displayed if for fall 1999-2000 grade 1 black and non-black students and spring 2000-2001 grade 2 black and non-black students. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print were not administered after grade 1. Table 8: Cohort 2 Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000--01 Ulock Sludents 1'011-Black Studlnls 81!\\8 Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ratio Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA 96% NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 7.89 18.91 11.02 73% 96% 112% 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA 88% NIA Writin 13.54 55.76 42.22 15.65 63.97 48.32 87% 87% 87% Hearin 17.25 51.60 34.35 21.98 56.78 34.80 78% 91% 99% DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 6.68 35.88 29.20 64% 80% 84% '\\-28-020'\\ 5'\\ 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8A Description See description of Table 7A and 8 above. Table 8A: Cohort 2,-Percent Improvement Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000-01 lllark Studrnls l\\on-lllark Studtnh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 lmnrv. 1999 2001 Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 214% 7.89 18.91 11.02 Concepts about Print 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA Writing Vocabulary 13.54 55.76 42.22 312% 15.65 63.97 48.32 Heannj!/Recordin2 17.25 51.60 34.35 199% 21.98 56.78 34.80 DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 570% 6.68 35.88 29.20 Table 9 Description Percent lmprv. 140\"/o 309% 158% 437% Table 9 displays the kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 performance of all students in 1999-2000, including the amount of fall to spring growth on each sub-test. This table includes only those students who were present for both fall and spring testing, not all those enrolled. Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:ind1rj!artrn c;rade I Gradr2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 19.33 48.11 52.86 4.75 Word Test 2.18 12.48 10.30 6.43 17.34 10.91 16.76 19.23 2.47 Concepts about Print 7.52 15.37 7.85 14.41 19.91 5.50 Writin11: Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 13.48 14.20 39.30 25.10 35.71 53.80 18.09 HearinJ!/Recordin11: 4.59 19.41 14.82 18.75 31.89 13.14 44.34 52.51 8.17 DRA 1.52 4.40 2.88 5.05 19.11 14.06 19.85 30.50 10.65 Table 9A Description Table 9A calculates the growth rate for all students from fall to spring in 1999-2000. Table 9A: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, with Percent of Improvement h:inderj!nrtrn (iradr I Grade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 65% 48.11 52.86 10% NIA Word Test 2.18 12.48 472% 6.43 17.34 170% 16.76 19.23 15% Conceots about Print 7.52 15.37 104% 14.41 19.91 38% NIA Writin2 Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 384% 14.20 39.30 177% 35.71 53 .80 51% Heatin~IRecordin2 4.59 19.41 323% 18.75 31.89 70% 44.34 52.51 18% DRA 1.52 4.40 189% 5.05 19.11 278% 19.85 30.50 54% 1-28-020152 36 --- ---- ----- - ----- Table 10 Description Table 10 is similar to Table 9 except that it includes 2000-2001 data for all students. Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:inderi:artcn \u0026lt;.rade I Gradc2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Letter Identification 29.05 49.79 20.74 49.07 53.02 3.95 Word Test 1.81 14.29 12.48 6.68 17.67 10.99 16.48 18.33 1.85 Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 10.08 14.29 20.21 5.92 Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 18.66 14.02 41.72 27.70 31.59 58.35 26.76 Hearinl!/Recording 3.00 21.42 18.42 19.46 32.48 13.02 47.53 53.07 5.54 DRA 0.52 4.80 4.28 5.10 20.24 15.14 20.56 30.93 10.37 Table 1 OA Description See description of Table 9A and 10 above. Table JOA: Grades K-2, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, With Percent or Improvement Kindtrcarltn (;rndc 1 (;rade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.05 49.79 71% 49.07 53.02 8% NIA Word Test 1.81 14.29 690\"/o 6.68 17.67 165% 16.48 18.33 11% Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 151% 14.29 20.21 41% NIA Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 774% 14.02 41.72 198% 31.59 58.35 85% HearinivRccordinR 3.00 21.42 614% 19.46 32.48 67% 47.53 53.07 12% DRA 0.52 4.80 823% 5.10 20.24 297% 20.56 30.93 50% Table 11 Description Table 11 displays for each sub-test the percent of the maximum score that black kindergarten students on average attained for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . Each test score is divided by the maximum score to calculate the percent score. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Heannj!/Rccording 37 DRA 44 Table 12 Description Table 11: Percent or Maximum Scores-Kindergarten Black Students Fall Pcncnt Spring Percent an 1999 2000 2000 27.59 51% 48.48 90\"/o 27.43 1.75 9% 11.33 57% 1.38 6.54 27% 14.30 60% 5.95 2.93 NIA 14.50 NIA 1.96 3.58 10% 17.02 46% 2.16 0.95 2% 3.09 7% 0.35 l'crcent Spring 1'11rcent 2001 51% 49.38 91% 7% 13.41 67% 25% 16.02 67% NIA 18.82 NIA 6% 19.59 53% 1% 3.56 8% See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for non-black students. 1-28-020153 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sub-lc,t Max. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writin11 Vocabulary None HearinltfRecordin11 37 DRA 44 Table 13 Description Table 12: Percent of l\\luimum Scores-Kindergarten Non-Black Students au P,rccnt Sprini: l'crc,nt Fall 1999 2000 2000 34.08 63% 50.30 93% 33.02 3.05 15% 14.91 75% 2.59 9.50 40% 17.56 73% 8.30 4.70 NIA 22.13 NIA 3.36 6.66 18% 24.37 66% 4.66 2.72 6% 7.12 16% 0.85 Pcrc.,nl Spri111: 2001 61% 51.06 13% 16.32 35% 18.41 NIA 26.42 13% 25.69 2% 7.47 See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for all students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Conceots about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/RecordinJZ 37 DRA 44 Table 14 Description Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores-Kindergarten All Students Fall Perca,nt Spring l'crccnt fall 1999 2000 2000 29.72 55% 49.05 91% 29.05 2.18 11% 12.48 62% 1.81 7.52 31% 15.37 64% 6.67 3.51 NIA 16.99 NIA '.!.42 4.59 12% 19.41 52% 3.00 1.52 3% 4.40 10% 0.52 Percent Spring 2001 54% 49.79 9% 14.29 28% 16.75 NIA 21.07 8% 21.42 1% 4.80 Percmt 95% 82% 77% NIA 69% 17% Percent 92% 71% 70% NIA 58% 11% See Table 11 description. This table is the same, except that the data are for grade 1 students. Sub-Test l\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinu!Recordin2 37 DRA 44 Table 15 Description Table 14: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 1 Black Studenu 'Fall l'crccnt Sprini: l'crccnt Fall 1999 2000 '2000 47 .44 88% 52.80 98% 48.95 5.15 29%, 16.87 S4% 5.81 13.81 58% 19.46 81% 13.51 13.54 NIA 37.11 NIA 12.94 17.25 47% 30.87 83% 17.49 4.29 10% 16.67 38% 3.72 Percent Spring Percent 2001 91% 53.01 98% 29% 17.33 87% 56% 19.76 82% NIA 40.16 NIA  47% 31.70 86% 8% 17.94 41% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 1 non-  black students. Sub-Test Mu. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 WritinJZ Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 DRA 44 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 Non-Black Students Fall Percent Sprlni: Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 49.54 92% 52.96 98% 49.66 7.89 39% 18.34 92% 8.49 15.70 65% 20.91 87% 16.11 15.65 NIA 44.04 NIA 16.15 21.98 59% 34.11 92% 23.55 6.68 15% 24.37 55% 7.95 l'crcent Spring l'ercent 2001 92% 53.08 98% 42% 18.53 93% 67% 21.22 88% NIA 45.44 NIA 64% 34.40 93% 18% 25 .41 58% 1-28-020154 38 Table 16 Description See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade I-all students. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 ORA 44 Table 17 Description Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 All Students l'all l'ercent Spring Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 48.11 89% 52.86 98% 49.07 6.43 32% 17.34 87% 6.68 14.41 60% 19.91 83% 14.29 14.20 NIA 39.30 NIA 14.02 18.75 51% 31.89 86% 19.46 5.05 11% 19.11 43% 5.10 Percent Spring l'erccnt 2001 91% 53.02 98% 33% 17.67 88% 60% 20.21 84% NIA 41.72 NIA 53% 32.48 88% 12% 20.24 46% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 black students. Sub-Tt,st !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinl!iRecordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 18 Description Table 17: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 2 Black Students f\"all Pl'rcent Spring l'ncent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.11 81% 18.93 95% 16.00 35.09 NIA 51.27 NIA 29.80 42.16 66% 50.34 79% 45.50 17.81 40% 27.92 63% 18.20 l'ercent Spring Percent 2001 80% 18.06 90% NIA 55.76 NIA 71% 51.60 81% 41% 28.75 65% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 nonblack students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabularv None Hearinl!/Recordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 19 Description Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 2 Noa-Black Students Fall Percent Sprini: l'crcent Fall 1999 2000 2000 18.07 90% 19.80 99\"/o 17.60 36.91 NIA 60.99 NIA 35.43 48.96 77% 57.17 89% 52.44 24.21 55% 36.00 82% 26.01 Percent Spring Percent 2001 88% 18.91 95% NIA 63.97 NIA 82% 56.78 89% 59% 35.88 82% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2-all students. Sub-Trst !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writine: Vocabularv None Hearinl!IRccordine: 64 ORA 44 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scorn-Grade 2 All Students Fall l'ernnt Sprin~ Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.76 84% 19.23 96% 16.48 35.71 NIA 53.80 NIA 31.59 44.34 69% 52.51 82% 47.53 19.85 45% 30.50 69% 20.56 Percent Spring l'crccnt 2001 82% 18.33 92% NIA 58.35 NIA 74% 53 .07 83% 47% 30.93 70% 1-28-020155 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 20 Description Table 20 displays the all-student cohort data for fall 1999-2000 kindergarten students and end-of-year 2000-01 grade 1 students. Table 20: Cohort I-All Students Kindergarten, fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 200~1 Suh.\"l\u0026lt;'\u0026lt;I Fall 1999 Sprin:? 2001 (;rm,th Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 Word Tesl 2.18 17.67 15.49 Concepts aboul Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 Writinl! Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 Hearine/Recordin2 4.59 32.48 27.89 ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 Table 20A Description Table 20A calculates the growth rate for the fall 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-01 grade! cohort. Table 20A: Cohort I-All Students, Percent Improvement IGndergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2~1 Suh-1 c,1 F:ill 1999 Sprinl! :?001 (;rm,th 0/.,lmpn. Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 78% Word Test 2.18 17.67 15.49 711% Conceots abou1 Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 169% Writine Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 1089\"/4 Hcaring/RecordinR 4.59 32.48 27.89 608% ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 1232% Table 21 Description Table 21 is similar to Table 20 except that it includes the fall 1999-2000 grade I and endof- year 2000-2001 grade 2 cohort data. Table 21: Cohort 2-AII Students Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2. Spring 2001 Suh-1 l'St Fall 1999 Spri111? 2001 Grnnlh Letter Identification 48.11 NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 Conccnts about Print 14.41 NIA Writine Vocabularv 14.20 58.35 44.15 Hearine/Recordine 18.75 53.07 34.32 ORA 5.05 30.93 25.88 Table 21A Description See description of Table 20A and 21 above. 1-28-020156 40 Table 21A: Cohort 2--AII Students, Percent Improvement Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2001 Suh-1.,,t Fall 1999 Spring 2001 \u0026lt;iro\\\\th %lmpn. Letter ldcntifica1ion 48.11 NIA NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 185% Conceots about Print 14.41 NIA NIA Writin~ Vocabulary 14.20 58.35 44.15 311% Hearinl!IRccordinl! 18.75 53.07 34.32 183% DRA 5.05 30.93 25.88 512% Table 22 Description Table 22 includes for the Developmental Reading Assessment at all three grades tested the percent of black and non-black students who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. Also shown is the perfonnance disparity (gap) between blacks and non-blacks for each of the two years of the testing data and, in the last column, the difference between those gaps. Table 22 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment Black and Non-Black Students Gradt: Black 1'011-II Gap lllacl, :\\011-B Gap +I-Spr. 2000 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2001 K10der 69.3 84.7 15.4 77.0 88.8 I 1.8 3.60 Grade I 48.3 71.2 22.9 57.4 77.3 19.9 -3 .00 Grade 2 63.8 81.6 17.8 69.8 86.8 17.0 -0.80 Table 23 Description Table 23 provides District-level data on the percent of students at each grade level who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level for each of the two years of the testing. Kinder,:art Spr. 2000 72.2 I Table 24 Description Table 23 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment All Students Grade I pr. 2000 Spr. 200 63.8 Table 24 includes District-level ALT data on the perfonnance of black, non-black, and all students on the spring 2000 and spring 2001 administrations of the Reading and Language Usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests for grade 2. Table 24 Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RIT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 1-28-C,20157 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 25 Description Table 25 includes the median RIT score on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test- Reading for spring 2000 and spring 2001 . Table 2S Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students Spr. 2001 ffllrk,iit\u0026amp; 183 21 Table 26 Description Table 26 is the same as Table 24, except that the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table26 Grade 2 Langua~ Usage, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons r:-u7m# : .. ,..196a .~-14 ,\"118:4 ilil19:6 11-1 21 1 Table 27 Description Table 27 is the same as Table 25, except the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table 27 Grade 2 Language Usage, Achit\\'ement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students rffi\"m Spr. 2001 188 1-28-020158 42 - -- - ------ ------- VI. Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 For each sub-test of the Observation Survey and for the Developmental Reading Assessment at grades K-2 and for each sub-test of the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2, results are analyzed below in several ways, particularly in what they reveal about the achievement of African American children. Letter Identification Letter identification is tested at the kindergarten and grade I level. Out of a maximum of 54 points, students performed on this measure as follows in 1999-2000 and 2000-01: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 27.59 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 27.43 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .16. Although the 2000-01 group performed at a slightly lower level on the fall test than those in 1999-2000, they ended the year a little stronger--from 48.48 in spring 1999-2000 to 49.38 in spring 2000-01--a difference of .90. (See Tables 1 and 2.)    Non-black kindergarten students scored 34.08 on the fall 1999-2000 test and 33.02 in fall 2000-01--a difference of 1.06. Non-black kindergarten students,just as blacks, started lower in fall 2000-01 than in fall 1999- 2000, yet they too ended the year a little stronger than the previous year's group--from 50.30 in 1999-2000 to 51.06 in 2000-01--a difference of.76. (See Tables l and 2.) Black grade 1 students scored 4 7.44 on Letter Identification in fall 1999 and 48.95 in fall 2000--an improvement of 1.51 points, perhaps indicating the strength of the 1999-2000 kindergarten instructional program for African-American students, even in its first year of implementation. As in kindergarten, the grade 1 black students in 2000-0J ended the year stronger than the grade 1 black students in 1999-2000--from 52.80 in spring 2000 to 53.01 in spring 2001--a difference of .21. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade 1 students scored 49.54 in fall 1999 and 49.66 in fall 2000--a difference of .12. As in kindergarten and as for black students, the grade 1 non-black students ended spring 2001 at a higher level than they were in spring 2000--from 52.96 in 2000 to 53.08 in 2001--a difference of .12--the same amount of difference, then, as the fall to fall scores. (See Tables 3 and 4.) 1-28-020159 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I One-Year Growth Black kindergarten students grew 20.89 points on Letter Identification in 1999-2000 and 21.95 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth in the second year of the program implementation than in year one for African-American students. (See Tables 1 and 2.)   Non-black kindergarten students also grew more in the second year of the program--from 16.22 points in 1999-2000 to 18.04 in 2000-01. (See  Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade 1 students grew 5.36 points in Letter Identification in 1999- 2000 and 4.06 in 2000-01 . Perhaps the reason for the declining amount of growth was that the 2000-01 grade 1 students were closer to the maximum score in 2000-01 than they were in 1999-2000. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 3.42 points in both 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Growth Rate {Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 on Letter Identification was 76 percent, as compared to 80 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables lA and 2A.)  Non-black students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 48 percent as compared to 55 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Black grade l students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 11 percent, as compared to 8 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.)  Non-black grade 1 students' percent improvement. was 7 percent in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 48.48, and they entered grade 1 with a score of 48.95--a slight improvement of .4 7, indicating no regression over the summer. (See  Tables 1 and 4.) Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 year with a score of 50.30, and they entered grade 1 in 2000-01 with a score of 49.66- a slight regression over the summer of .64. (See Tables 1 and 4.) 1-28-020160 44 Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students ' scores on Letter Identification were 81 percent those of non-black students. By the end of that year their scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 15 percentage points. The achievement gap was virtually closed, therefore, on this measure by the end of the kindergarten year.   (See Table I.) In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' scores started the year at 83 percent of those of non-black students--two points higher than they were at the beginning of the previous kindergarten class. By the end of the year their scores were 97 percent of those of non-black students--one point closer to closing the achievement gap on this measure than at the end of the previous kindergarten year. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year their scores were almost exactly the same as non-black students--I 00 percent. The achievement gap was closed on this measure. (See Table 3.)  Again in fall 2000 the black grade I students' scores were 99 percent of those of non-black students, and by the end of the year the achievement gap closed when black scores were 100 percent of non-black scores on this measure. (See Table 4.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios  In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 129 percent ofnonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth continued to exceed non-black growth--this time at 122 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth was 157 percent of non-black student growth. That pattern continued in 2000-01 when black grade 1 growth was 119 percent of non-black growth. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall 1999 to Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 27.59 in fall 1999 to 53.01 in spring 2000-01 when they were in grade 1--a total of25.42 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black kindergarten students grew from 34.08 in fall 1999 to 53.08 in spring 2001 when they were in grade 1--a total of 19.00 points. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020161 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K.indergarten--Grade 1 Cohort (Fall 1999 to Spring 2001) Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999-2000 to spring 2000-01 in grade 1 was 92 percent. Given that black students began kindergarten knowing a little more than half of their letters, they almost doubled their knowledge in this area over the two-year period. (See Table 7A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade l was 56 percent. Even though black students grew at a rate considerably higher than non-black students over the two years, non-black students continued also to improve. (See Table 7 A.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 81 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of grade 1, the achievement gap was closed with black scores at 100 percent of non-black scores. (See Table 7.)  During the two-year period the black growth was 134 percent of non-black growth on this measure. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020162 46 Word Test The Word Test, with a maximum score of 20, is administered at all three grades levels, K-2. Observations about student performance in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 follow: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 1. 75 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 1.38 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .37, repeating the pattern seen on the Letter Identification test--slightly lower perfonnance in fall 2000 than in fall 1999. Again, however, just as in Letter Identification, the spring 2001 scores were higher than they were in spring 2000. The spring 2000 score was 11.33, and the spring 2001 score was 13.41--a difference of 2.08 points--a good increase in decoding skill. (See Tables l and 2.)      Non-black kindergarten students scored 3.05 in fall 1999 and 2.59 in fall 2000--a slightly lower score, .46 lower. Again the pattern holds, however. The spring 2001 scores were higher than the spring 2000 scores--from 14.91 in spring 2000 to 16.32 in spring 2001--a difference of 1.41 points. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade I students scored 5.75 on the Word Test in fall 1999 and 5.81 in fall 2000--continuing the pattern of higher scores at the beginning of the year for students who had been in the program two years. Also, black students in spring 2001 had higher scores than those in spring 2000. Spring 2000 scores for grade I black students were 16.87, and they were 17.33 in spring 2001--a difference of .46 points. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade I students scored 7.89 in fall 1999 and 8.49 in fall 2000-an increase of .60. In spring 2000 the scores were 18.34, and in spring 2001 they were 18.53--again higher by .19. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Black grade 2 students scored 16.11 in fall 1999 an the Word Test and 16.00 in fall 2000--down .11. The spring performance for 2000 was 18.93, and the spring performance for 2001 was 18.06--down .87. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Non-black grade 2 students scored 18.07 in fall 1999 and 17.60 in fall 2000--down .47 from the previous year. The spring performance for 2000 was 19.80 and for spring 2001 18.91--down .90. (See Tables 5 and 6.) One-Year Growth  Black kindergarten students grew 9.58 points in 1999-2000 and 12.03 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth the second year of the program implementation than in year one. (See Tables 1 and 2)  Non-black kindergarten students grew 11.86 points in 1999-2000 and 13.73 points in 2000-01. (See Tables I and 2.) 1-28-020163 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  Black grade 1 students grew 11 .12 points in 1999-2000 and 11.52 points in 2000-01 . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 10.45 in 1999-2000 and 10.04 in 2000- 01 . One possible reason for this reduced growth is that the non-black students in grade 1 were already getting close to the maximum score of 20 on this measure. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Black grade 2 students grew 2.82 points in 1999-2000 and 2.06 points in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.)  Non-black grade 2 students grew 1.73 in 1999-2000 and 1.31 in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Growth Rate (Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 was 54 7 percent, as compared to 872 percent in 2000-0 l. Although black kindergarten students did not grow as many points as nonblack students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, their percent of improvement or growth rate far exceeded that of non-black students. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 389 percent, and in 2000-01, it was 530 percent. (See Tables IA and 2A.)     Black grade 1 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 193 percent, as compared to 198 percent in 2000-01. At grade 1 in 2000-01 not only did black students have a higher growth rate than in 1999-2000, they also grew more in terms of points. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Non-black grade 1 students' growth rate in both 1999-2000 was 132 percent, and in 2000-01 it was 118 percent. Again, black students' higher growth rate indicates a closing of the achievement gap on this measure. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 18 percent-considerably lower than in kindergarten and grade l, but due to the approximation of the maximum score of 20. In 2000-01 the growth rate was 13 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) Non-black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-200 was 10 percent and in 2000-01, 7 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) 1-28-020164 48 Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison: Grade 1 Spring and Grade 2 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 11.33 on the Word Test, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 5.81--indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)  Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 14.91, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 8.49-again indicating little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)   Black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 16.87, and they entered grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 16.00--a slight regression of .87. Summer regression may decline when students begin to read independently. It is interesting that the regression between grade 1 and 2 is much lower than between kindergarten and grade 1. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Non-black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 18.34 and began grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 17 .60--a regression of .74. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 57 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 76 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 19 percentage points in the first year of instruction. (See Table 1.)    In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' score:. were only 53 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 82 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of29 percentage points. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 73 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 92 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 19 percentage points. (See Table 3.) In fall 2000 the black grade 1 students' scores were 68 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 94 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 26 percentage points in one year and an indication that the achievement gap is ahnost closed. (See Table 4.) 1-28-020165 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I   In fall 1999 the black grade 2 students' scores were 89 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 96 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of7 percentage points in one year. (See Table 5.) In fall 2000 the black grade 2 students' scores were 91 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 96 percent, and the achievement gap on this measure was virtually closed after three years of instruction. (See Table 6.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 81 percent of nonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth was 88 percent of non-black student growth. (See Tables I and 2.)   In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth exceeded that ofnon-blacks-- 106 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 for grade I students was 115 percent, so, again, black growth exceeded non-black growth in grade l . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 2 student growth greatly exceeded the growth of non-black students--163 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 continued at a high rate--157 percent. Black students made their greatest gains in closing the achievement gap on this measure in grade 2. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall I 999 and Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 1.75 in fall 1999 to 17.33 in spring 2000 when they were in grade 1--a total of 15.58 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black students in this cohort grew from 3.05 in fall 1999 to 18.53 in spring 2001--a total of 15.48 points. (See Table 7.) Grade 1--Grade 2 Cohort (Fall 1999 and Spring 2001)  Black grade l students grew from 5. 75 to 18.06 in spring of grade 2--a total of 12.31 points. (See Table 8.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew from 7 .89 to 18. 91 in spring of grade 2-a total of 11.02 points. (See Table 8.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 890 percent. (See Table 7A.) 1-28-020166 50    Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 508 percent. (See Table 7 A.) Black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 214 percent. (See Table SA.) Non-black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 140 percent. (See Table SA.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were 57 percent of those ofnonblack students. By spring 2001 at the end of grade 1, the black scores were 94 percent of t    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_753","title":"Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''"],"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/753"],"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  \n\nUnited States District Court, Eastern Arkansas District of Arkansas, Western Division\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROC SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ET AL RECEIVED MRS. LORE,NE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 DEFENDANTS KATHERDJT KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MCl'ION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for an Immediate Declaration g. Unitary Status states: 1. Che LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court superx uion based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with ' Revised Plan 11, which provides: At th'^ conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order relf-a.\".ng LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied witli Its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSC shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above- descnbed order shall be entered without further proceedings. 2. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revises! Pisa. See Docket No. 3410. 3. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. 4. In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one-halt days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and.student discipline ( 2.5 -2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. 5. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. 6. Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan  11. 7. The accompanying brief and the attached exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) BVi Christopher Heller 2 ACERTIFICATE 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 stopher Heller 3 1 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. LET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Submitted in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. 2. The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. There is no reason to doubt the LRSD Board of Directors' intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^,2\u0026amp;tt--~\\ BY:, istopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hei 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 office OF desegregation monitoring DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31,2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan  9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15,2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard. 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8* Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one- half days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and student discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody, 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree.... At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2t I : f' r-' n. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. I (  r (' On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220,222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v, Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not I been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. (I 1 In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the V. 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 426 F.2d 1035 (Sth Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Cl^, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. Clark v. Little Rock School District. 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 465 F.2d. 1044,1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. S^ Exhibit 1 attached. Memorandum and Order filed July 9,1982, p. 16. 1. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 584 F. Supp. 328, 335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19\nalso LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I i r\n( -  1 In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, [t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city.... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated a equally. Sgg Clark v. Little Rock School District. 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark. 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13,1984, the Honorable Henry Woods foimd the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19,1984. LRSD v. PCSSD. 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district II. 'revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD V. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8^ Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").' The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, imitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving Afiican-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28,1989. 7in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD. 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD. 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). On May 1,1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.^ The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its comrnitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8f f i t 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. ( Without a hearing. Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary. Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821, p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion. Judge Wright invited the parties to modify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. t f Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21,1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies 9r- f r described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan  2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD s Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. See Revised Plan,  9, The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided\nAt the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in tliis Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without fiirther proceedings. See Revised Plan, 11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. 10r  f ( f  The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Comphance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15,2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. ( I On Jime 25,2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). B. Substantial Compliance. I I The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra. the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and temunation of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion t Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20,2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found It a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings stating: We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald Iv. Carnahan], 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8 Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell. 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927,946 (11* Cir. 2001 )(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11* Cir. 1997)). 12Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1. p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procediues for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.\"* Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4' 'The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, JBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, JI, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See CX719. 13To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 269 F.3d 305,335 (4* Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. c. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan $ 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with  2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between Afiican-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed io improve Afiican-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2.7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. S^ Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96-101 (primary language arts), 105-107 (intermediate grades language arts), 109-161 (secondary language arts)\n117-118 (K-12 mathematics)\nand Final Report pp. 51- 54, 57-59 and 62-65 (generally), 72-73 (early childhood), 75-79 (primary language arts), 93-95 (intermediate language arts), 105-109 (secondary language arts) and 115- 117 and 126-131 (math and science). See also CXs 696, 697, 699 and 714. The District rewrote and began implementation of an instructional technology plan (see Interim Report, pp. 122-126 and Final Report, pp. 136-38 and CX 705, tabs 19 and 20)\nrestructured its parent involvement program (see Interim Report, pp. 69-77 and Final Report pp. 149-157)\nrevised the Districts policies and procedures related to teaching and learning (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and 93 and Final Report, pp. 51-55). Among the policy changes have been enhanced graduation standards, the design of a recommended curriculum and higher standards for the honors diploma (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and Final Report, p. 30), and an emphasis on the improved access to and success in advanced courses by Afiican-American students. See Interim Report, pp. 17-41 and Final Report, pp. 30-50. It is too early to make a final judgment about the success of the LRSD's efforts to improve African-American achievement given the implementation status of the District's reform efforts. Dr. Steven Ross, one of two desegregation experts retained by the LRSD with approval from Joshua, wrote in a September 8,2000, memo: There is substantial rationale, both logical and empirical, for giving programs time to impact student achievement. The first stage of impact is program implementation, the next is changing instruction and/or conditions for learning, and after these effects occur, achievement may be impacted. In our Memphis 15r i f study, it took at least two years for school reform programs to show positive results. In fact, after the first year, achievement went down! This same pattern was replicated with three different cohorts of schools. f ex 702, tab 15. While the LRSD remains in the process of changing conditions for learning, early indications are that the LRSD's reform efforts are working. These include: Improvements in reading achievement at the K-2 level, especially in schools implementing the District literacy model, including Reading Recovery, s^ Interim Report, pp. 90-93, CX 703, tabs 1-27, and Exhibit 4 attached. Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001', r Advances in closing the achievement gap in all areas of early literacy in grades K- 2, see Exhibit 4, pp. 81-100\nI Improvements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 (language arts), 131-32 (math), CX 704, tabs 7, 12, 13, 15,18, and 19 and CX740\nDecreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 and 131-132 and CX 740\nImprovements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, s^ CX 740\ni . Decreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see CX 740\nt Tremendous increases in the enrollment of students, including African-American students, in upper-level science and mathematics courses, see Final Report, pp. 126-129 and Exhibit 5 attached, 2000-2001 CPMSA Annual Report-, More than 100 percent increase of Afiican-American students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses at the high school level, see Final Report, pp. 37-39, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15. Significant increases in the enrollment of Afiican-American students enrolled in Pre-Advanced Placement courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies at the middle and high school levels, see Final Report, pp. 39-43, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15\n( Significantly more Afiican-American students taking the ACT for college admission, see Final Report, pp. 47-49\nSignificantly more Afiican-American students taking the Advanced Placement examinations, Final Report, pp. 43-44 and CX 705, tab 15\nand 16Increases in the number of volunteer hours recorded by Volunteers in Public Schools, see Final Report, p. 157. While the LRSD believes these indicators portend improving Afiican-American achievement, factors beyond the LRSD's control make it unlikely that the achievement gap will be eliminated in the near future. In 1996, Judge Wright called Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg as court-appointed experts. Both testified that, given the current socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites, it is impossible to eliminate the achievement gap. Dr. Armor testified: Q Doctor Armor, if I understood correctly yesterday, did you testify that, to your knowledge, there's no desegregation plan that has ever overcome the achievement gap between black and white students, that you're aware of? A That I'm aware of, yes. Q And I think you also testified that making the achievement gap zero is virtually impossible? A Well, impossible as long as there are socioeconomic differences between black and white families that exist today in this country. Tr. May 15,1996, p. 152-53. Dr. Walberg explained: Well, as an educational psychologist, I would like to have all students learn as much as they possibly can. But given the fact that students spend only about ten percent of their time in school, to say that a school district can remove the achievement gap between blacks and whites, I think, is too much. I think it's making a promise that can't be kept. If 90 percent of the students' time is outside of the school, where there are many other factors that affect the students' learning and capacity to learn, I think that it's an impossible promise to keep. Tr. May 13,1996, p. 33. Joshua may argue that the Eighth Circuit's decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8^ Cir. 1991), requires the LRSD to eliminate the achievement gap The LRSD introduced evidence fiom the Arkansas Department of Health and U.S. Census documenting the socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites in the City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas and throughout the country. See CX 716 and 717. 17 before it may be released from court supervision. In that decision, the Eighth Circuit reviewed Judge Wright's decision prohibiting the parties from making modifications to their desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8* Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit identified seven \"crucial\" elements of the 1989 plans \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 256. One of those crucial elements was the agreed \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap. Id. (emphasis supplied). Even so, nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion suggested that the \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap must be successful in order for the LRSD to be released from court supervision. Moreover, no court has held that elimination of the achievement gap is a necessary prerequisite to being released from court supervision. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has cautioned against reliance on African-American achievement as a basis for continued judicial supervision. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 101-02,115 S.Ct. 2038, 2055-56 (1995). As the Supreme Court explained: Just as demographic changes independent of de jure segregation will affect the racial composition of student assignments. Freeman fv. Pittsl. 503 U.S. [467], at 494-95, 112 S.Ct. [1430], 1447-48 [(1992)], so too will numerous external factors beyond the control of the KCMSD and the State affect minority student achievement. So long as these external factors are not the result of segregation, they do not figure in the remedial calculus. See [Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v.1 Spangler, 427 U.S. [424], at 434, 96 S.Ct. [2697], at 2703-2704 [(1976)]\nSwann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.1.402 U.S. [1], at 22, 91 S.Ct. [1267], at 1279 [(1971)]. Insistence upon academic goals unrelated to the effects of legal segregation unwarrantably postpones the day when the KCMSD will be able to operate on its own. Id. Accordingly, the achievement gap has not prevented other school districts around the country from being declared unitary. See, e.g.. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ.. 901 F.Supp 784, 819 (D. Del. 1995) (\"Because the environment outside school is so strong, cumulative, and varied, schools cannot overcome such environmental differences among children.\"), affd 90 F.3d 752 (3\" Cir. 1996)\nKeves v. School District No. 1. 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1300 (D. Colo. 1995)(\"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic 18 factors, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\")\nTasbv v. Woolerv. 869 F. Supp. 454, Aril (N.D. Tex. 1994) (\"The Court is unable to find that the achievement gap in DISD is a vestige of the prior segregated school system.\"). Finally, Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, 11. To meet that burden, Joshua would have been required to come forward with evidence that the achievement gap resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance. rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076- 77 (7* Cir. 2001). As the Com! of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recognized: The reality is that imtil minority students achieve parity of educational achievement with the white students in the Rockford public schools, the plaintiffs will contend that the minority students are victims of the unlawful discrimination of an earlier period in Rockford's history. Yet it is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture. Some of these factors may themselves be due to or exacerbated by discrimination, but not to discrimination by the Rockford school board. The board has no legal duty to remove those vestiges of societal discrimination for which it is not responsible. Insofar as the factors that we have mentioned, rather than unlawful conduct by the Rockford school board in years past, are responsible for lags in educational achievement by minority students, the board has no duty that a federal court can enforce to help those students catch up. It may have a moral duty\nit has no federal constitutional duty. Id. Joshua made no effort to prove that the LRSD's alleged noncompliance caused or contributed to the current achievement gap. Therefore, Joshua failed to meet their burden to prove the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Early indicators suggest that the programs, policies and procedures being implemented are improving African-American achievement. While it is unlikely that these efforts will completely eliminate the achievement gap anytime soon, neither the Revised Plan nor the Constitution requires elimination of the achievement gap as a prerequisite to ending court supervision. The LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v, 19Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities.\"). 2. Revised Plan  2.7.1: Program Assessment. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African- American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Joshua alleges that the LRSD had done \"no assessment of the academic programs for each of the three years following the court's approval of the modified desegregation plan.\" See Docket No. 3447, p. 27. At the hearing, Joshua focused on the program evaluations prepared by the District's Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (\"PRE\"), and in particular, the program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. On the bottom of page 148, the Final Report states: In addition to the three programs on the Board-i evaluated the following programs\nadopted research agenda, PRE Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Pro^am at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital Link While the term of the plan was three years beginning with the 1998-99 school year, the first semester of the 1998-99 school year was a transition period in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan,  9 and 10. 20Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 resulted, at least in part, from comments made by Judge Wright. Judge Wright had expressed concern that \"the District has not accomplished what it set out with respect to monitoring programs that were geared toward raising the achievement level of African-American students.\" Tr. July 9,2001, p. 31. The LRSD later learned that this concern likely had sprung from the Court's ex parte commumcations with Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Marshall informed Judge Wright that the District had not performed certain program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Report after the District failed to provide the reports to her office. See Exhibit 6 attached, Marshall, pp. 59-60. In fact, PRE had either provided data for an evaluation or had evaluated each program identified on bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. See CX 720-730. The failure of PRE to provide the evaluations to ODM resulted from the departure from the District of the Assistant Superintendent for PRE, Dr. Kathy Lease, in June of 2001. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 369. As a result of Dr. Lease's departure, the task fell on Dr. Lesley to locate the evaluations. Dr. Lesley candidly admitted that her initial search failed to reveal all of the evaluations, but eventually they were all located. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 356-369\nsee also CX 616. The evaluations were introduced as Court's Exhibits 720-730. Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 reflects an effort to distort the meaning of Revised Plan  2.7.1 to suit their case. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required the administration of an assessment each year, not formal program evaluations. The LRSD continuously used available assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan,  2.7.1, See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 246. Dr. Lesley provided several examples of how the District used assessment data to make program decisions\nidentifying implementation problems with the Success for All program (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 247-264), refusing to extend for another year a curriculum waiver to Mann Magnet Middle School (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 264-267)\nmodifying the pre-kindergarten curriculum (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 269-271)\ndeveloping pacing guides for 21 i middle school math teachers (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 271-273)\nand revising the class schedule for ninth grade English students (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 273-75). While no formal program evaluations were required, the LRSD evaluated some programs as a part of its efforts to comply with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Those programs were part of the Board-adopted research agenda also discussed on page 148 of the Final Report. See also Interim Report, p. 53. Additional evaluations performed by PRE were included on the bottom of page 148 so the Final Report would not be misleading. The District did not want to leave the impression that PRE had done nothing more than the three evaluations from the Board-adopted research agenda. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 354-56. The evaluations on the bottom of page 148 would be relevant only if Revised Plan  2.7.1 required a formal program evaluation every year of every program affecting African-American achievement. To impose such a requirement would blur the distinction between an \"assessment' and an \"evaluation.\" While these words might be interchangeable in some contexts, they have separate and distinct meanings in the field of education. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 242-43. S^ .11 AMI Civil 4 3014 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should interpret words or phrases associated with particular trade or occupation as experienced and knowledgeable members of that trade or a occupation use them, unless evidence discloses that the parties used them in a different sense.\"). An assessment is a norm-referenced or criterion-referenced test administered to students. Norm- referenced assessments compare a student's achievement to that of a sample of students known the norming group. Criterion-referenced assessments seek to determine the level of student achievement of specific academic standards. See Exhibit 9 attached, Arkansas Comprehensive as Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program, p. 4 and Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 242-43. Assessments may be one component of a formal program evaluation. See CX 586. Formal program evaluations are typically long-term, time consuming and very expensive. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 339. Dr. Lesley testified that she was not aware of any school district that formally 22 evaluates all of its programs and that, in her opinion, it would be impossible to do so given the District's limited resources. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 339-40. From the very beginning, Joshua and ODM knew that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African- American achievement, yet Joshua raised no objection during the term of the Revised Plan. S^ Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 370-71. See AMI Civil 4\"' 3015 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). ODM issued a monitoring report on August 11, 1999, on the LRSD's \"Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" With regard to program assessment, ODM reported, \"According to the Assistant Superintendent [Dr. Lease], the PRE staff will select programs to be evaluated each year rather than attempting to evaluate the district's entire instructional program at any one time.\" See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11,1999, p. 42. ODM offered no recommendations in the area of program assessment and did not suggest that the Revised Plan required that every program affecting African-American achievement be evaluated every year. See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. On August 26, 1999, the Board voted to formally evaluate three programs being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan: the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 (\"preK-3\") literacy program, the transition to middle schools and the math and science project funded by the National Science Foundation. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 319-321 and CXs 718 and 739. These three formal program evaluations became known as the Board-adopted research agenda. At the same Board meeting, the Board separately approved an \"assessment\" plan. The assessment plan included not only the state-mandated benchmark examinations, but also locally adopted criterion- 7' t The evaluation of the English as a Second Language program was also part of the Board- adopted research agenda. Obviously unrelated to the District's Revised Plan obligations, a memorandum agreement between the District and OCR required this evaluation. See Tr. Nov 20, 2001, p. 354. 23 referenced tests for grades K-2 reading and for grades 2-9 in English, language arts, mathematics, and science. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 216. Both the Board-adopted research agenda and the assessment plan were explained in the Interim Report. See Interim Report, pp. 53 (Board research agenda), 56-57 (assessment plan), 101 (primary grade language arts), 107 (intermediate grade language arts), 113 (secondary language arts), and 118 (math). Even after publication of the Interim Report, Joshua raised no objection to the Board-adopted research agenda or the assessment plan. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71. The District's evaluations made pursuant to the Board-adopted research agenda were admitted into evidence as a part of Court's Exhibits 703 (literacy), 705 (math and science) and 711 (middle schools). Joshua will likely argue that these evaluations were poorly written and never approved by the Board. While it is true that the Board never approved the evaluations, nothing required the Board to approve them. When presented to the Board in August of 2000, the Board voted to table consideration of the evaluations until additional assessment data were available. See CX 739, Minutes of August 24, 2000, meeting, p. 5. If anything, the Board's tabling of the evaluations demonstrates its good faith commitment to having quality evaluations. It is also true that Dr. Lesley was not satisfied with the quality of the evaluations. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 329-330. Dr. Lesley discussed her concerns with Dr. Les Camine, then the The District paid particular attention to alignment between the District's curriculum and the assessments in order to better gauge the achievement of Afiican-American students. Dr. Bonme Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, explained: Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that everything you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to leam that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so, without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge or skill anywhere else. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 199-200. Results of the assessments were included in the final report. See Final Report, pp. 55-56 (assessments generally), 79 (early literacy), 90-93 (primary grade language arts), 102-105 (intermediate grade language arts), 111-114 (secondary language arts), 125-129 (math and science), and 131-135 (math). See also CXs 699, 700 and 701. 24 1.i District's Superintendent. Dr. Gamine sent the evaluations for review by Dr. Ross, one of the desegregation consultants approved by Joshua. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, p. 330. After reviewing the evaluations. Dr. Ross e-mailed Dr. Gamine stating, \"I have read three of the recent program evaluation reports completed by your research department. They appear to be of very good quality - well-written, clear and comprehensive.\" GX 702, tab 15. Not surprisingly, Dr. Lesley's dissatisfaction with PRE's evaluations created a rift between Dr. Lesley and Dr. Lease. Joshua sought to capitalize on this rift by offering numerous District e-mails as exhibits. As a whole, these prove nothing more than the fact that Dr. Lesley was willing to fight for better program evaluations, even if Dr. Ross found them to be \"of very good quality.\" Therefore, notwithstanding questions about the quality of PRE's formal program evaluations, Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required annual assessments, not annual program evaluations. The District administered assessments at least annually at each grade level. The District continuously used available assessment data to make program decisions. The Board and Dr. Lesley's concerns about the quality of PRE's program evaluations evidence their good faith commitment to improving Afiican-American achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.7.1. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. 3. 2.5. Revised Plan 2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 252.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman \" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, led the District's effort to ensure no racial discrimination in student discipline by strict adherence to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook (the \"Handbook\"). See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 24-25: see also Interim Report, pp. 13-16. Dr. Watson testified that the her goal was to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 45 and 55. Dr. Watson achieved her goal. The number of suspensions decreased 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year - a decrease of over 1,100 suspensions. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 72-73. Expulsions dropped from 109 during the 1997-98 school year to 3 in 1999-2000. See Final Report, p. 24. The improved learning environment was obvious to both teachers and students. In 1999-2000, 94 percent of teachers indicated they felt safe at school, compared to only 42% in 1997-98. See Interim Report, p. 14. Also in 1999-2000, 93 percent of parents that expressed an opinion felt that their child was safe at school. See Final Report, pp. 24-25. Dr. Watson explained a number of strategies implemented by the District to ensure strict adherence to the Handbook. First, each year the District involved all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers and administrators), including Joshua, in the process of revising the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33-34. Second, the District provided training to students, teachers and administrators on the provisions of the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33 and 38-44 and CXs 672-675. Third, the District asked all parents to sign a \"parent contract\" by which a parent stated that he or she had read the Handbook and agreed to ensure his or her child's 26 compliance with the Handbook. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 33 and CXs 661-670 (back cover). Fourth, the District created the Ombudsman position to investigate student complaints of racebased mistreatment in student discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 16-17. Finally^ Dr. Watson monitored schools' compliance with the Handbook in two ways. Dr. Watson (or another hearing officer working under her supervision) reviewed every long-term suspension and expulsion and those short-term suspensions that were appealed. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 35-37 and 54. Dr. Watson testified that any failure by the school to follow the Handbook resulted in the suspension or expulsion being expunged from the student's record and the student being returned to school. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 26-27 and 35-37. Dr. Watson also prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports cataloging the number of suspensions and expulsions at each school. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 55-56 and CXs 678-681 (annual reports). Dr. Watson provided these reports to Joshua on a regular, ongoing basis. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 62-63 and CX 682. She used these reports to identify schools having discipline problems and would conference with the school's administrators to work out solutions. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 64-71 and CXs 684 and 685. The District also engaged in a number of activities designed to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions. First, the District revised the curriculum in an effort to make it more engaging. Students engaged in learning are less likely to misbehave. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 45. Second, the District established a number of new alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in an educational setting. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 49-55. Third, each year schools were asked to develop strategies for reducing the number of suspensions and expulsions. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 48 and CX 677. Fourth, the District offered traimng for teachers and other personnel in classroom management and effective discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 45-46 and CX 676. Fifth, the District provided training to students in conflict resolution and peer mediation and provided group counseling and case managers. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 46. Finally, for those students who violated the Handbook's 27 !code of conduct, the District followed progressive discipline imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. Behavior modification plans were used as a part of the progressive discipline process. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 46. Despite the substantial decrease in the number of suspensions and expulsions, there was no decrease in the percentage of suspensions going to Afiican-American students. Courts have used a statistic called the total suspension index to measure the extent to which Afiican- American students are disproportionately suspended, often referred to as the \"discipline disparity.\" The total suspension index is calculated by dividing the percentage of Afiican- American students suspended and expelled by the percentage of Afiican-American students in the total student population. Thus, proportional discipline of Afiican-American students would yield a total suspension index of 1.00. SSS Hoots v. Pennsylvania. 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The LRSD's total suspension index has ranged from 1.31 to 1.25 from the 1992-93 school year through the 2000-01 school year. See Exhibit 743 and Docket No. 2226, Exhibit 17. According to 1998' data from the Office of Civil Rights, the total suspension index for all of Arkansas was 2.16. The national total suspension index was 2.24. Other school districts around the country have been declared umtary despite a total suspension index greater than that of the LRSD. See Coalition of Save Our Children. 901 F.Supp. at 817 (total suspension index of 1.81) and Hoots. 118 F.Supp.2d at 608 (total suspension index of 1.50). Joshua will likely argue that the District should have done more to try to reduce the discipline disparity. However, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity. The Revised Plan required strict adherence with the Handbook, irrespective of whether strict adherence to the Handbook resulted in a discipline disparity. The only way to ensure proportional discipline is racial disciplinary quotas. In reversing a remedial decree requiring proportional discipline, the Seventh Circuit noted\n^This was the most recent data available at the time of the hearings. 28( . r' Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root sense. They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically imderpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. They teach schoolchildren an unedifying lesson of racial entitlements. And they incidentally are inconsistent with another provision of the decree, which requires that discipline be administered without regard to race or ethnicity. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.. Ill F.3d 528, 538 (7** Cir. 1997). See Keyes. 902 1  F.Supp. at 1304 (\"If a student's conduct violates the discipline policy, it is expected that he or she will be disciplined regardless of the potential disparate effect on racial/ethnic statistics.\"). See also Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-506(c) (\"Every school district board of directors in this state shall hold its pupils strictly accountable for any disorderly conduct in school, on the school grounds, in r a school bus, or at any school function.\"). Similarly in the present case, mandating proportional discipline would violate the Revised Plan's promise of \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. ( Joshua came forward with no evidence that the current racial disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD. Not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against by the LRSD in the imposition of discipline. Dr. Watson, an Afiican- American, testified that, based on her experience as a hearing officer, Afiican-American students were being suspended more because they were engaging in behavior requiring suspension imder the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 83-84. Dr. Watson stated that socioeconomic factors likely explain the current disparity. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 84. The District's Ombudsman, ^^Similarly, Dr. Walberg testified: Q I asked you about whether or not socioeconomic status was related, or bore a relationship to disparity in Special Education, you indicated that it was. I think you mentioned also gifted and talented as another area that would be impacted in the same manner. What about discipline, suspensions, expulsions, that type of activity? Are you familiar with the relationship between socioeconomic status and school discipline? A It's not my primary area of interest, but I am somewhat familiar, and the relation is what you would expect from the other research that poor children more often get into difficulties of various kinds of indiscipline and so on, and are suspended from school. Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 183. See also Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 189. 29 {-  iJames Washington, an African-American, investigated student claims of race-based mistreatment with regard to discipline. Washington testified: Q. A. Finally, Mr. Walker asked you about the over representation of black students among students suspended and expelled. Based on your experience as Ombudsman and your experience in the District, do you have any reason to believe that the over-representation of African-Americans in discipline has resulted from any systematic discrimination by the Little Rock School District? No, sir, I have no reason to believe that that is true. S^Tr.Nov. 19,2001, p. 21. Therefore, the LRSD successfully endeavored to reduce the number of suspensions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate the discipline disparity. To the contrary, the Revised Plan required \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing that the current racial disparity was caused by systematic racial discrimination by the LRSD. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.5 - 2.5.4. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Siunmary Judgment. For purposes of summary judgment, the Revised Plan sections can be divided into two categories: sections timely challenged by Joshua and those that were not. With regard to those Revised Plan sections not timely challenged by Joshua, the Revised Plan requires that the LRSD be immediately granted unitary status and released from court supervision. See Revised Plan  11. With regard to sections timely challenged by Joshua but not yet litigated, the LRSD moves for summary judgment. Discovery has revealed no evidence that the Board cannot be trusted to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. Consequently, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the LRSD should be granted judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)\nCelotex Corp, v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200. 30I i There will hkely be a dispute as to what Revised Plan sections were timely challenged by Joshua. On April 4, 2001, Judge Wright issued a scheduling order pertaining to challenges to the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The order stated, \"Any challenges to the LRSD's compliance must be filed on or before May 18, 2001.\" See Docket No. 3414, p. 2. Following two extensions of time, Joshua's challenges to the LRSD's compliance were due June 25,2001. See Docket Nos. 3434 and 3445. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with following sections of the Revised Plan: 2.1, 2.1.1,2.2,2.2.1,2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.8, 2.9,2.11.1, 3.4, 3.6, 5.4 and 5.6. Docket No. 3447. Joshua's June 25, 2001, pleading included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. As Judge Wright recognized at the June 29, 2001, pretrial hearing, \"His objections are very general I might add.\" Tr. June 29,2001, p. 49. In preparation for hearings scheduled for July 5-6, 2001, and August 1-2,2001, Judge Wright admonished Joshua: THE COURT: ... Try to tailor your evidence, so that the Court hears the strongest evidence you have against these people. MR. WALKER: Yes. Your Honor, we would ask - THE COURT: I mean, I am not saying that you have any evidence against them, but don't fritter away your time with - MR. WALKER: I understand. THE COURT:  with trivial matters, you know. And I am not like some judges, but I do get, you know, and all of us get tired of hearing just, you know, the trivial things. We want to hear the, you know, we want to hear the strongest evidence you have got. Tr. Jxme 29, 2001, pp. 54-55. On July 5-6, 2001, Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services, and Dr. Gamine, the LRSD's Superintendent during the term of the Revised Plan.'^ Joshua wasted almost an entire day ^^At the conclusion of these hearings. Judge Wright observed, \"[I]t has occurred to me that more likely than not, just more likely than not, if all we were looking at were the constitution, that is the FGreen v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430(1968)] factors. Little Rock is probably unitary.\" Tr. July 6,2001, p. 553. The Green factors are: (1) 31 Iquestioning Babbs about Revised Plan sections for which he was not directly responsible. See, e^, Tr. July 5,2001, pp. 249-250 . As a result, it became obvious that additional time would be needed beyond the August 1-2, 2001 hearing dates, and that time limits would be necessary. On July 9,2001, Judge Wright scheduled two additional hearing days on Revised Plan  2.7, 2.7.1 and 2.5 - 2.5.4 for November 19-20, 2001, and advised the parties that all remaining hearing time would be split evenly between the LRSD and Joshua. Tr. July 9,2001, p. 64. In addition. Judge Wright set aside the week of January 28,2002, for a hearing on the LRSD's compliance with other Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua. In preparation for the January 28, 2002, hearing. Judge Wright directed Joshua to narrow the issues by specifically identifying how the LRSD had failed to comply with the Revised Plan sections identified in Joshua's general objections filed June 25,2001. Judge Wright stated: I want you, Mr. Walker, to decide between now and, I will give you a date, but sometime in December, what other issues you want to bring to the Court's attention, and what other issues you object to, and want to carry a burden of proving that the District is not in compliance on. And I want you to be very specific about these in terms of what parts of the Compliance Report you are objecting to, so that we can once again, beginning January 28th, have a hearing a discrete part of this plan, if that is what you want to do. I don't want just general objections. I want it to be, you know, very explicit, as to why you think this District has not complied. If you have just a more general objection, such as the one you filed initially, that still stands of record. on Tr. 536 (11/20/01) (emphasis supplied). In response to Judge Wright's directive, however, Joshua simply identified additional sections of the Revised Plan that it \"intend[ed] to show noncompliance by the [LRSD].\" See Docket No. 3557. More disturbing to the LRSD than the lack of specifics was the fact that Joshua for the first time challenged the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9,4.0, 5.5,6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. Compare Docket No. 3447 with 3557. Joshua's challenge to these Revised Plan sections was untimely pursuant to Judge Wright's order of April 4, 2001, and the LRSD should be granted immediate unitary status with student assignment, (2) facilities, (3) faculty, (4) staff, (5) transportation and (6) extracurricular activities. Id. at 435. 32 regard to Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. as required by Revised Plan  11. See Freeman. 503 U.S. at 489. in. Conclusion. This Court has a \"duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities' ,11 at the earliest practicable date. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. The Supreme Court explained: As we have long observed, 'local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition.' Dayton Bd. of Education v, Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (Dayton I). Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system. When the school district and all state entities participating with it in operating the schools make decisions in the absence of judicial supervision, they can be held accountable to the citizenry, to the political process, and to the courts in the ordinary course. Id. at 490 (emphasis supplied). See also Missouri v. Jenkins. 515 U.S. 70,138 (1995) (\"Usurpation of the traditionally local control over education not only takes the judiciary beyond its proper sphere, it also deprives the States and their elected officials of their constitutional powers. At some point, we must recognize that the judiciary is not omniscient, and that all problems do not require a remedy of constitutional proportions.\")\nFreeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 505-06 (1992)(Scalia, J., concurring)('\"From the very first, federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.' Dowell. 498 U.S., at 247, 111 S.Ct., at 637 (emphasis added). We envisioned it as temporary partly because '[n]o single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools,' Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717, 741, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125,41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I), and because no one's interest is furthered by subjecting the Nation's educational system to 'judicial tutelage for the indefinite future,' Dowell, supra. 498 U.S., at 249, 111 S.Ct., at 638\nsee also Dayton Bd. of Education v. Brinkman. 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977)\nSpangler v. Pasadena City Bd, of Education. 611 F.2d 1239, 1245, n. 5 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J., concurring). But we also envisioned it as temporary, I think, because the rational basis for the extraordinary presumption of causation simply must dissipate as the de jure system and the school boards who produced it recede fiirther 33 into the past. Since a multitude of private factors has shaped school systems in the years after abandonment of de jure segregationnormal migration, population growth (as in this case), 'white flight' Iftom the inner cities, increases in the costs of new facilities-the percentage of the current makeup of school systems attributable to the prior, government-enforced discrimination has diminished with each passing year, to the point where it caiuiot realistically be assumed to be a significant factor.\")\nBd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991)(\"Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that 'necessary concern for the important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination. See Milliken v. Bradley [Milliken 11 ], 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58.' Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 611 F.2d, at 1245, n. 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring).\"). The \"ultimate question\" before this Court is \"whether the [LRSD] [is] likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision ...Cody. 139 F.3d at 1199-1200. Joshua bears the burden of proof on this question. See Revised Plan 11. Joshua has not and cannot meet their burden. After over 40 years of court supervision of the LRSD, the time has come to return control to the democratically elected Board. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Wilkinson's final thoughts in affirming the district court's granting of unitary status to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district apply with equal force to the LRSD: No decisions are more sensitive and difficult than those involving public schools, and no process more wrenching than that of matching limited resources to the limitless array of educational needs. But these challenges are better met by communities than by courts and, after thirty-five years of sporadic judicial supervision, the time has come to conclude. If not now, when? Each child is a human being to educate. If this essential task of education has become too daunting for democracy, then I know not who we are or what we shall become. Belk, 269 F.3d at 356 (Wilkinson, C.J., concurring). For the reasons set forth above, the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings. 34f' Respectfully Submitted, f  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR_22201-3493 (5011 r^ii r BY: :hristopher Hi r I 35 bp 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 I Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 I Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desep-egation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hellei ( f 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 15S THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED UAOtsnocT courr EASTtWH DtSnRCT AKKANSAS JUL 91982 CA^R. BRENTS, CLERK OE^.CLLRA PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan. The plan is referred to as the \"Partial K-6 Plan\". 1 In 1973, after years of litigation, 2 the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, was simply a continuation of the original litigation, in 1964. The pending case which was filea : exhibit J 1 The following chart 3 illustrates the trend' which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent DecIn In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' b.b% The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. 5. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2I Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent beclin in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under -^e 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated prinary grades and graaes four through six were designated as intermediate graaes. At that tine blacks accounted for 63% of the students in graaes one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly * in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominantly white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, irtiich had black enrollment of 80% or more, one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been drrectea toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a belief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"65-35\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the pro- posals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composea of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a stuay of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State.University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to th_e Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupxl assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black school closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school. the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ano reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be 51,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buroen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker, Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"proportionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evioence that a school has been \"closed or downgraded* because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not blac)c, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are locatea in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from bU% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial l\u0026gt;alance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a numljer of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. 1 This was a decline of bSl from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. t and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Dnder the present plan, seven schools have a black I i enrollment of 80S or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20S'of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a I simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 2b. 10?! by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which ctre essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school is a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacKs. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terns of an attendance plan in 1982.* - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation And contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing clacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the' Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_ a white superintendent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewea again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black wno is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require-' ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable he harbors some bitterness toward the District. him. one ana 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racxal reasons and that racial considerations influenceo personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as~Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment, . I 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14) whites. Dr'. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other \"extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to oo so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimination. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black. against Patterson and defeated him. ran 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney repeatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law. concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Ark. Stat. S80-404, et seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Stuay Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scoools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling \"dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 D.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of onerace, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than \"racial balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-b Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implementea by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 IBuilding on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock A Report to the Little Rock School District Desegregation Assistance Team December 16, 1981 The Technical Assistance Center Box 13010A, SFA Station Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 Bennat Mullen, Director J EXHIBIT 2- Dr. Bennat C. Mullen, Team Manager and Director of the Technical Assistance Center Dr. Shirley McCune, Chairperson, Committee on the Maintenance of Quality Integrated Education Dr. Gary Orfield, Committee to Examine the Current Desegregation Plan and to Explore Options Dr. McCune and Dr. Orfield respectively drafted the reports for the two committees above. Other members of the visiting team are listed on the following page.VISITING TEAM Ms. Wanda Banks Jonal Coordinator P.O. Box 39 Marianna, AR 72360 (501) 295-5429 Dr. Clara Jenning.s Chairperson Dept, of Elem/Early Childhood Education University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, AR 71601 (501) 541-6854 \"r. Glenn Campbell Executive Director of Desegregation Monitoring Office 911 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 231-4153 Dr. Alex John Dean of University Relation.s Northeast Ixjuisiana University 1-5 Administration Bldg. Monroe, LA 71209 (318) 342-2055 Ms. Linda Yee Chew Assistant Director Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Sheryl Uenbo, Director Race Desegregation Assistance Center The zimcrican University SbO8 Carlynn Drive Bethesda, MD 20034 (202) 686-3511 Dr. Ralph Eddins Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13023-SFA Station 75962 , TX Nacogiloche (713) 509-3409 Ms. Donna Grady Speech Therapist Marianna School District 212 Church Marianna, AR (501) 295-3364 72360 Dr. Burnett Joiner Dean, College of Education Granibling State University . P.O. Box 46 Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 247-6941 Dr. Lee Mahon Associate Director Project Equity 2047 Ticonderoga Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 (408) 984-4696 Dr. Shirley McCune Director Education Commission of the States State Services Division 1860 Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80295 (303) 830-3786 Mr. George Mirnbal, Manager Shreveport Chamber of Coiiiiiierce P.O. Box 20074 529 Crockett Street Shreveport, LA 71120 (318) 226-8521 Lois Hart Consultant Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Bennat C. Mullen Director Technical Assistance Center of the Soutliwe.st Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307Ms. Willia Murphy Senior Program Administrator Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station (713) 569-5307 Mr. Allen E. Alonzo Desegregation Coordinating Supervisor East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Dr. Gary Orfield, Guest Scholar in Governmental Studies Brookings Institution and Professor at at the University of Illinois 1775 Mass N.W. Washington, D.C. (202) 797-6066 (217) 333-2574 (217) 352-0696 20006 Mr. Win Grant East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Ms. Susan Paynter Instructor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 Dr. Kay Rogers 3809 Sevier North Little Rock, AR 42116 (501) 450-3110 Dr. Donnya Stephens Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 RESOURCE PERSONS Dr. Dewitt Davis, Demographer Associate Professor of Geography The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 4003 Old Warren Road Pine Bluff, AR 71603 (501) 541-6855 Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, Urban Planner Director of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham 4 Broadway, Room 311 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4790 Dr. J. J. Lacey Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock Public Schools West Markham 6 Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3361 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham \u0026amp; Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 490-2000Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest December 16, 1981 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham and Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Masem: Herewith in this report are the results .of the study that you asked our Center The support and cooperation that you, members of your staff. Board to conduct. of Education, faculty, students, and community gave us throughout the long course of the study was beyond anything that could have been expected. The quality of interest in and support of the school district exhibited during this study will surely enable the community to meet some of the very real challenges that exist. The visiting team members were again and again impressed with the quality of personnel and the quality of programs found within the district. You and the members of the Board of Education can indeed be proud of the affirmative progress and the quality education progress that are in evidence. At Stephen F. Austin State University we are pleased to have been a part with you of a major effort to simultaneously address equity and excellence in education. The report is organized around those two concerns. It is believed that they complement each other very well. It is our hope that you will find this report useful as you plan for the future. On behalf of our University, the staff of the Technical Assistance Center, and the members of the visiting team I thank you for your hospitality and wish you well. Sincerely yours. Bennat C. MiXLlen Director BCM:pc Box 13010 A SFA Station Nacosdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 INTRODUCTION into The image of nine Black children being accompanied by military personnel Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 is etched into the minds of many adult Americans. This event, the result of the confrontation between Governor Orval Faubus and President Eisenhower, captured the drama of the nations' commitment to dismantle dual school systems and end school deseg- regation. Less well known to Americans, however, is the current status of desegregation and the quality of public education in Central High School and the Little Rock schools. Today, Little Rock's ten all Black schools and 23 all white schools are integrated. The quality of education in Little Rock has shown steady improvement and progress despite the usual setbacks and controversies. Much has been accomplished through the leadership provided by the community and the steady efforts of local school personnel. Once again the commitment of the Little Rock community to the maintenance of quality, integrated, public education is being tested. Concerns about increasing racial isolation, white flight, differential treatment and achievement of Black and white students, and the future of Little Rock schools have been raised. Most of Little Rock citizens recognize that these problems will be increased in the future if nothing is done. The solutions of the past can no longer meet the needs of the community and the schools. The situation found in Little Rock is similar to that of many other cities. Changes in our societydemographic changes, economic changes, socialpolitical changes, and technological changesare as evident in Little Rock as in other areas of the nation. In 1957, Little Rock was a community with a Black population of approximately 25,352 of the total population of 107,813. Little Rock served as the trading center for an agricultural economy. Today,the community consists of 393,494, with a Black population of approximately 82,865, and it has become a growing industrial center. The structure and needs of the community have changed during this period of time and these changes require a reevaluation of the evolving needs and the steps which are required if progress is to be maintained in future years. The following is a report of the observations of a team of twenty-two social scientists, business leaders, educators and technical assistance specialists from all parts of the United States who are involved in the study of school desegregation issues. This team visited the Little Rock community in November, 1981, under the auspices of the Technical Assistance Center located in Nacogdoches, Texas. This Center, a project of Stephen F. Austin State University, serves schools in the states of Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Mexico. The team spent four days in Little Rock observing schools\ninterviewing community leaders, parents and school personnel\nand reviewing available research and program documentation. The purpose of the visit was to review the progress of desegregation in Little Rock and to identify ways that the progress could be maintained and expanded. Considerable information had been collected prior to the teams' visit in Little Rock, but it was not anticipated that the team would be able to devote the time or effort necessary for an in- depth study of the Little Rock schools. Rather, the goal of the visit was to utilize the experience of the team as a means of gaining general impressions and recommendations and identifying those areas where further study and consideration was needed. The team was divided into two groups. One group focused on an examination of the current desegregation plan, the demographics and attitudes of the community, and the alternatives which are available for the maintenance andimprovement of Integrated education programs. The second group focused on the internal structure and operation of school programs, the quality of education services provided to Black and white students, and the steps which could be taken to improve the quality of education for all students. A primary assumption of the team was that the maintenance and Im- provement of the quality of education is an essential component of any desegregation effort. The report is organized in two primary sections. The first section deals with the report of the community teamthe feasible adjustments in the desegregation plan within the community and the demographic change and racial trends in Little Rock. The second section of the report focuses on the general quality of integrated education in Little Rock and the opportunities for improvement within the school system. The team was Impressed by the level of community concern about maintaining quality, integrated, public education in Little Rock and the openness and can- dor of school officials and personnel. The team was provided complete coopera- cion and access to schools and information. School personnel were candid in discussing weaknes\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":"vrc_pec_35876","title":"Jean Fairfax studying her notes, 2002","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, City of Richmond, 37.55376, -77.46026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-03-07"],"dcterms_description":["Jean Fairfax studying her notes during a break when she was being interviewed by Edward H. Peeples about AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) work in Prince Edward County, March 7, 2002, Richmond, Va."],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Interviews","Fairfax, Jean--Pictorial works"],"dcterms_title":["Jean Fairfax studying her notes, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"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%3A35876"],"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":["color negatives"],"dcterms_extent":["6 x 9 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":349,"next_page":350,"prev_page":348,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4176,"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}}]}}