{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1225","title":"Oral deposition of Herbert J. Walberg, Chicago, Illinois","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","United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005"],"dcterms_creator":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1984-07-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Herbert J. Walberg, Chicago, Illinois"],"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/1225"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District. Herbert Walberg, a research professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago and consultant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nl 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, WESTERN DIVISION ) ) l Plaintiffs, ) Office of Desegr ga11on Mona1.1,uiw ) vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants. ) ) No. LRC 82-866 ) ) ) ) ) ) The deposition of HERBERT J. WALBERG, called by the Plaintiff for examination, taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Courts pertaining to the taking of depositions, taken before THERESE A. KOZEL, a Notary Public within and for the County of Cook, State of Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, at Suite 900, 208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the 26th day of July, A.O. 1984, at 3:30 p.m. \u0026lt;'Wo[f I!., c:Ro~l!.nbvc-9 and df-~waia.tu, [Jna . (!J\n_c,,.\"90, !flllnol~ e (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 PRESENT: KAPLAN, BREWER \u0026amp; MILLER, P.A., (Metro Centre Mall, 415 Main Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201), by: MR. PHILIP E. KAPLAN, -and- MS. JANET L. PULLIAM, (Suite 350, Gazette Building, 112 West Third, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201), appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff: MESSRS. FRIEDMAN \u0026amp; KOVEN, (208 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604), by: MS. MAREE SNEED, appeared on behalf of the Defendant Pulaski County Special School District No. 1: MESSRS. HOUSE, WALLACE \u0026amp; JEWELL, (1500 Tower Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201), by: MR. EDWARD G. ADCOCK, appeared on behalf of the Defendant North Little Rock School District. REPORTED BY: THERESE A. KOZEL, c.s.R. \u0026lt;wo[fe., c.Ro~e.nCe.\"9 and df~waiate.~, [/n.a. t!hlc.~o, fJt(inol~  (312) 782-8087 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 W--IT-N--ES-S-HERBERT By By By NUMBER I N D E X J. WALBERG Mr. Kaplan Ms. Sneed Mr. Adcock E X H I B I T S NO EXHIBITS MARKED. 3 DX ex ROX RCX 4 62 87 80 MARKED FOR ID \u0026lt;'WoffI! ., c::Rou.nbvt~ a.n.d df-~u,ciau.~, !Jnc. Chictl.fjo, fl[f,nol.. 5 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (WHEREUPON, the witness was duly sworn. ) HERBERT J. WALBERG, 4 called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. State your name and your address, please. A. My name is Herbert J. Walberg. I am at the University of Illinois in Chicago, Box 4348, Chicago, Illinois. Q. What is your full-time position? A. I am a research professor of education. Q. Do you have any outside occupations, that is, consulting on a regular basis or anything else? A. I have consulted over the years, yes, I have :- Q. Well, I am really asking if you are a member of any consulting firm or group. A. No. I am not a member presently of any firm or group. Q. Do you hold any regular employment outside of your academic position? A. Well, I have an ongoing relationship with \u0026lt;woffl!., c:Rou.nb-vc.9 and c:lf-1.waia.tl!.1., [}na. (!f,_1.,,\"90, [!ff,nol~ O (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5 publishers who seek my advice on an occasional basis. Nothing else comes to mind. Q. Have you testified in any school cases? A. Yes, I have. Q. Tell me the names of the school cases in which you have testified. If you can't remember the names by the case style, then the city will be sufficient. A, The most recent case was the St. Louis case. I believe that was called Liddell, L-i-d-d-e-1-1. I testified in the Benton Harbor case. I testified in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana\nand a number of years ago, I testified in some hearings that were conducted in Iowa and in New Jersey. Q. When you say \"a number of years ago,\" what are you talking about? A, Q. A. ago. Q. A. Q. I believe it might have been about 1973. When did you testify in St. Louis? I think it might have been about 18 months And for whom did you testify? I testified for the State of Missouri. What was the nature of your testimony? \u0026lt;'Wolfe., c:Ro!J.e.nbe.'Tfj and c:lf!J.waiate.!J., [/na. Chic~o, .Offinol 0 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 A. I was asked to examine plans that had been put forward by various parties to the case\nand I was to evaluate the plans, particularly from an educational standpoint, to see how it would affect teaching and learning within the districts, St. Louis and the county districts. Q. How about Benton Harbor? How long ago did you testify there? A. Q. A. Q. there? A. I think it was about three years ago. And for what party? The Coloma Public School District. What was the nature of your testimony There had been a school annexation of a small amount of land at one point, and the Coloma schools and the Benton Harbor schools and one or two other districts were at odds about ho~ that might have affected education within the Benton Harbor schools. I was asked to assess the degree to which that might have affected learning, and I was also asked how best to improve black learning within the Benton Harbor public schools. Q. With regard to East Baton Rouge, can you \u0026lt;Woff t:, cf?o!\u0026gt;.t:nfn,'-9 and c:f/-Hoc.iatt:5., [}nc.. C!hie.~o, !Jff,nol~ 0 (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 tell me approximately how long ago your testimony was there? A. I think that would have been about two years ago. Q. And for what party? A. It was for the East Baton Rouge Public School District. Q. What was the nature of your testimony there? A. I was asked to assess the effect of teacher experience, years of experience on student learning, and what factors might best promote learning within the schools. Q. When were you first contacted to be a witness in this proceeding? A. Q. A. Q. It perhaps was about five or six weeks ago. Who contacted you? Mr. Steven Jones. What was the nature of the assignment given to you? A. I was asked to look at the characteristics of education in the three districts, to examine the quality of education, to assess the degree of liability and also to see what might be done about \u0026lt;Wo{fe, c:Ro~mfre.~ and. clfuoa.iate.~, [}na.. {!f,_~CUJO, [Jt[,nol~ ~ (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 remedies with respect to improving learning. That is basically the charge I was given. MR. ADCOCK: Excuse me just a minute. (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.) BY THE WITNESS: A. I neglected to mention -- I forgot to mention I was also given the Dentler plan and asked to examine it. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Can you tell me what you mean by \"assess liability\"? A. Well, I was asked to read the Judge's memorandum opinion and to look at various things that he had said with respect to North Little Rock and to see how important that might be for the educational process. Q. What materials were you supplied with to assist you in undertaking this assignment? A. I am not sure I can name them all, but I have been given nearly the entire transcript. I was given the Judge's memorandum opinion. I was given a number of North Little Rock exhibits. When I visited the Little Rock area, I was \u0026lt;wo[f e, c:Rou.nGe\"5 and clf-~waiate.~, [}na. {!f,~a:Jo, !J[(inol  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 supplied with various curriculum materials. During visits to the schools, I was given examinations and things that were used within classrooms to promote learning. I obtained maps of some of the school districts. There had been a report, I believe, by a government mediator which I looked at. There is probably some more materials, too, that I have looked at that I can't bring to mind now. Q. When you talk about the transcript, were you given the transcript of the liability phase, the first two weeks in January? A. If I could ask, it starts about Page 1, doesn't it, and goes to about Page 7000? Q. I frankly can't remember the ending page, but it's two weeks' worth of trial in January. A. Yes. I believe I was given the entire thing. Q. Were you given that portion of the remedy phase in April? A. Q. A. Yes, I think I was. And have you read that entire transcript? I can't say that I have read every single page and word, but I have attempted to read the \u0026lt;Wolf I!., c:::Ro1\n.l!.nbl!.'UJ and. cft1\n.waiatl!.1\n,, [f na. (!f.,c~o, ifff,noh. e (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 parts that concern education closely and, perhaps less attentively, some of the other parts. Q. Have you requested any additional materials? A. Yes, I did. Q. What were those? 10 A. I requested curriculum materials from the North Little Rock School District central office staff and also the Pulaski County District staff. Q. Anything else? MR. ADCOCK: Can we confer again for a minute? MR. KAPLAN: Go ahead. (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.) BY THE WITNESS: A. Yes\nI am sorry. I was speaking of the materials I actually got. I did wish to get materials from Little Rock as well and to visit schools and interview central office staff in Little Rock, but I did not have the opportunity. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. All right. Do you understand that part of your assignment in connection with your engagement by the North Little Rock School District will be to \u0026lt;Wolf I!., cRou.nbl!.~ and c/1-1.wa.ia.u.1., {/na,. {!l',\n.,,O'jo, ffffinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11 assist in developing a plan of desegregation? A. My understanding will be that I will provide suggestions on techniques or procedures that would be incorporated into the total plan. Q. Have you done any or made any such suggestions yet? A. I have discussed these suggestions with the central office staff in Pulaski County and in North Little Rock and the lawyers in the case. Q. Do you understand you will have any kind of formal role in connection with drafting any sections of a desegregation plan? A. Yes. Q. What will that be? A. I will write a report of my findings, which will, as I understand it, be incorporated into a North Little Rock plan and analysis. Q. When do you intend to do that? A. I am working on that now, and I hope to have a good draft or fairly final draft within the next several days. Q. And does \"next several days\" mean sometime next week? A. I am not entirely clear how much time we \u0026lt;vVoff e, cf?o~enbe'rfj and df-~waiate~, [}na. C!.hlc\":fo, .[Jffinol., 8 (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 12 will be given for this. As I understand it, we are in something of a rush to get this. So I would like to take as much time as possible, but I would be ready perhaps with a draft or fairly final material by, say, Saturday or early next week. Q. Are you speaking about Saturday, you mean, the day after tomorrow? A. Yes. MR. KAPLAN: We would request that, too. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Do .you intend in this draft to assess liability in the context in which you first spoke of it? A. Yes. Q. Do you intend to discuss remedies with regard to improving learn~ng? A. Yes. Q. Do you intend to give your critique of the Dentler plan? A. Yes. Q. Do you intend to do anything else in this draft or in the final version? A. Well, I think that those are the basic \u0026lt;wolfI! ., c.Ro~l!.nb-e'tfj and d/-uoaiatl!.~, [fn a. Cfik~o, _[Jffinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 13 intentions that I have. Q. Are you the primary author of the North Little Rock plan, or will there be some co-authors? A. Q. A, Q. A. I would not be the primary author. Who is? I think it will be a group effort. Who are the other members of the group? Well, I believe that the other expert witnesses will be drafting materials Q. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I am sorry. A, I believe that the other expert witnesses will be drafting materials that may be criticized: and I believe that the attorneys will be examining it and it will be reviewed in various phases. not entirely certain how it will proceed. I am Q. Do you know what portions Dr. Armpr will draft? A, I am not sure of that, no. Q. Have you had a meeting of the authors of the plan to discuss any outline or general theoretical construct of the plan? A, Do you mean all of the authors or -- Q. Either all or any substantial number \u0026lt;'Wof f-, cf?o!..enbe 'UJ and. df-!..~ciate!.. , [} n.c. C!hic~o, flff,nols  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 thereof. A. Well, over the course of the various meetings I have had on various occasions, the possibility or even the probability of a report being completed has been discussed. 14 And various ideas have been put forth on the sections in such a report and how it might proceed have been discussed. Q. Have you had a meeting at which the general theoretical or philosophical framework was discussed? A. WeLl, I think I need to interpret the philosophical framework. I suppose that this has been mentioned at various times, yes. Q. Well, for example, have the authors with whom you have met made a decision to opt for a purely voluntary plan as opposed to a mandatory component? A. I am not entirely sure that all of the authors would take a position with respect to a voluntary or a mandatory plan. Q. A. Q. What is your position? I would have to advocate a voluntary plan. Purely voluntary? \u0026lt;'Wo{f e, c:Ro~en.b-e'tfj and df.~waial:e.j,, lna. C!f.k\"90, fJ[[inol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me all of the purely voluntary desegregation plans of which you are aware? A. plan. Well, certainly Chicago has a voluntary I imagine that there are different definitions of voluntary plans. Some plans may be voluntary but have a mandatory backup. Q. I would include, within mandatory, voluntary with a mandatory backup. What I am asking you now is to list for me, if you can, all of the purely voluntary plans with no mandatory backup. A. I don't think I can be certain in answering that question. I think there may be mandatory aspects of the St. Louis plan and there might be in Milwaukee, but I think that these have been cited as cases in which voluntary procedures have been used that have been effective. Also, the Benton Harbor case, as I heard about its later results, was a voluntary plan. Q. Purely voluntary? A. I can't be certain that there were either mandatory backups or not. Perhaps there may be some \u0026lt;Woffl!-, c:.Ro1,.l!-nb-l!-'r9 and. c:ft1..walafa1,., [}n.a. (lf,,~\"90, fl{{inol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 appeal procedures or something of that nature. Q. Would your plan, if you had your druthers in it, if you get to exercise the dominant authorship, be for a purely voluntary plan? A. I would prefer voluntary plans. I think that they have great merit. The only time that I could advocate a mandatory plan is simply obeying the law, but I see very little other use for a mandatory plan. Q. Are you aware of any purely voluntary plans in any southern school system, that is, a formerly de Jure school system in the south? A. Yes. Q. Where? A. In fact, I am glad you reminded me, because it was a case I neglected to mention. It was in Norfolk, Virginia, where I testified: and Norfolk, Virginia, had a mandatory plan, I understand, for many years. They were concerned about the quality of education in Norfolk, and the school district wanted to back away from a mandatory plan and to use voluntary transfers. And that was approved by the Court. \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?o~l!.nb-l!.\"9 and cltucaiate.~, [}na. Ch.c\"-:}o, f!tt,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 17 Q. Any others? A. Not that I can think of offhand. Q. Have you, in connection with your meetings with the other authors of the plan, discussed any desire to go at the very least for the degree of racial balance for which you will aim? A. I am sorry. I don't understand your question. Q. All right. Have you formulated any position with regard to what the plan will aim for concerning the racial balance in the various schools in Pulaski County? A. When you say \"you,\" do you mean me? Q. I mean you and your co-authors. A. I have not come to that conclusion, and I am unsure as to whether the other authors have come to such a conclusion on racial balance. Q. What is your understanding of the racial composition of the North Little Rock School District? A. I have looked at one point at the school percentages of blacks in the schools, and I remember that there was a range of percentages. Offhandedly, I don't know the overall balance within the North Little Rock School District. \u0026lt;Woff e, cRo~enfre'tfj and c:lfuoaiate~, [}na. C!hkago, flffin.ol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 Q. How about in the Little Rock School District? A. My recollection is that it was approximately 50 or 60 percent black. Q. How about in Pulaski County Special School District? A, We are talking about the entire district? Q. No. I am talking about -- yes, the entire Pulaski County Special School District, but not the entire county three school districts. A, And we are talking about the entire district as opposed to specific schools? Q. That's right. A, My recollection is that it's approximately 22 percent black students in the Pulaski County District. Q. And 1how about the percentage of black students, white students, if you put together the three school districts in the county? A, I think that the point was made in the transcript, and my memory is that it might have been about 30 to 40 percent. Q. Do you have any view with regard to what any desegregation plan should require in terms of \u0026lt;Wo[f e, cf?o1,,enbe\":J and c/f-1,,wcial:e,1,,, [/nc. {!f.k~o, if{[inol._  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 the percentages in the county? I am not talking about the Pulaski County Special School District. I am talking about countywide now. A. I don't have a strong position or opinion about the racial balance, what it should be within the entire Pulaski County. Q. Do you expect that by the time a plan is devised, that the authors of the plan will settle on some kind of figure as to what it ought to be? A. Well, I would speculate that they may arrive at such a figure. The other expert witnesses are sociologists and others that are more concerned about racial balance, and I think that their opinions will weigh most heavily. Q. You have been concerned about it in the past, have you not? A. Racial balance? Q. About the concept of racial balance. A. Well, I have been concerned about it\nand I have been brought into cases where it has been at issue, yes. Q. Have you discussed among your fellow authors anything with regard to faculty composition \u0026lt;Wolf I!-, cf?o5.wb-vc-9 and. clfuoaiatl!-5., [Jna. Chic~o, flff,nolf1  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 20 and staff composition? A. I don't recall any conversations with the other expert witnesses on staff composition. Q. When you have used integration as a concept in your writing before, what is your definition of integration? integration? What do you mean by A. I think that integration is a somewhat imprecise term. I think it means that, to some extent, people are treated as individuals rather than as racial categories. That is one favorable aspect of the term. I think another favorable aspect of the term is that, especially in the context of schools, the attention is given to teaching and learning as opposed to simply desegregation or racial mixing. These are the two aspects of the term that I think I would tend to emphasize in thinking about it. Q. Have you ever been involved in the drafting of a desegregation plan before? A. I have been asked, I think, in all of the cases for educational advice about what would promote the quality of learning and so on\nand I had \u0026lt;'Wo{f , cf?o1..nb-e'rf} and clt1..waia.u.1., [Jna. {!f,_~~o, flffinoiJ.  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 written notes and given ideas in discussion on how to improve education in these plans. Q. Have you ever been involved in the drafting of a plan for desegregation? Are you confused by the question at all? Do you understand what I am asking, that is, how to desegregate schools that have been found by an order of a court to be segregated? A. Well, you have used the term involved in the drafting. I think that I have written notes of perhaps memoranda, and I have participated in discussions with people who were formulating plans\nand my ideas have been incorporated into those plans. Q. Have you ever participated in any way in those portions of the plans that dealt with what racial balance would be required in a particular school or group of schools? A. Well, I have in the sense that I have advocated voluntary desegregation, voluntary transportation and suggested that idea\nand that idea has been incorporated into the court deliberations, into my testimony and into other peoples' testimony and various documents in these desegregation cases. \u0026lt;Wolfe, c::Ro~enb-l!.\"9 and d/-Hoaia.l:e.11., fna. (!/\n_kago, iJffinol~ e (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 Q. In Norfolk and in Benton Harbor. Anyplace else? A. St. Louis. Q. Are you responsible for any part of the St. Louis plan? A. Well, since I testified, certainly, in that sense my ideas were incorporated, I believe. I think also, in contrast to some of the other expert witnesses, I had suggested a voluntary plan that would not involve an amalgamation or consolidation of the districts. So .in that sense, I think that my ideas may have been considered. I can't say that I was the one who decided, but certainly I suggested that in testimony. Q. How much are you being paid by North Little Rock School District? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. I am being paid $500 a day. Have you submitted a bill yet? Yes. How much is the bill that you submitted? I submitted two bills. How much are they for? One was approximately $3,000. \u0026lt;Woff, cf?o!,./!,nb-e.~ and clf.1.waiau.1-, [f na. (!J\n_~\"-90, iffflnob  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. A. And the second? Was about $7500. 23 Q. A. And to what billing date does that take us? I think that the second bill was the 24th of this month. Q. A. Q. Is that for time and expenses? Yes. I mean, the total of the approximate $10,500 includes time and expenses? A. Yes. Q. What desegregation plan specifically, other than the ones you have mentioned, have you actually studied? A. Q. A. Desegregation plans? Yes. Well, I think that there were approximately four or five different plans that were submitted in St. Louis, and I studied them all. Q. What I am really asking you now -- and it was inartfully drawn -- is to tell me whether you have in the course of your preparation for this proceeding or any other looked at the operative plans in any particular school districts and then compared those plans to some result, that is, what \u0026lt;Wolfe, cf?o1,.enbe'tfj and clhwaiatu, Jna. C!hi.u\u0026gt;-go, ffftlnol~ 0 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 has happened during the course of the implementation of that particular plan. Have you studied any school districts around the country? A. Well, to take a specific example, I did study the plan that was going on in Norfolk, Virginia, that I had mentioned earlier\nand I was asked to assess it and to find out if it was effective. That is one example of a district where I studied a plan that had been ongoing. Q. Have you studied any others, other than those you have told us about, and reviewed them and studied them with a view to seeing whether the plan was successful in accomplishing the order and mandate of the Court in achieving desegregated education? A. I studied prior plans in several respects, one of which was racial balance\nbut the tasks that I have been asked to concentrate on in my previous work was to look at the educational aspects of the plans. Q. Would it be fair to say that you have not studied any plans anywhere, including those \u0026lt;'Woff c., c::f?o1.c.nbe'f} and. dhwaia.u.1., [/na. Cfzc~o, Jffinos  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 districts that you told us about, with a view to ascertaining whether the plan as implemented was carrying out the mandate of the Court? A. I felt that these were legal questions. 25 As I understand your question, it had to do with the legal implications of the plan. Generally, I have more been asked to concentrate on the educational aspects. Q. Would it be fair, then, to say that you have not looked at any desegregation plans anywhere to determine whether the goals have been reached with regard to desegregation, either by way of staff desegregation, student population desegregation, school desegregation, any of those items? A. No. It would not be fair to say that. Q. Well then, tell me where you have done those things. A. As I said, in Norfolk, I had been asked to look at the procedures that was being used there under, I believe, a court order and prior plans that had been called for and to assess their value, primarily with respect to bringing about effective education but also to looking at racial balance and social class balance. \u0026lt;'Woffl!., c.Ro5.mb-vr9 and. cl/-5.waiatl!.5., {/na. Chic:}o, iJtt,noh  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. A. Q. Any other? I was giving you that as an example. Tell me all of the others. 26 A. I think you said earlier about the Court, whether the Court was doing it or not\nand I have to say I was not a lawyer, but as far as the educational and racial balance issues, I think that those were important considerations in nearly all the cases I have testified to. Q. I am not drawing the distinctions you have just mentioned. What I am asking you now is, have you studied any plans, any school desegregation plans in existence, and evaluated those plans to see whether, in your view as a educator, those plans were meeting the requirements of court orders with regard to staff desegregation, pupil population desegregation, and any other componepts of the desegregation plans as might have been required by the court? MR. ADCOCK: Is this question limited to those instances wherein he has studied these plans for those reasons in conjunction with an appearance in court or with his independent research and his work that is done through the university? \u0026lt;Woffl!., cf?o!..ULb-l!.'r-9 and. clfHcaiatl!.1,. 1 [}na. {!f:.1.a~o, ff{[inol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 MR. KAPLAN: The latter\nindependent research and work done in any connection. I don't care. BY THE WITNESS: A. You enumerated a number of instances. Should I take them one by one? BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Any way you want. A. You mentioned staff desegregation. I have studied patterns of -- let me take that back. I am sorry. I am going to have to have you ask the question again. Q. Sur.ely. Have you in connection with any of your work, either specific school district testimony or engagements or in connection with your general researches, investigated and made any analyses of school desegregation plans as those plans relate to court orders regarding pupil population desegregation, faculty and staff desegregation or any other components of a desegregation plan, for example, treatment of pupils in regard to specific educational programs, learning disability programs or any other? A. In all the cases that I have testified on, I think that the factors that you mentioned had an \u0026lt;'Wolfe., cf?o~e.nbe.'ff} and. c:lf-:1.wai.ate.:1., [fna. Ch~a:JO, ifffinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 important bearing, and I was asked my opinion about those factors. In addition, I have carried out other work that did not involve court cases in which those factors were variables that were studied in my research. Q. And tell me what school districts they involved, even if they did not involve litigation. A. Well, there would be many studies that I have conducted, because I had analyzed a large-scale social survey data throughout the United States. Q. Are any of them school districts specific? A. By your question, do you mean were they averages of school districts analyzed? Q. No. What I mean is, did you take a particular desegregation plan, whether it was court ordered or not -- for example, the City of Seattle does not have a court ordered plan\nit has a voluntarily drafted plan with mandatory aspects, but nevertheless it was pot court ordered. I am asking you if you have investigated any desegregation plans, whether court ordered or otherwise, as they relate to these several factors that I mentioned. \u0026lt;Woffl!., c:Ro5.l!.n\u0026amp;e'tf) and. c:lf5.wcziat.5., [}na. (!l',,,~o, .!J[finols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 A. I may be missing a nuance of your question, but I thought I answered it earlier when I said that I have participated in these court cases that I mentioned earlier. Q. Are there any other specific school districts other than the court cases you can tell me about? A. Well, certainly. I have carried out studies in Fort Wayne, Indiana, that had a desegregation plan. I have studied Chicago Public Schools data with respect -- because it was in court and I had studied various racial factors in relation to achievement, and I have also studied the racial balance within the Chicago Public Schools. Q. Any other school districts now? A. Well, as I said earlier, I have done many large-scale studies in various districts, some of which have had court orders or were under desegregation plans or various mixtures of blacks and whites, and I have conducted studies in those school districts. Q. Have you formed any tentative or final conclusions which you will present in your testimony \u0026lt;'Wo[f I!., cRo!..l!.nbl!.'f-9 and clf.uoaiau.1., !Jna. Chi\u0026lt;!O-Jo, !Jffinol~ 9 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 concerning your assessment of liability? A. I was asked to assume that the Judge's memorandum opinion was accurate. I am not sure that I can contradict the judge. I have been focusing most on the Dentler plan and remedies -- I am not sure I am being completely responsive to your question. Q. Do you have a view that there is inadequate foundation for any of the Judge's findings with regard to liability? MR. ADCOCK: Excuse me. I am not going to instruct him not to answer the question\nbut I want it noted on the record that, again, all of these expert witnesses were told specifically to assume that the Judge's findings of liability were, in fact, correct. MR. KAPLAN: Okay. MR. ADCOCK: And with that caveat, he is perfectly free to answer the question. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Go ahead. Do you recall the question? A. Maybe you better mention it again. Q. Is it your view or do you have a view as to whether there was inadequate factual basis for \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, cf?ou.nb-vr.9 a.nd clf-~waiate~, ffna. Cfzk~o, f!{(,nol!J.  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jl any of the Judge's liability findings in this case? A. I have not come to a final conclusion on that point. Q. Do you have some tentative conclusions on that point? A. Since I was asked to assume the liability, I have not come to an opinion on that. It's something that I would say is conclusive at this point. Q. Well, I am not really asking you for any final conclusions. Do you have now any areas where you tentatively feel that the Judge may have grounded his liability findings in an inadequate factual basis, based upon your own history of research as well as your having read the record in this case, those portions that you did read, and the Judge's memorandum opinion? A. Well, since I was asked to assume the liability, I haven't thought through that question. Q. Do you intend to have any discussion as part of your testimony with regard to liability, and if so, what will that be? MR. ADCOCK: None of his testimony or the \u0026lt;Wolfe, c.Roj_enbe'tf} and. c:lfj_wai.a.f:e.j_, [}na. C!hic\"-90, !Jffinol\u0026lt;.  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 testimony of any of the other expert witnesses is designed to nor will it specifically impugn the Judge's findings of liability. We want that very clear in the record. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Do you intend to discuss in any way the 32 impact of liability, the extent of liability, or any other way that your lawyer chooses to phrase it? A. I may reach conclusions on the extent of the liability, because I was asked to assume liability\nbut I may measure that or attempt to measure it. Q. What I am asking you is, in what areas have you done that or do you intend to do it? Since I may not get another crack at you before you go on the stand, Dr. Walberg, I want to shoot all my weapons right now. A. I will assess the degree to which racial mixing or desegregation may impact upon an achievement, and I will assess the degree to which consolidation may impact upon the community and achievement. And I may be asked questions about the degree of specific liability within the Judge's \u0026lt;Woff e., cf?o!,./!,nb-e.'UJ and df-1,,waiau.1,,, [}na,. (!f.ic\"'.30, .[![[,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 33 memorandum. Q. Well, that is the area I am most interested in now. What will you have looked at in order to make that assessment, and what are your tentative conclusions? A. I have, as I said earlier, looked at the North Little Rock exhibits\nand I have read the testimony given by central office staff in North Little Rock. And as I also said earlier, I have interviewed bhe staff\nand while I have not come to firm conclusions, I want to review everything before I do. I may look at, as I said earlier, the racial balance, the consolidation, but possibly also the disciplinary procedures and i suspensions, the classification within gifted programs, and classification of mentally retarded students. Q. Haven't you looked at all those yet? A, I have read all the transcript, but I have not perhaps been given as much time as I would like\nand there are other things I would like to have so I may come to a more definitive conclusion in the next \u0026lt;'Wo{f e., c:Ro~wbe.'tfj and. c:lf~waiate.~, [Jna. {!f,_\n,,:Jo, ilffinol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 34 several days. Q. Well, can you tell me, if you had to write today what you say you are going to have written perhaps by Saturday, what would you write with regard to those matters? A. In my opinion, I can answer one of those quite specifically. In my opinion, racial balance has very little to do with learning. It is not a primary determinant of how much is learned in school, and that I can definitely say. I have reached that conclusion from other studies and syntheses that I have conducted. Q. That is not what I am asking. What I am asking is, with regard to the extent of liability, you told me you were going to testify in regard to three areas -- the degree to which balance will impact upon learning\nthe degree to which consolidation will impact upon the community and achievement\nand the extent of the liability as it was found by Judge Woods. A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, it's the latter or the last of those three items that I am now concerned about. I don't know exactly what you mean by the \u0026lt;Wolf I!., c/?01..l!.nbvr-9 a.nd c:lfuoa.iate.~, [}na.. {!f'.c~o, fJClincb  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35 last, but I am certain it means something different than the first two just because you said it differently. A. Yes. Well, I think that I mentioned the first two quite clearly but what I am -- the third is highly related to it because, as I understand the case, it has to do with desegregation. Q. How is it different from the first two? Tell me how it's different and then what you have done. A. It had to do more with the liability. So I will examine the first two questions in relation to the third\nwhat is the degree of liability and how is it related to the questions of how racial mixing affects achievement and the degree to which I will attempt to assess, one might say, the costs and the benefits of consolidation. Q. Are you going to say anything about magnet schools? A. If I am asked, I would certainly say something about it, yes. Q. asked? A, Do you know whether you are going to be I am not sure. \u0026lt;\"Wo ff e, cR o5.enfwr9 and. df-5.waia.te1.. , .0 na. {!f:ea.go, if[linol~ 0 (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 36 Q. Have you been asked to do any research and investigation with regard to magnet schools or to prepare yourself with regard to an inquiry regarding magnet schools? A. I was not specifically asked to look at magnet schools\nbut during the course of my preparation, I did look into the question of magnet schools. Q. Let me ask you a little bit, before I get to your assessment of these various liability issues, about your assessment of the Dentler plan. Can you give me your overall assessment? A. I think that the Dentler plan is extreme in its insistence on consolidation and mandatory desegregation. Q. All right. Can you now be more particular, after you have given me this generalized critique? A. I have reservations about the lack of community and staff participation in the plan. I don't think that the plan would promote learning as much as other alternatives. Q. A. Q. What other alternatives? Nonconsolidation and voluntary transfers. If I told you right now that I am the \u0026lt;woffl!., cf?o1.l!.nfre'tfj and c/hwa.iatz.1., [/na,. {!/\n.~90, flffinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 judge and that you got a balance racially within plus or minus 33 percent of the district-wide average, all of the schools in the county and I don't tell you how to do it, whether to do it by consolidation, pupil sharing, pairing, -- and I 37 haven't given you any constraint other than that as the general overall constraint -- how are you going to do that, if you had your druthers? I am the judge\nyou are my expert. Do it. A. I would honestly have to tell you that this may be extremely difficult to do and that it would perhaps be prohibitive in its costs. Q. Dr. Walberg, I am the judge now and I am talking to you as my expert. \"Walberg, I didn't hire you to tell me what I couldn't do. Tell me how I am going to do it.\" I am the judge now, Federal Court judge. I hired you to tell me how to do it. You have got an order. Are you going to resign? A. Frankly, yes, I think that I would probably have to do that. Q. All right. That is okay. That is an \u0026lt;wo[fr., c.Ro~nb-r.UJ and df-11.wciate.11., flnc. C!hka-go, !J{linol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 alternative. What else is it about the Dentler plan that you don't like? A. I think that the Dentler plan lacks attention to the uniqueness of the districts. I 38 think that it has too much emphasis on statistical quotas and mixing. I think that the transportation has not been fully assessed and that it might be harmful in several respects, for example, money, children's time, disruption of current programs in the districts. Q. Do you know what school district in the United States has probably the single most expensive transportation system in per pupil? A. No, I don't. Q. How much does the Milwaukee plan cost, do you know? A. Well, I had heard some years ago: but I think I may have been mistaken. And then I did read the testimony by the expert in Milwaukee. My memory was that it was an extra several hundred dollars, but I am not sure of those figures. Q. Do you recall his saying his was about the \u0026lt;woffI! ., cf?o~nb-1!.'rfj a.n.J. d/-1.MJaiau.1., [fn a. {!J\n,,:~o, f1Ct,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 39 most expensive in the country? A, I don't recall that, no. Q. Okay. Tell me what else there is you don't like about it. A, I think I have mentioned the major factors, at least that come to my mind. Q. Okay. Do you recall an article that you wrote called \"School Practices in Climates That Promote Integration,\" which appeared in Contemporary Educational Psychology in 1983? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do -you still stand by everything that is in there? A, I don't remember all the different points that were in there. Q. With regard to racial mixing you wrote, \"Although increased interracial/ethnic contact does not guarantee the development of positive interracial/ethnic attitudes, knowledge and behaviors, such contact does appear to be needed if these positive outcomes are to develop. Within school resegregation, grouping and tracking has been found to widen racial prejudice and inequities.\" \u0026lt;wo[fl!., cf?o~mbvc9 a.nd df-~wa.iafa~, lna,. C!hlca.:JO, .flff,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 40 Do you stand by that? A. I think I would have to read the entire article again and look at it in context, but what I could say about it now is that I certainly agree that some schools that may be nominally desegregated may become resegregated within classrooms so that the blacks may be in one group and the whites may be in another. I have believed that that has happened, and I will certainly stand by that. Q. Is that bad or good as an educational matter? A. WeLl, one would have to look at that in each context. If there are substantial differences between the black and white achievement, teachers may have some tendency to use tracking and grouping within classes. I think that it may have ~ome beneficial effects, and it may have some harmful effects. Q. Is the process of desegregation to be looked at, in your view, within your universe of things, as primarily a matter of how children do on standardized tests? A. I would say that that is a very, very important consideration, because the purpose of the \u0026lt;wolf~, c:Rou.nbe'Cfj and. cf/-1,.waiau.1,., [fna. cr..~a:10, .O[l,nol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 41 schools is learning. I, as an educational psychologist, want to find the ways that are most effective and efficient in promoting learning. Q. You would then measure the success of a plan of desegregation on the basis of how improved black children -- how well they score and how much improvement they have on standardized tests? A. I would emphasize that as a major factor but not the only factor. Q. What other factors? A. Well, there are other things to be taken into consideration. Q. Tell me. A. These might include the extent to which they get along with one another\nthe extent that integration, as I defined it earlier, takes place\nthe extent to which there is not white flight or segregation by social class, either within schools or within communities. I think that the morale of the educational staff is important, the relation of the school to the community, and related factors need to be weighed. \u0026lt;wo[fl!-, cf?o1.l!-nb-vc9 a.n.J. clf1.waiafr.1., [fna. Chic\":Jo, IJ{(inols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 42 Q. Do you still believe, to quote from Page 88, \"Our index of student integration consists of three parts\nOne, knowledge, the extent to which students are correctly informed about significant aspects of people of other racial and ethnic groups\nTwo, attitudes, the extent to which students have positive feelings towards interracial association\nThree, behaviors, the extent to which students report positive interracial association.\" A. Yes. I think those are important aspects of integration. Q. Do you believe that having staff models is important? A. For what? Q. For a successful plan of integration. A. Yes. I think that is likely to have an important bearing. Q. Is it important or acceptable to you to use standardized IQ tests and achievement tests for assignments to educable mentally retarded classes? A. I think that these have been standard practices throughout the United States over a period of decades and that there are various opinions about the value of that. \u0026lt;wolf~, cRou.nfrvcg a.nd cl/-1,,u,aia.tu, [fna. {!_f,t,,tl\nJo, !Jff,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 43 There is some evidence that grouping, that is to say, homogeneous grouping, children with like abilities, can facilitate teaching. So I would say, from the point of view of current practices, it's certainly not something that is unusual. Q. That is not exactly what I want you to respond to. A. I am sorry. Q. Is it appropriate and acceptable within your universe to use those standardized tests for assignment to E.M.R. classes? A. Yes. I think that intelligence tests and achievement tests are useful in placing the students in E.M.R. and other categories within schools, but I also think that other factors need to be taken into consideration. Q. Do you believe that any of those tests are culturally biased? A. I have to give a long answer, I am sorry to say. I think that these tests have been evolved specifically or designed specifically to predict how well the children will do in school. The very origins of intelligence testing \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?o!..en.bvr-9 a.nJ. c:lf-uoaiatl!.1- 1 [}n.a. (!f.ie~o, !fl(noh  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 44 with Binet and others came from that desire to place children in the most effective situation possible. So this is the conventional use that has been made of them. Now, they are culturally biased in the sense that middle-class children will do better on the tests. So you could say that they are culturally biased towards promoting greater learning and the assimilation of children into middle-class culture. Q. Are they culturally biased against certain racial and ethnic groups? A. I think that particular cultural and ethnic groups have had various degrees of environmental exposure to middle-class culture. So that it is a well-known fact that racial and ethnic groups and cultural groups do differ on the intelligence and achievement tests. Q. Do you believe that they are biased against blacks? A. I would have to say, perhaps in my own terms, that it is a well-known fact that blacks score lower on conventional intelligence and achievement tests on average\nbut there is \u0026lt;wof(e., c::Ro~nCe'f} and c:1/-j_waio.u.j_, [}na. {!f:c.~o, !J(t,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 45 substantial overlap between blacks and whites. So in that sense, there are differences. But going back to the main point of your question, the cultural bias, I would say that it indicates the child's, that is, a black or a white child's, potential for doing well in school. Q. A. Q. You are an educational psychologist? Yes. You are familiar with the literature concerning test validation by race? A. Yes. Q. Are you not familiar with the fact that Binet has never been racially validated? A. I don't understand your point. Q. Well, I don't need to make a point. Do you understand the question? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. In your view, is Stanford-Binet a racially biased test? A. I would have to go back to my earlier point to say that it is biased in the sense that it predicts which children will do better in school, if that is the meaning of cultural bias. Q. No\nracially biased, biased against blacks. \u0026lt;Woffe, c::Ro~uibe-ig and df-~wc.iatv,., [/nc.. CJ:.1.e~o, fJa,nol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 46 A. I think that there have been some studies, particularly of older versions of some intelligence tests, perhaps even the Stanford-Binet, that have indicated that there may be some biases in some items. But I am of the view that it is sufficiently well-known that most modern tests have removed biases against blacks. Q. And the current version of the IQ test does that? A. Of the Stanford-Binet? Q. A. I can't say that specifically, since I haven't made a specific study of the Stanford-Binet test, nor do I give that test personally myself. From a reading of current literature, I would say that the Stanford-Binet, Wechsler and other modern individual intelligence tests are not biased against blacks. Q. Wechsler is not either? A. I haven't conducted a specific study of the Wechsler test\nbut I am not aware that it is especially, particularly with modern versions, biased against blacks. \u0026lt;Wolf,  cf?ou.nfrl!.'tfj and cfl-1,.wa.iatl!.1., [}na,. Cf.ic\":Jo, .oainol~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. And do you agree with the remarks made under \"Staff Models\" of your article to which I have had prior reference, \"School staff provide adult role models for students. It is important that there be appropriate staff models available for students. Healthy and visible interracial/ethnic relationships among staff provide models for integration. Thus, schools with staff racial and ethnic diversity matching that of students and staff who are perceived as being racially, ethnically integrated appear more likely to promote integration among their students.\" A, I think in the context of the article that what I was writing about, that these characteristics of the staff enhance students attitudes towards racial integration. that statement. So I stand by Q. What do you mean or did you mean when you said, \"Thus, schools with staff racial and ethnic diversity matching that of students\"? What does that mean, \"matching\"? A, Well, in the particular context of that study, which was several New England studies, they were both black and white students in those schools\n\u0026lt;'Wolfe, cf?o~wbe'Cfj a.n.J. df~waiate.1.., fJna. C!hlc~o, fl[(inols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 48 and there were also black and white staff members. And in addition, in various neighborhoods, there were other ethnic groups, such as Portuguese and Hispanics and others. So I was making a statement that it might be useful to have some mixing or presence of those staff members to enhance the students' attitudes towards integration. Q. You would never accept any minimum acceptable percentage rate, would you, in the faculty or staff of the minority or ethnically diverse group? A. Well, I would be reluctant to do that, because sometimes there are the labor market problems of getting these exact matches. Q. Well, I want you to assume with me a perfect world in which people are available. A. I don't think exact or nearly exact proportions are critical, no. MR. KAPLAN: Okay. Can we take just a short break. (WHEREUPON, a recess was had.) MR. KAPLAN: Could you read back the last question and answer, please. \u0026lt;woffl!., cf?ou.n.Cl!.'tfj and. c/f~waiau.~, [fna. (!f,~~o, [Jffnol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY MR. KAPLAN: (WHEREUPON, the record was read by the reporter as requested.) 49 Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Walberg, with regard to the following fact situation\nif the student body composition of a particular school district is 40 percent, what the faculty and/or administrative staff ought to be in terms of its percentage, 40 percent minority? A. For what purpose? Q. For the purpose of composition. A. I don't have any strong opinions on the most desirable racial fractions within districts. I think that if there was clear discrimination against people, it would certainly be wrong\nbut as far as the learning is concerned and so on, I don't think it is the decisive factor. Q. With regard to the drafting of a plan for the desegregation of a previously segregated school district, do you have an opinion with regard to whether any certain percentage of minority ought to be required in the staff and the faculty? A. I certainly, as I said earlier, think that the school districts must conform to the Judge's \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, c::Rou.nbe\"ff a.n.d c::1/-1!.waiau~, [Jna. {!f:.k'90, .Offinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 order\nbut as far as the learning is concerned, I think that the racial percentages is not an important consideration. 50 Q. Do you have an opinion as to what a judge ought to include in an order concerning faculty and staff percentages of minorities? A. This is not something that I have strong views about, nor do I consider myself an expert on. I think that a major consideration is the avoidance of discrimination in hiring and in promotion, certainly\nbut as far as effects of schools are concerned, I don't have any strong opinion that that, aside from the discrimination, would have major effects. Q. Do you believe that in any plan of desegregation there ought to be a security component? A. Well, I think that if a security component is necessary or seems necessary, then it certainly should be included. Q. Do you believe that it is based on everything you have read in connection with the Little Rock matter? A. I have not reached a conclusion about that. I would speculate that if the community objected \u0026lt;Wo{f e, cf?ou.nbe-r.g and clf-1,.~aiau.1,., .Ona. C!hL.!\"90, if{(inols  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 51 strenuously to it, that security might be necessary there. Q. Do you still agree with the following in your article on school practices: \"One key qualitative aspect of such contact is the presence or absence of fear often generated by the threat of interracial/ethnic conflict. Schools where students believe themselves to be secure from the threat of imminent conflict are more likely to be affected in supporting the development of integration.\" A. Yes. I believe that fear and violence and related factors can have harmful effects on learning. Q. Do you believe that racial fairness is an essential component of any fair plan of desegregation? A. Yes. I think it's important that the plans have racial fairness. Q. Do you still hold your views, as stated in your article, \"When students feel they are fairly and equally treated by staff, whatever their racial or ethnic identity, they appear to be more likely to develop interracial/ethnic understanding and acceptance.\" And skipping briefly, it says, \"Students \u0026lt;wo[fe:., cf?o~e:.n.b-t:.\"9 and. c:lhwciatu, [}n.c. Cf..k~o, iJ([\nnol~  (312) 782-8087 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 52 whose own cultural-based behaviors are not well received by staff from another culture may feel that they have been unfairly treated as a result of their racial or ethnic culture. Thus, schools that attempt to provide fair treatment to all students with a respect for variant cultural norms should be more likely to promote student racial integration.\" A. Yes. Q. Is there anything in that paragraph that I don't know about that talks about learning as opposed to promoting student integration? A. I wrote that article some years ago, even though it was published recently. I would very much like to have a copy of it to read it over again. Q. I will make sure you get one if you don't have one. Don't you have one? A. I honestly don't. Q. Do you still agree with the following among \"School Integration Practices,\" \"Racial mixing and racial fairness are the most strongly related to student integration, attitude and behaviors. A. May I have that repeated, please. Q. I will just give it to you to read. It appears right under Table 4. \u0026lt;Wolfe., cf?o~e.nbe.'Lf} and clf-~wciatu, [}nc. C!h.Lc.~o, .Offinol~  (312) 782-8087 1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BY THE WITNESS: A. Yes. BY MR. KAPLAN: (WHEREUPON, there was a short interruption.) I agree with that. Q. You told me that you thought that the transportation in Dr. Dentler's plan was harmful. Does it bother you that the St. Louis plan places virtually all of the bussing burden on blacks? A. I think that it would have to be 53 considered in context\nand I think that, taken alone, that has an element of unfairness about it. On the other hand, I think that in the St. Louis area, many of the suburban districts were felt to have better schools and that there was some feeling in the metropolitan area that the St. Louis schools were not as effectiv~. So taking children or giving them the opportunity to go to better schools worked to their advantage. Q. Do you believe from what you have read of the transcript in this case that the bussing burden ought to be shared equally among black and white students in Pulaski County? \u0026lt;Wolfe, cf?ou.nbvr-9 aru1 cl/-1.waiate1-, [/na. C!f'ilc\":Jo, !Jff,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 54 MR. ADCOCK: Are you assuming in that question a consolidated school district? MR. KAPLAN: Assuming any transportation, student sharing, magnet schools or whatever. MR. ADCOCK: MR. KAPLAN: MR. ADCOCK: BY THE WITNESS: Whatever the remedy? Whatever the remedy. Go ahead and answer the question. A. I think that it's difficult to answer this in a universal way. I think that if -- since I have said earlier that I believe that voluntary transfers are desirable, that it may be that more whites or it may be that more blacks would desire to go to different schools. And I would certainly think that that would be more valuable than meeting an arbitrary mixture or statistical quota. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Assuming some mandatory components, do you believe that the bussing burden, if a burden there be, ought to be shared equally among blacks and whites in Pulaski County? A. I think that, as an abstract concept, if there had to be mandatory desegregation, that there \u0026lt;vVoff e., c:Ro1.ntre-r.g and clf-1.1,0aiafa1., [}na. Cf.1.c\"f)o, lJ{linoi~  (312) 782-8087 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 55 should be proportional representation in the transportation, all other factors considered equal. Q. I take it that means yes? A. Well, I would resist making a blanket statement that it always should be the case. Q. Does that come as close to yes as you can get in this context? A. Yes. Q. You have already told me how you feel about the degree to which racial balance will impact upon learning. I think you told me it wouldn't affect it, is that right? A. In a brief answer, that's correct. Q. Will it affect it negatively? A. Desegregation? Q. Yes: racial balance. A. Well, it's a complicated question, I guess, because I have said earlier that it is well-known that there are differences in ethnic groups and their achievement levels. So there would certainly be a compositional effect. If we look at the broad pattern of education, there are such things as white flight and \u0026lt;wolfI! -, cf?o!..wbvr9 and. df-\"aiate.1-, {Jna. {!fz.1e.\"90, if((inob  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 56 so on and middle-class flight of blacks and whites out of systems that have mandatory desegregation. So that can have injurious effects to learning. Q. Well, in your view, consolidation will racial-balance impact negatively upon the level of black learning? A. Q. A. Yes, it definitely could. And upon what do you base that conclusion? I base it on the conclusion that there would be a diversion of financial and human resources away from education, away from learning, into transportation, that it may interfere with present staff relationships. It may interfere with the relation of parents to teachers in the schools that the children are presently going to. There are other related factors that are likely to bear upon black and white learning. Q. Is there any study of any kind that you know of in the context of a desegregation plan that required a large-scale reassignment of students because of a desegregation plan that demonstrated that the changing faculty relationships, the changing nature of the PTA configuration and the \u0026lt;Wolfe, cRou.nb-e'tf} and clfuoaia.te1.., [}na. {!/',t,,\"90, [J[(,ncl~ e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 parents' relationships to the schools negatively impacted upon black learning? A. Well, you mentioned a great number of factors\nand there are studies that indicate that specific factors, taken one at a time, have an important bearing on learning. 57 Q. Has there been any study in the context of the implementation of a large-scale desegregation plan that moved a large number of students around and that changed faculty relationships, studentfaculty relationships, that changed PTA configurations or parent-school configurations, that demonstrated that there was, thus, a negative impact on black learning? A. I can't say that any study has studied all those factors in one single study, but there have been studies bearing on several of the causal connections that you mentioned in your question. Q. Isn't it true that the large majority of studies have indicated that in desegregated situations after a desegregation plan has been implemented that the level of black learning generally stays the same or goes up? A. In my opinion, desegregation has \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, cf?o~l!.nbl!.~ and. dhwai.a.tl!.1., []na. t!h.k~o, [J[[,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 58 inconclusive results, and ma y have both positive and negative results. Q. Is there anybody of learning that demonstrates that the achievement level of whites in a desegregated education system has declined? A. Yes. Nancy St. John, in a book some years ago, reviewed the desegregation literature and came to the conclusion that desegregation, in some instances, perhaps in the majority, has produced negative consequences for Q. How about Christine Roselle? What does her research show? A. I think that Christine Roselle has been more preoccupied about the question of white flight, and I don't know her opinion about the effects on learning. Q. Have you read anyone else other than Nancy St. John with regard to that matter? To the question of desegregation on learning? Q. Yes. A. Yes. I have read a sum of studies, reviews and syntheses. Q. Is it your view that there is a \u0026lt;vVoffe, cf?ou.nbe~ a.n.J df-~waiau.~, [}na. {!f,LcO:Jo, fJCt,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 59 significant body of literature which shows that the achievement level of whites generally declines in a desegregated atmosphere? A, The only study that I can cite is the Nancy St. John study, which reached that conclusion. Q. Are there other studies which show it does not negatively impact upon the level of white learning? A, My knowledge of that currently is only from the St. John book. And in the book, my memory of her conclusion is that, on average, it had some negative consequences\nbut I believe that there may have been some other studies that she reviewed that did not show that. Q. Is there any other area about which you will testify that we have not discussed this evening? A, I don't recall any other areas, but I may be asked to look at other things between now and the trial date. Q. Do you intend to prepare any tables, graphs, charts or other demonstrative evidence with which to elucidate or expand on your testimony? A, Yes. Q. Have you begun the preparation of those \u0026lt;Wolfe, c/?011.wb-e~ and. c:lf-1,.1,.oauifa~, [fna. Cf..k~o, f1({1nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60 documents? A. Yes. Q. Have you completed any of those documents? A. No, I haven't. Q. When do you expect to complete them or have any ready for inspection? A. Perhaps early next week. MR. KAPLAN: We would request those also as soon as they are available. BY MR. KAPLAN: Q. Are you familiar with Dr. Dentler's work and testimony in the St. Louis study? A. Yes, I am. Q. Did you make any comments in your testimony to the Court with regard to his feasibility study? A. I am not sure that the feasibility excuse me, are we talking about St. Louis? Q. Yes. A. I am not sure that I remember the title, whether it was the plan or a feasibility study. Q. Cid you comment on either to the Court? A. He had a plan which may have been called a feasibility study, and I did comment to the Court. \u0026lt;'Wolfe, d?ou.nbe'-9 and c:ft1,.waia.u.1,., iJna. (!f..~a.go, 1{(,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  21  22 23 24 tack 61 Q. What were your comments in a general way? A. Very similar to what I have already told you about the Little Rock plan. Q. All right. Do you have any other support in the literature for your support of totally voluntary plans? A. Your question is somewhat general. From my reading of various studies and social surveys and experiences in working in desegregated settings, I have come to the conclusions that I have mentioned to you. Q. Can you name for me any other authors upon which you rely? A. I would rely to some extent on Gallup and other social surveys. Q. Gallup? A. Yes\nand other social surveys of the United States that have been published in the magazine \"Capin\" over a series of years on the opinions of blacks and whites on the desirability of mandatory desegregation plans. To some extent also, I would base my conclusion on the syntheses carried out by the National Institute of Education which has sampled \u0026lt;wo[fI! ., cRoj,l!.nbl!.'rfj and df-j,waiatu, [}na. Ch.lea.go, ff{{\nnol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 62 six scholars to look at the question of desegregation on achievement. I also would base that conclusion on studies that I have personally conducted, for example, in Fort Wayne Indiana, of parents whose children would be undergoing mandatory transportation. So there are a variety of sources that I would base that conclusion on. MR. KAPLAN: I think that is all I have. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. SNEED:- Q. I would like to go back a little bit to what we talked about earlier about the broad brushstrokes of the plan you may be contributing to and just ask a few questions about that. My understanding from what you said earlier is that that plan is not written, but there has been some discussion about it and you have some ideas? A, Yes. Q. To the extent that something has been actually agreed upon among the experts, is there an agreement that this will be a voluntary plan, a \u0026lt;Wolf, cRo5.wbeUJ and d/-5.waia.tl!.5., [fna . {!/\n.(e~o, Illtinol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 63 purely voluntary plan? A. I would like to say a couple of things. I didn't want to use the word \"may.\" I think I will definitely contribute to the plan. I was uncertain about the exact procedures and what my part will be. I was thinking about that as you asked the final part of your question. Q. Will the plan have a component that is purely a voluntary component as opposed to a voluntary component with a mandatory backup or mandatory to voluntary? A. I cannot be sure of the conclusion with respect to that, nor what the recommendation will be. Q. So you are now speaking for the group? A. I am unsure what the final decision will be made by the group with respect to whether it's voluntary or mixed with mandatory backups. Q. And from your personal opinion, are you unsure or are you sure? A. In my personal opinion, I advocate voluntary transfers. Q. So that is going to be your recommendation to the group? A. Well, I am not sure, in view of the very \u0026lt;woff e., cf?ou.nbe.~ and. clhwaiau.1., iJna. Cf.Le.a.go, flff,nols  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 short time period, that we will be able to participate in meetings where we will actually completely be able to formulate this at a group. 64 Q. Do you know who is going to write the part dealing with student assignment then? If that is going to be the case, different people are going to write different components, I assume? A. Yes. Being a psychologist rather than a sociologist, I have a feeling that I will not write that part of the plan\nand I am not really sure of who would write that part of the plan. Q. Let me try another way. You obviously have a bias towards that. Why do you recommend a voluntary plan for student assignments? A. I believe that many parents believe that mandatory desegregation and lengthy transportation is not in the best interests of their children\nbut I also believe that some parents do believe that desegregation is a very, very high priority for their particular children. The virtues of a voluntary plan, in my opinion, is that it provides for both those types of parents. If you have a mandatory plan, you force \u0026lt;'Wolfe., d?ou.nbe'rf/ and. df-1.waia.te.1., [fna. (!f.Le.~o, [J(f,ncl._  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 everyone. I think you have to have the elements of fairness there. You are really forcing everyone, including those who do not wish to participate, to participate\nand I think that that has injurious consequences. Q. What do you think would make a voluntary plan successful? If you had just a purely voluntary plan, what makes it successful? What are the characteristics of a successful plan? What makes people want to make these choices so you desegregate your school system? A. Well, I think the schools need to have the satisfaction of the community members, and particularly the parents\nand I would weigh that very, very heavily. I also think it's important to maintain staf,f morale. And to the extent that at least those two things are accomplished, those are useful purposes. Q. Would you have magnet schools be a part of the student assignment plan? A. I don't have strong opinions about magnet schools. I have some somewhat mixed views. I think that magnet schools can be effective in attracting \u0026lt;wo[fl!., cf?o1..wbl!.\"9 and. clf1..waiatu, fJna. {!f,_\n,,,130, flffinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 66 students of a different race to a particular school. I think that they sometimes risk the danger of what is called creaming\nthat is, that they will take middle-class students or they may take larger numbers of white students into those schools. They may also be more expensive. But to the extent to which they have a voluntary character to them, I think that they are attractive. There are also educational values that may be viewed as trade-offs, and perhaps these are best decided by the community rather than by me. But certainly a school, a magnet school, for example, that would feature music would obviously give a specialized training in music and superiority in music\nbut it may mean that the child may sacrifice other aspects of the curriculum. I think that to the extent the parents would have the opportunity to choose that, that would be constructive. So I think that magnet schools have some attractive features about them, but they also have some dangers. Q. Are you going to be making any sort of \u0026lt;woff e., cf?o!.Ln\u0026amp;e~ and. clf-1,.waia.tE.1,., [f na. {!f..c~o, f![lin.ol  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 67 recommendation or talking to the other experts and saying that you think that magnet schools might have a positive effect or a negative effect? Are you going to be giving any input on that? A. Probably, as I compose my report, I may mention these things, particularly if I would be asked to do that. Q. Okay. If you don't use the racial balance idea or racial quotas, as you have talked about it in both terms since we have been here this afternoon, what would you use to integrate the schools? you have any benchmarks? Would A. Well, I think that my main concern about the schools is that they function effectively in the two main purposes of the schools, which are teaching and learning. I think it should be the plan that puts that as the first order of priority and yet have the other characteristics that I mentioned, which would enable children that want to go to other schools or would provide minimal disruption, while I should emphasize, because I haven't spoken about it for awhile, that naturally we have to conform to the \u0026lt;Woff e., c:Ro~wb-e,\"9 and clf.~wai.a.te.~, [f na. Chcago, .[/[(no~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 68 Court orders. Q. Okay. You mentioned that you have looked at the curriculum with North Little Rock and with, I believe, Pulaski County Special School District? A, That's correct. Q. Did you form any conclusions about first of all, tell me exactly what kind of information you got from Pulaski County Special School District. A. I interviewed staff members. Q. Who did you interview there? A. I will have to go back and look at their names. I have them written down. I need to review my notes again. They were principally the major figures in the central office staff. Q. What kind of things were you looking for in those interviews? A. I was looking at the quality of the educational program and particularly the unique and distinctive features of the Pulaski County schools. Q. Did you find some unique and distinctive features there? A. Yes. \u0026lt;vVoffI! -, cf?ou.nbl!-'tfj and. cf/1.wcia.l:e.1., [}nc. t!f.Lt!~o, f1{[1nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 69 Q. Would you care to tell us about it? A. I would need to go back to this again, because it's been awhile since I have been working on it\nbut one of the unique and distinctive features -- and it's slipped my mind what the title is, but there is a person who is in charge of instructional leadership in each of the schools who has been responsible for helping to implement the curriculum, which has accommodated and who assists the principal and assists the teachers in carrying out the curriculum. Q. And you would think that that would be an important function to preserve, I would assume? A. Yes, I do. Q. Are there any other features you thought were unique that you can recall? have the list before you. I know you don't A. I do remember that there were some characteristics of the gifted program that seemed different to me, unique and distinctive. I don't recall what they were offhand. would have to review my notes again. Q. When you say that you are going to be writing about the educational aspects in your \u0026lt;woffe.., cf?o~n.lJ.e'r.fj and. cf!1.waiate1., .On.a. {!f.1.c~o, .0[(.nol~ e (312) 782-8087 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 70 findings, can you define that for me? A. Yes. I am concerned with the factors that promote learning in schools, and some of these are characteristics of students, such as their age, their ability, their motivation. But in addition to that, the schools can alter such things as what I call the quantitative instruction, the length of the school year, the length of the school day. They can allocate time to various subjects within the curriculum. In addition to the quantities of instruction, there is the quality of instruction and there are various aspects of this, such as cues and reinforcements and open education and many other techniques that have been found to be effective in maximally promoting black and white learning. In addition to this, there are psychological factors that might be called a psychological environment or climate of the class, the morale of the classroom group, the extent to which they are cohesive or a cohesive group that students find satisfying. Going outside of the school, there is the home environment which is extremely important in \u0026lt;Wo[f e, c::Ro~en/J.e'UJ a.n.J. clf-~!I.Ocia.u.~, [}na. (!/',1.,,\"-90, !{(in.ol e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 71 fostering the children's learning. I don't mean by that the race or the social class, but one might say the curriculum of the home, the extent to which their parents are informed about the school, help the children with homework, provide a quiet place to study, things of this nature. Another factor among these nine is the extent to which children are exposed to mass media, television in particular, which we find that excessive amounts are associated with lower levels of achievemen-t. And the last factor is the extent to which the peer group outside of the school is academic and stimulating to the children's development. Q. So you will be assessing the extent to which each one of the districts has those characteristics? A. Well, I think that these may come more into the remedy as to how to improve learning within the districts. I am not sure that I could assess this precisely, given the limited amount of time that I spent in North Little Rock and in Pulaski County. \u0026lt;'Wolfe, c:Ro1,.enbe~ and d/-1..waiatl!.1.., [}na. C!hc:Jo, iJff,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 72 Q. Will you be evaluating them on a continuum? How will we get a feel for what your conclusion is? A. I will relate these more in comparative terms to racial balance within the schools or racial quotas as to their relative effectiveness in promoting learning and particularly with respect to a remedy. And I will also attempt to relate these to the characteristics of the districts, that is, what are the things in the schools that affect those nine things. Q. Help me with how those characteristics will shape a remedy. Can you give me a specific example? A. If you agree with my value judgment that learning is the important thing to do in the schools, then, in my opinion as a psychologist, we need to enhance these factors. I think that that is very well established by syntheses and many studies\nand, in my opinion, those factors themselves may be affected by aspects o f the p 1 a rl  For example, if there were more money put into transportation, this would interfere with these \u0026lt;Woffl!., cR01.Lnbvr9 and c\n/.f1..wcia.te.1.., [Jnc. Chk~o, flffinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 73 factors. If there was a disruption in the system caused by consolidation, this may be injurious to the relationships of the central office staffs, to the principals and teachers in the schools. So it's that causal chain that I will be concerned about. Q. And you feel that a plan with a voluntary aspect would control some of that disruption and would control the disruption of relationships and the students' achievement and that kind of thing? A. Perhaps I could answer your question this way. I would say that a mandatory plan or consolidation is likely to interfere with the factors that promote learning\nwhereas, a voluntary plan and the absence of consolidation would allow those factors to be maintained and possibly also to be increased. Q. Okay. Do you think that it's healthy to have three districts in this close a proximity so that they can have some sort of competition in terms of the different kind of programs they can provide, and maybe that helps them improve the educational excellence that they might provide? A. I think there are various things I could \u0026lt;\"Wof{e:., c:Rou.nbeig and c:lf-1,,wa.i.ate1,,, []na.. CJ:.i.a~o, lfffinols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 74 say about that. One is that if a voluntary plan were to be proposed and the districts did have unique features, that that could promote interdistrict transfers if the districts were maintained in their present form. attractive feature. So that would be an I think you also mentioned the word \"competition.\" I think that if that were handled constructively, that could also be beneficial to the children's learning in the district. Q. Is the plan going to have a component that deals with faculty? Mr. Kaplan touched a little bit on the issue, but I wasn't ever clear whether the plan is going to deal with that aspect. A. I am not certain that it will deal with faculty. Q. At least you won't be having any input into it that you know of? A. Well, perhaps I should say that I may touch on the question of the present faculties and the possible injury to the faculty of consolidation. So I may touch on that as something to be avoided. Q. Okay. Is the plan going to have an aspect dealing with extracurricular activities? \u0026lt;Wolfe, c:f?ou.nb-e'tfj and. clhwa.ia.te1,., []na.. Chlt!\":Jo, f!ftinol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 A. I don't recall any specific plans for that, although it's possible that the transportation aspect would touch on the difficulties of maintaining after-school extracurricular activities and then bringing the children home after school if they would be leaving at various times. But that may be more in the reservations about the Dentler plan than the remedies. I may be using the term \"plan\" a little bit loosely. I am not sure if it will be called a plan or a report or whatever, but some of these things are likely to be touched upon. Q. Achievement seems to be one of your big interests. Is there going to be a specific section that is going to deal with achievement as part of this plan, or whatever we are going to call it, this report? A. Yes. I will definitely write about achievement. Q. And it will develop what you have already talked about with Mr. Kaplan? A. Well, particularly since what I talked about with you, since you asked me about these nine factors. \u0026lt;woffe, c,Ro1..wbe'ffj and clf-uoai.ate1.., fJna. {!f,_t,,.~o, !J{l,noli  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 76 Q. Is your plan going to deal with the white flight issue?_ A. I think it probably will, yes, although I will not deal with it in a principal way. Q. But it's your opinion that the voluntary plan would have a positive effect or would arrest the amount of white flight that you might have from the districts? A. Yes. I think that a voluntary plan would produce less of a white flight or minimize white flight. Q. then. I have, I think, just one more question What do you mean by \"effective education\"? Maybe you have already defined this for me. We have thrown that term around here pretty loosely. You have mentioned it. Mr. Kaplan has mentioned it, and you have mentioned it. What are we talking about by \"effective education\"? A. Well, my principal concern is teaching and learning\nbut I think it has to be also viewed in the context of other factors. When I say \"teaching and learning,\" I am usually referring to achievement on standardized \u0026lt;'Woff r., cRou.nl:r.'tfJ and. d/-1..waio.u.1., .{/na. {!f'ik\":}o, ff[(inol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 77 tests, on the academic tests, English, mathematics and science. I am also interested in what might be called continuing perseveration after school and lifelong learning and so on. I think effective education also has to consider the students and parents as clients of a system that they have to be content with and pleased with. I think that the staff concerns need to be dealt with so it's cohesive and satisfying, and I see these factors as going together. Q. Are we also dealing with what has become popularly known as the \"effective schools model\"? A. Not chiefly. Q. Would you say that some of those factors are important factors\npositive school climate, strong leadership, high teacher expectation, emphasizing basic schools, continuing assessment and feedback and monitoring of student learning? A. I think that many of those factors are plausible, and I think they are effective\nbut they have not been established as clearly as the other factors I have been talking about. \u0026lt;Woffe:., cRo~e:.nbvr.9 an.J. c:lf.1..~aiate:.11., [fna. {!f,u,\"'.}o, [!{{,nol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I think that they are factors that probably promote the more specific psychological factors that I am talking about, which is more 78 amount of time on tasks, the quality of construction within the class. I have a mild reservation about the \"effective schools model\" because it assumes that an entire school is effective, when we know from more specific studies that we can have an effective teacher in a school and an ineffective teacher: but I think that these things do go together and they probably are -enhanced. Q. Let's just take your definition, then, for effective schools. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not North Little Rock is an effective school district under your definition or has a number of effective schools? A. I do not think that I can come to a definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of the North Little Rock schools from the studies that I have conduc~ed there. I think that the achievement scores and my experiences in talking to people and my examination \u0026lt;'Wo{f e, cRou.nbe'tfj and cff.1.waw..tE.1., [}na.  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 79 of their curriculum indicate that they are certainly above average, and they might be highly effective\nbut I don't think I can come to a definitive conclusion. Q. What about with regard to the Pulaski County Special School District? A. I have basically the same conclusion about the Pulaski County School District\nbut I should say that I have spent less time there, and I did not visit schools, and I am less certain about that. Q. I know you didn't get information from Little Rock, -but do you have an opinion, any sort of opinion, about whether you would consider them an effective school system? A. I haven't reached a conclusion about the Little Rock schools in that regard\nand I may be studying it further in the next several days, because I haven't been concentrating on that in the last few days. I don't have the impression that it is either a highly effective school system or a highly ineffective school system. It's probably middling, and may be comparable to the other two, and I should say, with respect to what you asked about, which is \u0026lt;\"Wolfe, c::Ro~e.nbe'tf} and. df-~waiatu, [f na. {!fii,,\"-50, fJffinols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 ,, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 80 overall effectiveness. Q. Do you feel that it's important for each one of these school districts to keep their autonomy? A. I think that is extremely desirable. Q. In addition to some of the other reasons you have given, I think that probably the other question that might factor in here is, do you have any reasons for why you think that autonomy is important? A. Yes. I think that the districts have evolved self-chosen programs, and these are complicated programs\nand the staff has what I call a psychological ownership. They have worked very hard to attain these programs\nand if they were to be obliterated, I think it would be injurious to staff. Q. You think it would be injurious to the citizens also? A. Yes. MS. SNEED: I have no further questions. MR. KAPLAN: I may have just a few more. MR. ADCOCK: I have no questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAPLAN: \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?ou.nbvc9 and. c:lf-1.UJai.o.u.1., {Ina. (!/',_k~o, fl[{inols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 81 Q. Who owns the schools? A. I am not sure I can give you an entirely valid answer to that. Our Constitution leaves education of the states, although they are fundamental governors in some sense of the school system, they do leave considerable autonomy to the local school districts. I think that the school board members are principal governors of the schools, but I do think that they have to be responsive to the needs of their communities as they see them. So it's difficult to say exactly who owns them. Q. Who is responsible for all student assignments? A. It's also difficult for me to answer that question. Q. Should the school administration be responsible within the framework of the policies set down by the board? A. I would say yes\nbut I would want to add to that that I think they have to take into consideration other matters, such as state guidelines, what parents think about things, when I talked earlier about voluntary plans. \u0026lt;Woffl!., cf?o1..uibvc9 and df-5.~aiatl!.5., [}na. C!hlcil50, IJtt1n.ols e (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 82 Q. How much input should parents have in determining how the schools get operated? A. I would be reluctant to put a number on it. I think that they should certainly have a very strong voice in determining the educational programs. Q. Is there any reason why the best programs from all three districts could not be combined and implemented in a consolidated school district? A. Yes. Q. There is? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A, I was saying earlier that these programs require textbooks and other educational materials. They require tests that have to be geared to those materials, so that there is an inventory in the districts of textbooks that differ across the districts. And as I was saying, staff members had been specifically trained to carry out these programs. So that I think that while it is perhaps theoretically possible to do that, and I would have to say yes in answer to your question I would say that there would be a great cost to doing \u0026lt;vVoffl!., cf?ou.nb-e~ and. cft1\n.wcia.b!.1\n., [}nc,. (!f,,,.\"-90, [!{t,nol~  (312) 782-8087 tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it. Q. Is there any reason why all of your factors with regard to the promotion of better learning are incompatible with racial balance? A. I think that the factors that I mention 83 can be implemented with varying degrees of racial quotas from all-white to all-black or mixed and -- Q. There is nothing incompatible with any of those techniques that you have mentioned and racial balance, is there? A. Only in the sense of a change of racial balance, it may interfere. But if you are asking whether these factors can be implemented in settings with different degrees of racial quotas, my answer is, yes, it would not make a lot of difference. Q. Are you generally opposed to consolidation of school districts on a countywide basis? A, Well, I think that I would be especially opposed to a mandatory consolidation. If it were forced upon the school districts, I think it would be injurious to them. ~ have also observed in the testimony and in other settings that, in the last few decades, there has been resistance -- we do have a lot of \u0026lt;Wolfe., c::Rou.nb-e.'rf} and c:lf1,..waia.t.1,.., [f na. (!f.fo~o, .[J((,nols  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 84 small school districts in the United States\nand states have given incentives for school districts to merge, and they have resisted it. Q. As an educational matter, let's get beyond all of the mandatory and voluntary. perfect world now. Give me a People do the right thing, that is, the thing that their leaders and educators tell them is the right thing. You are going to get to be one of those educational leaders in my world. Is it a good thing? A. I could not make a blanket statement, because there are so many different factors that bear upon it. I am not particularly an expert in the cost effectiveness, but there are some that argue if you have a large district, you will have more specialized programs\nbut others argue, on the other hand, that small districts are more responsive to the immediate people that live in that district and they are not bufferd by a large bureaucratic organization. Q. Can you give me a yes or no as to your view overall on whether racial balance on a \u0026lt;Wolf~, cf?ou.nb-e.~ and. clf-1..waiai:E.1.., [}na. {!/'ii,,ll:Jo, !J[(inoi~  (312) 782-8087 II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 countywide basis of school districts is an appropriate and a desirable educational objective? 85 A. If we are striving for a general answer, I would say that if the people in those districts wanted to do it, then it's likely to be an advantage, at least in that sense. Q. Dr. Walberg, as an educational matter and speaking as an educational psychologist wholly, and I am putting you in a world where you get to tell them what to do is it an appropriate and good educational objective, in your view, now, sir? A. I really don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other, if we are talking about this in the abstract. Q. Do you know how many school districts there are in Arkansas? A. Not offhand, no. Q. If I told you it was a state with 375 school districts and a total population of two million people, does that surprise you? A. No. Q. Would you also be of the view that the whole educational system ought to be voluntary? \u0026lt;Wolfe, cf?o5.e,nb-e,~ and df-5.waia./\ne,5., [Jna. {!f,~O'jo, [/ffinols O (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 If parents decide not to opt for public education but to decide for home education, would that be all right, in your view, if that is what they wanted to do? 86 A. Well, I think that there are many complex factors that bear upon this\nand certainly there are state guidelines and rules. Q. You are familiar with that whole Nebraska thing, aren't you? A. Q. Not really. About the religious groups that want to educate their children at home? A. Yes. Come to think of it, I think Donald Erickson has investigated this to some ex~ent. Q. What is your view about that? A. Well, I consider freedom an extremely precious thing\nbut 1I can see, on the other hand, too, that the parents may not completely have all the best answers for the children. So I don't have a strong view one way or the other about this. Q. You run the school district. You are the superintendent now. I am a parent with deep and abiding religious believes, and I believe that there \u0026lt;'Wolf, c::Rou.nbvr-9 and. cJl-1,.waia\u0026amp;.1,., [Jna. {!l',,i,,\"50, /[{inol~  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 8 7 is so much going on in the public schools that I do not want my children to be a party to that. I, as a certified schoolteacher, want to educate them in my home, and will provide the same textural material and provide the same hours and educate them in my home. Will you turn me in to the authorities because I do not send my children to public school? You are the superintendent now, and you have got to make that determination. A. Well, I would obey the law\nand I would do my best to think of what the school board wanted and the communities wanted and the other parents wanted. As far as my own strictly personal views are concerned, I would not object to educating children in the home. MR. KAPLAN: That is all I have. MR. ADCOCK: You have inspired me. I have to ask one question, with your permission, of course. MR. KA PLAN: Go ahead. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR.ADCOCK: Q. You indicated earlier, Dr. Walberg, that racial balance may or may not be incompatible with \u0026lt;wolf~, c:Roilnb~UJ and. dfj_waiate.j_, fJna. {!fi~\":JO, .!J{[i,wls O (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 88 learning. Are there serious educational consequences that may accrue when racial balance is the one overriding objective that a school district pursues? A. Yes. MR. ADCOCK: No further questions. Signature is waived. FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT. \u0026lt;'Wof{t:., cf(ou.nfJ.e'tf} and c:lt1l.waial:e1l., fna. {!f,,u,.~o, l[linol  (312) 782-8087 I II I tack 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l. :l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK SS: I, THERESE A. KOZEL, a Notary Public within and for the County of Cook, State of 89 Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of said state, do hereby certify: That previous to the commencement of the examination of the witness, the witness was duly sworn to testify the whole truth concerning the matters herein\nThat the foregoing deposition transcript was reported stenographically by me, was thereafter \u0026gt;. c d u c d L cyp c w\u0026gt;. l L.l g u ae y pe sonal d i rect i o n and constitutes a true record of the testimony given and the proceedings had\nThat the said deposition was taken before me at the time and place specified\nThat the reading and signing by the witness of the deposition transcript was agreed upon as stated herein\nThat I am not a relative or employee or attorney or counsel, nor a relative or employee of such attorney or counsel for any of the parties hereto, nor interested directly or indirectly in the \u0026lt;vVoff e, c::Rou.n.bvc9 and. c:lf-1,.~aia.te.1,., {In.a. {!f.ic\"-90, flffinol  (312) 782-8087 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 90 outcome of this action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I do hereunto set my hand and affix my seal of office at Chicago, Illinois, this~~ day of ___ ~---------' 1984. ___ ~ _ Cl . l\u0026lt;G3. S ________ _ Notary Public, Cook County, Illinois. My commission expires March 24, 1985. c.s.R. Certificate No. 84-1784. \u0026lt;woffe, cR01.-enbe't:J a.n.J. c:ll1.-waial:e1.-, [Jna. C!hi.c.\"50, JJ[[,nob  (312) 782-8087\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1690","title":"Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy","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":["1999-01"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning teacher retirement and health insurance remedy"],"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/1690"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["37 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, advisory letter from Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) prehearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) pre-trial brief re: teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) post-trial submission; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) post-hearing brief on the teacher retirement and health insurance remedy; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) post-hearing brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) supplemental response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's), Little Rock School District's (LRSD's), and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motions for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY Ar LAw 1723 BROAl)WAV l,JTTl.E ROCK, Alu\u003c..~NSAS 72206 , TEU:Pl!0:-IE (501) 374-3758   FA.\\ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-6096 1 anuary 4, 1999 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge  United States District Court 600 West Capitol Llittle Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: 315 P02 '02 JAN OJ ' 99 17:02 This is to advise that the Joshua Intervenors hereby adopt by reference the Little Rock School Dsitrict's Prehearing Brief On The Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Remedy. JWW:js cc: Mrs. Ann Brown All Counsel of Record  IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENERS INTERVENERS :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PREHEARING BRIEF ON THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE REJMEDY I. Introduction. This hearing concerns the 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. On July 1, 1998, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's finding of liability and remanded for a detennination of the districts' damages. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). In making that detennination, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held hannless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. LRSD v. PCSSD, 148 F.3d 956, 968 (8* Cir. 1998). As the State, LRSD, NLRSD md Joshua interpret the Eighth Circuit's opinion, the districts' damages should be calculated as follows: (1) determine the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; (2) determine the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system; and (3) subtract (2) from (1). II. Discussion. A PCSSD's overall remedy argument. Although PCSSD originally agreed with the other parties' interpretation of the Eighth Circuit's decision, PCSSD now argues that the districts' damages should be based on an overall comparison between the old Act 34 funding system and the new Act 917 funding system. Compare Docket Nos. 3174 and 3187 to 3227. This argument ignores the previous findings of this Court and the opinion of the Eighth Circuit and should be rejected as a matter oflaw. First, the argument ignores the previous findings of this Court. This Court rejected this same argument when it was made by the State. The Court stated: While the state may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equali1,lllion or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. 2 Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5 ( emphasis supplied). Assuming PCS SD' s calculations are correct, LRSD would recover nothing under an overall remedy. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A Consequently, LRSD would be forced to use equalization funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs. As quoted above, that is exactly why this Court found that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance. It would be absurd to now adopt a \"remedy'' that brings about the same result. Not surprisingly, an overall remedy results in a windfall to PCSSD. PCSSD claims that the overall change from Act 34 to Act 917 decreased PCSSD's total state funding by $3,794,039 in 1996-97 and $2,781,691 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3227, Exhibit A, p. 3. PCSSD seeks to recover these amounts as its remedy for the State's liability with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. However, according to PCSSD's own calculations, its loss for teacher retirement and health insurance totaled only $1,830,003 in 1996-97 and $1,679,881 in 1997-98. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. Thus, an overall remedy results in PCSSD being awarded damages more than three million dollars in excess of its actual loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The difference between PCS SD' s teacher retirement and health insurance loss and its overall loss results, at least in part, from the adverse impact on PCS SD of the change in the funding formula for distributing general state aid, what was called MFP A under Act 34 and what is now called equalization funding under Act 917. PCSSD seeks to recover this amount despite the fact that no court has found that the Act 917 funding formula per se violates the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement permits the State to make \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the funding 3 formula which have general applicability blltwl,ich nd,,ce tire proportion of State aid to any of the Districts .... \" Settlement Agreement ,U.L (emphasis supplied). Therefore, even if PCSSD is correct in its assertion that it received less general state aid under the Act 917 funding system compared to what it would have received under the Act 34 funding system, this does not establish that Act 917 funding formula violates the Settlement Agreement. PCSSD bears the burden of proving that Act 917 was not a fair and rational adjustment to the funding formulcl. PCSSD moved for summary judgment on this issue on September 2, 1997, while the teacher retirement and health insurance appeals were pending before the Eighth Circuit. Docket No. 3042 and 3043. This Court denied that motion on January 12, 1998 \"[b ]ecause there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula.\" Docket No. 3104, p. 2. Those issues of material fact remain unresolved. Second, PCSSD's argument ignores the precise issue before the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit clearly limited its opinion to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. In the opening paragraph ofits opinion, the Eighth Circuit stated that \"[t]he question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funmng of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated [the Settlement Agreement].\" Id. at 963 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit began its discussion stating, \"This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). Nothing in the Eighth Circuit's discussion indicates that the court went beyond the question presented to find that the Act 917 funding formula violated the Settlement Agreement. Third, PCSSD's argument ignores the whole of the Eighth Circuit's opinion. Taken in the context of the question presented, the remedy contemplated by the Eighth Circuit was clearly limited 4 to the districts' loss in teacher retirement and health insurance funding. the Eighth Circuit began its description of the remedy by stating that \"[t]he three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed \" Id. at 968 ( emphasis supplied). The Eighth Circuit recognized, however, that the districts' equalization funding included some amount for teacher retirement and health insurance. lg. at 965. Accordingly, it directed this Court to reduce the districts' damages by this amount in order to prevent a double recovery. The Eighth Circuit stated: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding/or teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have  produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. Id. (emphasis supplied). Thus, the first step in determining the districts' damages is to calculate \"what the old system would have produced/or teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. What the old Act 34 system produced for teacher retirement and health insurance was the districts' actual costs for those programs. Summarizing its explanation of the remedy, the Eighth Circuit concluded: Id. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. 5 Reading these final two sentences in isolation, PCSSD contends that the Eighth Circuit's opinion calls for an overall remedy. However, the failure of the Eighth Circuit to repeat for the third time \"for teacher retirement and health insurance\" after the words \"produced\" and \"producing\" in no way indicates that the Eighth Circuit intended to completely depart from the rest of the opinion and the preceding sentences in the same paragraph. These final two sentences may properly be read as follows: This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance- would have produced [for teacher retirement and health insurance], and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing [for teacher retirement and health insurance]. The Eighth Circuit most certainly would have expressly stated and explained the basis for an overall remedy if such was its intention. This it did not do. Rather, it described the logical course this Court should follow in determining the districts' damages \"for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" The Eighth Circuit's use of the phrase ''MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance\" should not be construed as a mathematical equation, but rather as a general description of the old Act 34 funding system. Even if construed as a mathematical equation, however, the phrase in no way dictates an overall remedy. As discussed above, the preceding sentences make it clear that the Eighth Circuit was concerned with \"what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance.\" Id. Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have recognized that, under the old Act 34 funding system, the State paid the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs outside of the funding formula used to distribute MFPA. See LRSD v. PCSSD,'148 F.3d at 963. 6 Thus, the tenn MFP A essentially means zero in this context. In accord with this understanding, all of the parties, including PCSSD, originally submitted a proposed remedy based on the districts' actual costs. Docket Nos. 317 4-77. Finally, the Eighth Circuit's rationale for finding that the Act 917 funding system violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs cannot be extended to the entire Act 917 funding system or the entire Act 917 funding fonnula. Quoting this Court's teacher retirement opinion, the Eighth Circuit explained: [I]nstead of directly funding each district based on the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money'' fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions though the new funding formula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. Id. at 967. The change from the Act 34 funding formula to the Act 917 funding fonnula does not suffer from this same defect. While teacher retirement and health insurance funding were based on the number of employees, the Act 34 funding formula was not. To summarize, the districts' remedy must, at a minimum, place them in a position which will not require them to use equalization funding or local funds to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. An overall remedy would not achieve this because LRSD would be denied any recovery, notwithstanding an obvious loss of funding under Act 917 to pay these costs. Moreover, the Eighth Circuit's opinion cannot be fairly read as calling for an overall remedy. In discussing the issue and in outlining the remedy, the opinion clearly addresses only the districts' claims as to the 7 teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The Eighth Circuit's opinion should not be read to grant relief beyond the issues before the court. Bailey v. Henslee, 309 F.2d 840 (8* Cir. 1962) Therefore, an overall remedy should be rejected, and the districts' damages should be based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. B. Damages based on the districts' loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1. Actual costs vs. equal funding. To award the districts damages based on their loss of teacher retirement and health insurance funding, this Court must resolve three additional issues. First, the State disagrees with the districts and Joshua on the starting point for calculating the districts' damages. The State argues that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The districts and Joshua contend that the State should be required to pay the districts the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas. In both the 1995-96 and 1996-97 school year, the State paid school districts outside Pulaski County 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs.1 In order to provide equal funding to the three Pulaski County districts, the starting point for their damages should be 107% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Docket No. 3187, Exhibit 1. 1Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Greene (Docket No. 3176), this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other districts. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 8 In the Eighth Circuit's workers' compensation opinion, the court defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCS SD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ( emphasis supplied). 2 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Therefore, the starting point for determining the districts' damages should be the percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to other districts in Arkansas rather than the three Pulaski County districts' actual costs. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Brief, for a more complete discussion of this issue. 2. The amount of equalization funding received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The second issue concerns the amount of equalization funding received by the districts to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The State, LRSD, NLRSD and Joshua disagree with PCSSD as to the appropriate method for calculating this amount. The State proposes a methodology which takes into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. On August 19, 1998, all three districts agreed that the State's method was appropriate. See Docket No. 2Specifically, this Court stated: [T]he Court does find that the State must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Docket No. 2337, Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, p. 6-7. 9 3187. However, it appears PCSSD now intends to pursue its alternative methodology, which assumes that the Act 917 funding formula distributed equalization funding based only on a district's Average Daily Membership (''ADM''). PCS SD' s methodology should be rejected because it conflicts with the findings of this Court which were affirmed by the Eighth Circuit and because it fails to take into account the equalization effect of the Act 917 funding formula. (a) The State's methodology. The State proposes that the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance be determined by a simple two-step calculation. First, the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all school districts in the state is divided by the total amount of state aid distributed through the Act 917 funding formula to get a percentage. Next, this percentage is multiplied by the total amount of Act 917 funding received by a district, with the  result being the amount of Act 917 funding the district received for teacher retirement and health insurance. The State's methodology recognizes that there is no way to trace funding for teacher retirement and health insurance through the Act 917 funding formula. As this Eighth Circuit noted, teacher retirement and health insurance funding \"has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system .... \" Id. at 965. Because money is fungible, the only reasonable assumption that can be made is that the funding for teacher retirement and health insurance was equally distributed among school districts. Therefore, the State's methodology assumes that, if 15% of equalization funding for all districts was for teacher retirement and health insurance, then 15% of LRSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. 10 The present case is similar to trust cases involving the commingling of trust assets with other assets. In effect, the State has commingled the teacher retirement and health insurance funding with equalization funding. Where a trustee commingles trust assets with other assets, the trust maintains a right to the trust assets based on their proportion to the whole. See, e.:\u0026., Restatement (Second) of Trusts,  202, comment n. Similarly, the amount of teacher retirement and health insurance funding the districts received should be based on the proportion of teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the whole of equalization funding. This is the result achieved by the State's methodology. The State currently uses this proposed methodology to detennine the amount of equalization funding school districts receive from the Education Excellence Trust Fund (\"Trust Fund\"). Ark. Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997) requires school districts to spend funding from the Trust  Fund on teachers' salaries. Ark . . Code. Ann.  6-5-307 (Michie Supp. 1997). Like the teacher retirement and health insurance programs, funding from the Trust Fund was once distributed outside the funding formula. When the State began distributing the Trust Fund as a part of equalization funding, school districts still needed to know the amount of funding they received from the Trust Fund in order to determine their compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-5-307. The State developed the methodology it now proposes in the present case to detennine the amount of equalization funding a district received from the Trust Fund. This methodology has already been subjected to public comment and adopted by the State Board of Education. The State's regulations setting forth this methodology are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Most importantly, the State's methodology provides the greatest benefit to desegregation in that it results in the greatest monetary award for each school district, including PCS SD. See Docket 11 No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. Under PCSSD's own methodology (which assumes the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD damages total $3,509,884 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school year. Docket No. 3186, Exhibit A and B. However, using the State's methodology ( and also assuming the districts recover more than their actual costs), PCS SD' s damages total $4,142, 571. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. PCSSD's method had a much more significant impact on LRSD. Under PCSSD's methodology, LRSD's damages total $10,726,693. ill Exhibit 2 attached. The State's methodology results in a damage award to LRSD of Sl 7,819,759. See Docket No. 3187, Districts' Response, Exhibit 1. (b) PCSSD Methodology. PCS SD proposes calculating the amount of equalization funding received by the districts for teacher retirement and health insurance based on the assumption that each school district received the same amount per ADM. PCS SD takes the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs for all districts and the State and divides that amount by the total state ADM. The resulting per ADM amount is then multiplied by a district's ADM to determine the amount of equalization funding received by the district for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCSSD's methodology should be rejected for several reasons. First, it assumes that all districts received the same amount per ADM and thereby fails to take into account the equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula. As this Court has found, \"the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a perADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Docket No. 2930, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 9 (emphasis supplied). The equalizing effect of the Act 917 funding formula means that districts with greater local resources receive less equalization funding. For example, due to 12 differences in local resources, LRSD received $1,858.73 per ADM in equalization funding in 1997-98 and PCS SD received $2,815.47 per ADM in equaliz.ationfunding in 1997-98. See Exhibit 3 attached. PCS SD contends, however, that both districts received $428.18 per ADM for teacher retirement and health insurance. ~ Exhibit 2 attached. Thus, according to PCS SD, 23% ofLRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance while only 15% ofPCSSD's equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. No rational basis supports the assumption that a greater proportion of LRSD' s equalization funding was for teacher retirement and health insurance. PCS SD' s method would result in LRSD being forced to use equaliz.ation funding or local funds to pay its teacher retirement and health insurance costs, but this is why the change to Act 917 violated the Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs in the first place. As this Court stated, \"requiring the settling districts to pay health - insurance matching from equaliz.ation or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" Docket No. 2968, Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 5. PCS SD attempts to justify the use of a pure ADM calculation by making the assumption that the money for teacher retirement and health insurance was removed from the Act 917 funding formula after equalization and distributed separately. However, there is no factual basis for making this assumption. Teacher retirement and health insurance funding was not removed from equalization funding, and it was not distributed separately after distribution of equaliz.ation funding. Rather, teacher retirement and health insurance funding was commingled with equalization funding. Therefore, the State's methodology provides the only reasonable means for determining the amount of equalization funding the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance. 13 3. PCSSD's cap argument. Finally, PCS SD argues that the Eighth Circuit's opinion requires a comparison of the overall impact of the change from Act 34 to Act 917 for the purpose of establishing a limit or cap on the districts' damages. While this would not affect PCSSD, calculations submitted by PCS SD indicate that it would bar any recovery by LRSD. Docket No. 3227. PCSSD's motive in making this argument results from a concern about the disparity in teachers' salaries betweenPCSSD and LRSD. PCSSD apparently hopes to prevent LRSD from following through on a promised pay increase contingent upon its recovery in this case. The best indicator of the lack of merit in this argument is the fact that the State itself does not make it, despite the fact that the State would be the real beneficiary if the argument prevailed. As the State concedes, however, a cap on the districts' damages in the manner suggested by PCSSD would violate the Settlement Agreement. - First, capping the districts' damages based on an overall comparison between Act 34 and Act 917 would violate Paragraphs II.E. and II.L. of the Settlement Agreement by depriving the districts of the benefit of the change in the funding formula. The final sentence of Paragraph II.E. prevents the State from using general state aid (now equalization funding) to supplant its funding obligations under the Settlement Agreement. It provides, \"The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" Settlement Agreement, ,i II.E. Therefore, assuming for the purpose of argument that LRSD benefitted overall from the change to the Act 917 funding system, the fact remains that the State failed to pay the same percentage ofLRSD's teacher retirement and health insurance costs as it paid to other school districts in the state, and this violates the Settlement Agreement. 14 A cap on the districts' damages as suggested by PCSSD would also violate Paragraph II.L. of the Settlement Agreement. The Eighth Circuit described this paragraph as an \"anti-retaliation clause.\" Id. at 966, quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 (8* Cir. 1996). Discussing Paragraph II.L. in the workers' compensation decision, the Eighth Circuit explained: Id. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. U: for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would have clearly been offended. The flaw in PCSSD's cap argument can also be demonstrated by consideration of a hypothetical statute. Assume the State passed a statute adopting the Act 917 funding system but continuing to directly pay school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Assume e next that the statute provided that the State would not pay the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs to the extent they benefitted from the overall change in the funding formula. Such a statute would clearly violate the Settlement Agreement. In this hypothetical, numerous school districts in the state would receive increased state aid as a result of the change in the funding formula, but only the three Pulaski County districts would be required to use any increase in state aid to pay their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. PCS SD' s cap argument brings about the same result as the hypothetical statute. Therefore, a cap on the districts' damages would, in and of itself, violate the Settlement Agreement and should be rejected. The Eighth Circuit stated in its teacher retirement and health insurance opinion that its decision in the workers' compensation case \"points the way towards a proper solution of the present appeal.\" The Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case in no way indicates that the 15 districts may only recover damages to the extent that they lost money overall due to the change in the funding system. The court simply held that \"the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. The court imposed no requirement that the districts must lost out overall as a result of the overall funding changes, and this Court should not interpret "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1650","title":"Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction","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":["1996-08-01"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings: District Court, memorandum of the Joshua intervenors opposing the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to end federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1650"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    {.- I .., 0 1 'C06  \\J - ' - .- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~t:~S 1,: '..:~CC F.HP..C!\\. CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS p 11. WESTERN DIVISION ~, ------;:c;,\"E'':?:''orcTi:_'~;: :.:::..:7\u003c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-~-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. . I~ i YO f ;-,,., Olt1ce of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS  .... . ~ ---~---- ....~ ~\"'l' .. - i -~.. . -. ~-~ .... ..,,~ ....... ~  Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors Oppos.thg the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The LRSD seeks an order \"which withdraws federal court jurisdiction of this case and dismisses this case with prejudice.\" Motion, 5\\17\\96, at 2. This motion rests on a series of baseless assertions and otherwise unsound premises. It should, therefore, be denied. More specifically, LRSD first contends that the district agreed to implement the provisions of the settlements for only six years, absent a demonstration by the Joshua Intervenors of a failure of the system to comply with a term (or terms) of the settlement agreements. Motion, at 1; Memorandum, 5\\17\\96, at 1, 9, 16-17. Then, reasoning that \"[t]he Tri-District Plan was essentially the (settlement] Plans modified to address the constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that 1 constitutional infirmities identified by (Judge Woods], and that - \"LRSD implemented the Tri-District Plan during the 1990-91 school year,\" LRSD further contends that this six year period ended at the end of the 1995-96 school year. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 10-12. Lastly, LRSD argues that it has \"substantially (complied]\" with the settlement provisions. This assertion is based on what is termed an \"exhaustive audit of LRSD's desegregation obligations\" and a discussion of particular areas such as student enrollment and racial disparities in achievement. Motion, at 1; Mem., at 12- 13, 17-32. This memorandum addresses these and other premises of the LRSD submission. B. The Assertions About A Six-Year Plan The district asserts at page 9 of its memorandum that \"(u]nder the terms of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD agreed to implement the plans for six years. 111 The problem with this assertion is shown by the fact that there is no citation to any provision of the Settlement Agreement. Nor is there a citation in the memorandum, at any point, to a provision of any of the settlement documents limiting implementation to six years (absent noncompliance) . 2 1 LRSD refers to the \"Settlement Agreement\" of March 1989, as revised on September 28, 1989. See Mem., at 9. 2 The Settlement Agreement includes payment schedules and related criteria, applicable to LRSD, and covering various periods of time with various termination dates. These are (i) 1989-90 through 1998-99 (to LRSD) (at 15); (ii) 1990-91 through 1995-96 (to LRSD) (at 16); (iii) December 31, 2000 (period through which LRSD may show that composite test scores of bl_ack 2 I J LRSD asserts that at the hearing on May 13, 1996, this court - \"acknowledged that the Plans were to be implemented for a period of six years.\" Mem., at 14. This assertion, as shown by the transcript, is erroneous. Indeed, the court, after alluding to provisions referencing six years, welcomed motions to perfect the decree. 3 -  To be sure, the \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" contains the following provision: \"There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years ... (at 3).\" However, this language appears in a paragraph titled \"III. Incentive Schools\" -- one of 19 separately numbered paragraphs, in an \"Overview,\" each paragraph having a separate title. Id., at 2-6. In brief, the six-year provision refers to the incentive schools; it is not set forth as a general limitation on the duration of the entire plan. Moreover, intervenors' argument is consistent with the treatment of the six-year period by the Court of Appeals in its 1990 opinion considering the overall settlement. With respect to the LRSD plan, the court alludes to what it terms \"the initial six-year period\" only with reference pupils are 90 percent or more of scores of white pupils) (at 17). 3 See Tr., 5\\13\\96, at 6-7 (\" .... The reason for this hearing is that we are now in the sixth year, depending on how you count it, of the settlement of this case. And there are several places in the Consent Decree that mentions six years, although there is nothing in the decree that says that after six years the Court shall review the settlement and its effectiveness. But I have chosen to do this. [) I've invited the parties to ask the Court to modify the decree in areas in which . the parties believe it's not working or cannot work .... \") 3 I  to the incentive schools. 4 Lastly, the court states with regard - to the case generally: \"This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision -- monitoring, at least -- for a long time\" (emphasis added). Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at at 1383. LRSD's reliance on United States v. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1987) is unavailing. See Mem., at 14-15. There, as the opinion shows, the parties dealt explicitly with the duration of the overall decree, first by specifying a three-year period, absent objection, and then, in resolving objections, by specifying a set date, or, alternatively, the date of the completion of a construction project. Id., at 1173-74. Overton is thus distinguishable by reason of the differences in the terms of the settlement. The Court of Appeals' characterization in Overton of the alternative formulation as one which \"left the decree open until certain other conditions were met, which were\" (834 F.2d at 1174) is relevant here. This, we submit, parallels the situation in this case. The agreements deal with certain subject matter areas, such as student enrollment and disparitities in achievement; they set forth goals of the remedial process, such as targets for the racial make-up of various categories of schools and \"the 4 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). 4 elimination of educational achievement disparities between black - and white students\"5 -- the \"certain conditions\" in Overton terms; and they describe manifold actions to be taken to achieve the goals. The focus here with regard to termination of jurisdiction is not on a particular date; it is on the adequate implementation of the agreed upon actions to attain the goals, including any revisions adopted by the court, 6 and the attainment of the goals (the \"certain conditions\") to the maximum extent practicable. 7 c. LRSD Has the Burden of Establishing Compliance with the Settlement Terms Turning to standards external to the settlements, LRSD contends that in the context of determining the duration of court 5 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 4. 6 See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394 n. 8 and Order, July, 10, 1992 (adopting ODM recommendations). 7 The follow portion of the \"Introduction\" set forth in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (at 1) is relevant: \"The goals of school desegregation planning must be clearly focused and well understood. It is insufficient to establish as a single goal the physical movement of bodies and the rearrangement of boundary lines. An educational environment which encourages and provides academic and human growth for all students based upon their individual needs and talents must also be a goal of any adequate desegregation paln. (] The parties hereto seek to ensure that the schools and learning experiences throughout the school system are organized so that school practices, policies and procedures prevent unfair treatment or denial of opportunity for any child because of his or her racial, economic status or cultural identification. (] Immediately following this introduction, the parties have included an overview which sets forth the basic tenets and bases of compromise they consider essential to an interdistrict desegregation plan .... \"[The aforementioned \"Overview\" addressing 19 topics follows the Introduction.] 5 I  jurisdiction, the Joshua Intervenors have the burden of - establishing noncompliance with the settlement agreements. Mem., at 16-17. The district's reliance on Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F.3d 921, 925 (8th cir.1994) is unavailing. That case, and the earlier Eighth Circuit case on which it relies, address a special situation;~, a party seeks an adjudication that its adversary's performance is so deficient that it constitutes civil contempt. A far more appropriate approach to fill the void left by a gap in the agreements, and one consistent with the overall approach of the LRSD submission, 8 is to rely upon the standards normally applicable when this particular issue regarding burden arises in school desegregation litigation. This approach also finds support in the fact that the Court of Appeals described this court's responsibilities and authority in monitoring the agreements in traditional, and even expansive, terms.~, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 paras. 4, 8 (\"and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require\"), 9. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992);9 see also United States v. Fordice, 8 See Mem., at 17-32 (citing many federal court decisions addressing the duration of decrees in desegregation cases). 9 \"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 6 I ,i ... 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education) . 10 More generally, - assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the Supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence S 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. The court then cited a variety of situations in which considerations of \"policy and 10  \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300 .... \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 7 I ' J fairness\" had been held to support a requirement that school - authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209- 10. Two considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to LRSD the burden of showing the requisite compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction in one or more areas. First, the school district obviously has superior access to data and greater resources in terms of personnel. Second, both this court and ODM, the monitoring body which the Court of Appeals directed the court to establish, have repeatedly documented poor compliance by LRSD with the terms of the court-approved settlement. The court summarized its view in its Memorandum and Order of March 11, 1996. 12 See also Joshua's Enclosure One to this memorandum (containing the court's statement of March 1993, as well as other statements by the court regarding LRSD's poor compliance). ODM's documentation of ongoing poor compliance regarding the incentive schools -- where the Court of Appeals stressed the need for scrupulous compliance (921 F.2d at 1386) -- was recently summarized in the \"Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief 12 \"The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreement (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time.\" At 8-9. 8 /  Concerning the Incentive Schools\" (May 31, 1996), at paras. 2- 4  13 In conclusion, LRSD should be required to demonstrate, in a meaningful manner, compliance with the court-approved settlement terms. D. LRSD Has Not Established that It Implemented the Settlement in 1990-91 LRSD's contention, tied to its \"six years argument,\" that it should be credited with implementing the settlement in 1990-91, should be rejected. 14 In the first place, the Court of Appeals did not direct approval of the settlement \"[i]n general\" and \"also make certain other directions for the future of the case\" (921 F.2d at 1376) until December 12, 1990, several months into the 1990-91 school year. Joshua Intervenors should be held to be - entitled to a period of implementation during which all of the officials and agents of the LRSD were aware that the settlements had been approved by the courts. More significantly, LRSD relies basically on simply asserting that it implemented the Tri-District Plan in 1990-91. Mem., at 11-12. LRSD does note that the earlier plan included \"six Incentive -Schools\" (Mem. at 11), and suggests, implicitly, that its \"implementation\" of the Plan included this feature. 13 The motion also relied on the Joshua Intervenors' own monitoring reports which were provided, upon their completion, to LRSD officials. 14 Given our contention that the \"six years argument\" is baseless, this section of our memorandum sets forth an alternative position. 9 I  . ... However, Judge Henry Woods noted in an order of December 11, 1989 that LRSD's noncompliance regarding \"virtually every educational component\" which would justify the existence of all-black schools touched the \"approved portions of (its] own plan for the proposed 'incentive Schools.' ... \" (at 16, footnote omitted); and, as we have shown, ODM and the Joshua intervenors thereafter documented ongoing deficient compliance regarding the incentive schools. Surely such a skimpy showing would not support loping a year from the six year period -- even if this period had the significance asserted by LRSD. E. LRSD Has Not Established the Requisite Implementation of the Court-Approved Settlement LRSD contends that its internal audit and the analysis which it sets forth in its memorandum regarding particular areas of its operation demonstrate that it has substantially and in good faith complied with its desegregation obligations. These assertions are groundless. Preliminarily, Joshua Intervenors reiterate their reliance upon the statements by the court rearding the case generally, and ODM and Joshua findings regarding the incentive schools, one pivotal element of the approved settlement. Moreover, Joshua intervenor's \"Motion ... for the Implementation of recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" (July 2, 1996) (at para. 7) identified scores of ODM recommendations predicated upon findings of LRSD's inadequate compliance in many areas. 10 / .I . ... (1.) The LRSD Audit The LRSD audit15 is unpersuasive for many reasons. First. The audit relies heavily on \"Primary Leaders\" identifying the status of the implementation of obligations within their respective domains. At 6. It is only common sense that too many negative answers would jeopardize a leader's tenure in his\\her position. Second. The audit relies on making a dot with a pencil on an \"obligations scan sheet\" (at 6) -- a technique not suitable for addressing more complex obligations, or obligations affecting multiple schools. Third. The description of the asserted steps to move beyond the \"scan sheets\" (at 11) is far too sketchy to permit an assessment of its reliability. Were the \"committees\" composed of \"primary leaders\" called upon to scratch each others' backs -- so to speak? There are no more detailed descriptions of how this process worked regarding some significant obligations, showing how much time was taken, by whom, what evidence was reviewed, etc. Fourth. The audit does not deal in depth with significant areas of the case by advancing evaluations conducted in a professionally sound manner, or affidavits. These areas could have been identified by reference to Court of Appeals' 15 See \"Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations,\" May a, 1996, Exhibit 4 to the memorandum. 11 I J  opinions, 16 ODM reports pointing out compliance problems in - particular areas, or the court's statement about poor compliance in March 1993. How can the audit be viewed as significant, if it does not reflect the LRSD's coming to grips with the many findings of noncompliance by the court's monitoring body, and attempting to document a basis for favoring LRSD's conclusions. Fifth. The audit does not discuss comprehensively the \"Not Begun\" category (at 14), to explain, for example, how its existence is consistent with the request that the court's jurisdiction be terminated in its entirety. Motion, at 2. In the end it must be said that the audit provides little to help decide in a reliable manner whether LRSD representatives \"scrupulously and dilgently carry out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement (as relevant to LRSD) .... 11 Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394. (2.) The Particular Areas of the System's Operation The district elects to discusss for many pages \"how LRSD compares to school districts [which) have already achieved unitary status or to the nation as a whole.\" Mem., at 17. There are at least two problems with this approach. LRSD is silent about the extent to which any of these systems were by court order or voluntary agreement subject to the full panoply of provisions to which the LRSD is subject. Secondly, LRSD cites a sentence from Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124, 16 See Little Rock School District, 921 F.2d at 1386 (programs in the incentive schools); Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991} (seven areas). 12 I j . .... regarding \"a critical beginning point .... \" Mem., at 17. However, - LRSD should also have cited the preceding sentence, which reads as follows: \"Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of ITS facts. Green. supra, 391 U.S. at 439 .... \" Freeman, supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 124 (emphasis added). The point is that in assessing whether a system has \"eliminated [the vestiges of past discrimination) to the extent practicable\", 17 the focus is on what is practicable in view of the facts in that school district. Under the standards which Little Rock cites, the system is not entitled to be excused on the issue of student enrollment because fewer of its schools are outside the applicable guidelines for measuring compliance than was the case in Savannah, Georgia if it is feasible in Little Rock to achieve compliance as to all (or additional) schools, or meaningful implementation of plan provisions designed to achieve compliance has not been attempted. (a.) Student Assignments LRSD devotes seven pages to this topic without identifying the schools in the district which are outside the applicable guidelines, or discussing other opportunities to enhance desegregation. Mem., at 17-24. It does not identify any plan provisions applicable to such schools or discusss the degree of their implementation. In short, LRSD does not show that it has achieved as much as can practicably be achieved. 17 Freeman v. Pitts, supra, 118 L.E.2d at 139, quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowell, 498 u.s. 237, 249-50 (1991). I j I 13 LRSD notes that it \"has successfully recruited white - students and desegregated Rockefeller Incentive School.\" Mem., at 24. It ignores, however, the fact that the exhibit cited with reference to Rockefeller (Exhibit 5), shows that the other four incentive schools had the following proportions of black students in 1995-96: Franklin (93%), Garland (92%), Mitchell (97%), Rightsell (96%). Our motion of May 31, 1996 concerning the incentive schools supported, by reference to deficiencies in implementation documented by ODM, the view that this segregation was \"an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and the nature of the deficiencies \" See Joshua motion, at paras. (3.), (4.) (a.) through (f.), (o.). The district does not discuss whether efforts have been made to promote desegregative transfers from the area elementary schools with the highest proportions of black students to the area schools with the highest proportions of white pupils. Given the current state of implementation of provisions regarding the incentive schools, an area where the Court of Appeals noted expressly the need for strict compliance with the agreements, LRSD is not entitled to entry of the order sought regarding student enrollment, whatever the number of indices it cites. (b.) Faculty and Staff As with other areas, the district's presentation does not confront ODM's findings regarding racial make-up and other staffing issues in LRSD. This is not consistent with the model 14 I .I for monitoring identified by the Court of Appeals in 1990. In its report of September 15, 1995 addressing the issue of the composition of teaching staffs at the elementarylevel in the three systems , ODM's recommendations included the following provision (at 11): 4. The districts should examine the distribution of black and white teachers in each grade level category in order to improve student access to classroom teachers of both races. As we have noted in this report, staff racial balance is not simply a matter of the total number of black certified employees in a building. The idea of racial balance must also encompass the distribution of those individuals within that building. The staffing of classrooms at each grade level category should reflect a conscious effort to furnish students with the greatest possible probability of experiencing teachers of both races throughout their school years. This recommendation rested, in turn, on ODM findings that there were (at 10): few black teachers at the early childhood level in all three districts. The distribution of black teachers across grade levels at some individual schools caused concern. Some schools lacked a significant number of black teachers to provide most students opportunities to have them as classroom teachers. While other schools had a larger number of black teachers, most were usually concentrated at the intermediate level. This pattern of racial representation can preclude large numbers of students from access to a black classroom teacher for a number of years. Regarding LRSD, ODM noted that the teaching corps included the following proportions of black faculty by level in 1994-95: early childhood (27%), primary (33%), and intermediate (44%). At 31. ODM also raised issues regarding particular Little Rock 15 I  schools. 18 The ODM report of May 10, 1996 detailed serious problems of staff turnover, both faculty and principals, at the incentive schools, a focal point of both the remedies and the courts. See ODM report, at 6-10. For example, of the 87 classroom teachers at the schools in 1995-96, 27 (31%) were new to these schools, although only five new classes had been added. At 6. ODM also questioned the assigning of five first-time principals to the incentive schools since 1990-91. At 9-10. ODM noted that the level of instability identified can not be squared with the governing standards. At 6. 19 Again, LRSD is silent on these issues raised by ODM. Also, 18 For example: Badgett (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the different levels); Baseline (sharp disparity in the make-up of the staff at the primary and intermediate levels); Carver (same); Chicot (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); Forest Park (same); Franklin (early childhood and primary levels are heavily white, and intermediate level identifiably black; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Jefferson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years); McDermott (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); Meadowcliff (no black teacher at the early childhood level for three years; black teachers concentrated at the intermediate level; \"staff remains predominantly white\"); Pulaski Heights (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; sharp disparity in composition of teachers at the three levels); Rightsell (\"the staff has remained predominantly black\"); Rockefeller (decreasing number of black teachers over three year period; only 3 of 27 teachers were black persons in 1994-95); Terry (\"staff remained predominantly white\"); and Watson (no black teacher at early childhood level for three years; \"staff has remained predominantly white\"). 19 See also Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580, 598 (1st Cir. 1974), cert den., 421 U.S. 963 (1975) (noting \"a rate of faculty turnover at predominantly black schools far higher than than that at white schools\" contributing to a denial of equal educational opportunity). 16 I  while LRSD touts its inclusion of black persons in the governance of the system, It does not address the fact that seven of the eight elementary schools west of University Avenue have white principals. 20 We respectfully submit that it is these matters, and not the situation in Dallas, etc., which LRSD must address in this context. (c.) Racial Differences in Student Achievement The LRSD made an unambiguous commitment -- in 1989 and at later times, not 1954 (compare Mem., at 27) -- to eliminate the \"achievement disparity between black and white students on normreferenced and criterion-referenced tests. 1121 The superficial presentation made by LRSD on this \"crucial\" aspect of the settlement22 does not approach the showing required to warrant the termination of the court's jurisdiction. See Mem., at 27- - 29. 23 20 These schools are Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, otter Creek, Romine, Terry, and Williams. Brady does have an African American principal. Addressing such patterns is an important part of the task of eliminating forever the notion of a \"disfavored race.\" Freeman. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 131. 21 See LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 1., para. B.; Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, at 4 (Part XII). 22 See Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d at 256 (Court of Appeals identifies \"the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\" as one of the \"crucial\" elements of the settlement as to which \"no retreat should be approved\").; Order, May 1, 1992, at 6 (\"However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive and unsupported in light of two of the primary goals of the case, i.e., racial integration and student achievement.\") 23 Assuming arguendo that there is room for lower courts to take a different view on the impact of desegregation than Brown, 17 I J Consider a hypothetical school district seeking the - termination of court jurisdiction over the issue of student enrollment despite the fact that it has not achieved the goals of its plan, and in the face of monitoring reports showing that it has neither complied with provisions of its plan, nor exhausted the posibility of modifications to better attain its objectives. It is obvious that this district's actions would not warrant a holding either that it had achieved maximum practicable desegregation, 24 or substantially complied with governing standards. LRSD's position on this issue is no better. The following are among the many factors\\reasons further showing that LRSD's effort to end jurisdiction on this point must fail. First. The district's presentation is entirely devoid of a proposition which we doubt, particularly in this case, this record does not support the broad contentions advanced by LRSD. First. Doctors Walberg and Armor acknowledged that 52 social scientists had joined a statement filed with the Supreme Court, taking a more positive position, than the one taken by them, on the impact of degregation on achievement. See Tr. , , May 13, May 15, 1996. Second. Dr. Walberg agreed that he has~times expressed his view of the impact of desegregation on achievement as follows: sometimes it helps, and sometimes it hurts, and sometimes it doesn't do anything. Tr. , May 13, 1996. He has not studied whether these differences are due to differences in the quality of the implementation in the different instances. Id. Third. Dr. Orfield testified that Dr. Walberg has done no original research on the impact of desegregation, and that Dr. Armor has done little such research. Tr. , May 30, 1996. Dr. Orfield also testified about scholars who take a positive position regarding the impact of desegregation, including with regard to its role in providing a path into the mainstream of society. Id. 24 See Swann v. Charlotte Meklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u.s. 1, 26 (1971); Davis v. Board of School commissioners of Mobile County. 402 U.S. 33, 37 (1971). 18 I J  facts, except for Exhibit 12, which is not cited in the - memorandum, and undermines one of the system's principal arguments. See discussion, infra. There is, for example, no data on racial disparities in achievement in 1990-91 and 1995-96, allowing some conclusion as to the relative size of the gap \"then and now.\" There is no indication of any effort to determine whether some schools show greater progress in addressing the gap; or whether any such schools have been studied in depth to identify positive elements of their programs which could be replicated in other schools. There is no discussion of any effort to determine the impact of participation in early childhood programs. There is no evidence of any study to identify the specific areas of knowledge and skills which lead to the gap and the causes of these differences. There is no evidence of any effort to organize regular classroom instruction; extended day, week and year programs; or tutoring efforts to address the specifics of the achievement gap. There is no indication of any effort to comply with the promise regarding criterion referenced assessment. 25 25 Such an effort could include: identification of a body of knowlege and skills which this district desires that all students master, an effort to insure that all students are exposed to instruction allowing them the opportunity to master this material, and assessment, of various forms, determining students' mastery of this material. This differs from norm-referenced testing where a student's score is compared to the scores of the sample of students from throughout the country who were tested during the process of standardizing a test used throughout the nation. See also the testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield, Tr. , May 30, 1996 (need for broader forms of assessment; need for-longitudinal data following students over a period of years)~ 19 I  Second. In its Order of May 1, 1992 addressing the parties' - proposed amendments to the initial versions of the settlement, this court repeatedly considered the potential impact of actions with regard to improvement in the relative performances of black youth and reduction in the achievement gap. Order, at 10, 15, 16, 21-22, 23, 24, 30. The district ignores entirely this obvious starting point. Third. In Freeman. supra, cited by LRSD, the Supreme Court noted the f "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_769","title":"Summer school","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":["1994/2002"],"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","Summer schools","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Summer school"],"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/769"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["538 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 June 6, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Parents of Summer Enrichment School Students - Incentive Schools FROM: Principal of SUBJECT: Summer Enrichment Program - Incentive Schools Your child has been assigned to the Enrichment Summer School Program at: ANDREW J* BROWN SITE: Penick Boys C. The program begins on Monday, June 20, 1994, and ends on July 25, 1994. July 4 is a holiday. The location, date, and time for incentive schools enrichment programs are indicated below: ACTIVITY LOCATION DATE TIME G.W. Carver YMCA 1116 West 14th June 20 - July 25, 1994 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Arkansas Art Center MacArthur Park June 20 - July 25, 1994 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. James Penick Boys Club 1201 Leisure Lane June 20 - July 25, 1994 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. William Thrasher Boys Club 3301 South State June 20 - July 25, 1994 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Transportation will be provided by Little Rock School District. Your child will be picked up at his/her currently assigned Incentive School at 7:45 A.M. They will arrive back at their assigned incentive school by 4:30 P.M. Students attending the Arkansas Art Center will arrive at their assigned incentive school by 12:30 P.M. Your cooperation is needed. Please contact Larry S. Robertson at 324-2013, if additional information is needed.4.  \u0026lt; JAMES H. PEHICX BOYS CLUB MEMBERSHIP APP1.ICATI0B 3C7YS CLUB OF UTTLS nocx MeiOership It PLEASE PBIHT AHO CHECK APPOBPglATE AHSUER TO ALL OUESTIOWS Application Date Census Tract # Race: Whi te Black Hispanic Other Previous Member: Tes Ho Prior Unit Membership Fee S Fee Fully Paid: Tes No NAME: FIRST MIDDLE LAST ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: PHONE (H) CO) Birthday Birth City State Years at this address: Do you live with your: (Check one) Do you belong to: (Check one) Both Mother S Father Boys/Girls Scouts Mother Only Church Club Grandparents YMCA/YUCA Father Only School Club Other Other None How many Ii ve i n your house? _______ Number of Brothers: Murber of Sisters: I will attend James H. Penick Boys Club: Current Job: (check one) Summer Year-Around Year-Around Part-time Part-time Only during the School Year Full-time Full-time Only during Holidays Hone Sumnerli Home Phone: 1, 2. Have you belonged to another Boys i Girls Club? State: City: Last year attended: 19 Years as club memoer: Fathers Mame: Mothers Mame: Father Employed at  Mother Employed at Are your imiunizations up-to-date? (Check One) Measles Mumps Ooes your family have health an/or DO you have serious If yes emergency Rubella accident Insurance? health problems? please explain [ promise to take care YES of James H. Penick Boys Phone: YES Living: Living: Work Uoric MO Club and its property. card, I understand no dues will be returned to me. Member's Signature: I hereby give my permission to my child to become a member that the club is not responsible for the time 1. 2. NO Zip: Still a member: --------- Polio YES YES YES YES MO MO MO MO O.P.T. If at any time I an' asked to return my of the James H. and manner in which he may Penick Boys Club. [ understand arrive at the James H. Penick Boys Club, and that the James of property. H. Penick Boys Club and its property are not responsible for persona I injury or loss Parent's (Guardian's) Signature: Staff Signature:tiTTLE Rock School Distkict NEWS release I i November 23,1994 For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 More than 92 percent of the I I I i School District's first 1139 were successful In Special Summer School students who attended the Uttle Rock saining the knowledge and skUls Program mandated by.M wosness to flte next grade level -------------needed to free mandatoiy summer school umer^d-------------------------- f intervention lor kindergarten Utrougn designed to provi'd*e *ea*rlv' lliese students designed to intervene before liinl grade students. program patterns of fauure are established. If students were successfnutl imn tthhee summer program they continued appropriate grade level this school year. to their Superintendent Huetnvryy wW,illlliiaanms. Ifw continue to Identify these students before they experience failure, the remediation needed for the program has shown that we can offer help their self-esteem them to be successful. and self-worth as well,- he added. In the process we'll 810 Wwt Markham Z #:OOLOl/,lQS (more) Street  b, -isia 100H0S yi ''WdT2:ZLr't6-eZ-Li\nOOIZ Xd I3ATI0 :Aa iN3S K-3 Initiative Summer School Students not only gained knowledge, I i i .u,,, c. fun learning during the Williams is concerned howeve'- that nn-.. uvwtfve., mat not everv rhnw i... Teacher-student ratios the district cook advantage of the r, that every child idenufled by I I I I I  #:00l0lil0S identified did not attend. possible to reach the parents and program. Afore than 300 students He stares that the district did notify them of the we could not make them send their children, clear to parents that if their child basic skills in language did not attend the everything program. \".Although we wanted to make it very arts and math, that their child program and master remain in his or her current grade level for Williams, would need to further remediation. said n 'After the first year of the program, the record speaks for itself. 92 percent of m. students tucceesfuhy meetins the educntlnnel 5Ut0ehe.ehoi even, petent^tBUeauetpeenU their Child ne year,. Williams said. \"Most of these know from experience that this children Just need a little extra help and latfin'entton works, ### Williams added. I we -isia 100H0S ! WdSZ:2L: 176-Z-Ili 0QL3 XJ I3AT|0 :Aa iN3SLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL PARENT/STUDENT HANDBOOK GRADES 1-6 1994 ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY 700 East 17th Street Little Rock, AR 72206 374-2385 ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL 700 EAST 17TH STREET LITTLEROCK, AR 72206 324-2385 Dear Parents and Students: Welcome to Rockefeller Elementary Summer School. We are looking forward to working with your child. We ask for your cooperation so that we may provide your child with quality learning experiences. The goal of this summer learning program is to strengthen and improve skills for reading and mathematics. Please read and discuss this handbook with your child. I would like to extend an invitation for you to visit our school. Parents are always welcome! Sharon A. Brooks, Summer School PrincipalRockefeller Elementary Summer School Parent/Student Handbook Page 2 ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL STAFF Principal Sharon A. Brooks Assistant Principal Reba (Faye) Reynolds Secretary Karen (Suzi) Holmes Student Monitor Erica Fells Security Officer Roderick Blacksher TEACHERS Cynthia Collins Kathy Cook Elizabeth Frawley Luther (Skip) Gardner Janet Ghant Barbara Hannahs Linda Hays Fredonia (Ann) Watson Sandra Lester Martha Lowe Melvia Mathis Franciie Moore Tajuana Russell Delwin Smith Kristin Walden INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES Connie Bledsoe Davyda Howard Carole Carroll COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT Janet Blackwood SPECIAL RESOURCE TEACHERS (3-5) CUSTODIANS (3)Rockefeller Elementary Summer School Parent/Student Handbook Page 3 DAILY SCHEDULE 7:45 - 8:10 a.m. 8:10 a.m. 8:15 a.m. 10:00 - 10:15 a.m. 10:15 - 10:30 a.m. 11:15 - 11:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. Early Bird Reading Club First Bell Tardy Bell/Instruction Begins Primary Break Intermediate Break D.E.A.R. (Drop Everything and Read) Student Dismissal ATTENDANCE Students will attend summer school for five weeks. Summer school begins on June 20, 1994, and ends on July 25, 1994. (July 4, 1994 IS A HOLIDAY. SUMMER SCHOOL WILL BE CLOSED!) A student in summer school grades 1-6 is required to put in 75 full clock hours (five weeks). EXCUSED ABSENCES: When a student is absent from class because of personal illness or an extreme family emergency, an excused absence will be given, BUT THE TIME MISSED MUST BE MADE UP TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TEACHER(S) INVOLVED. A $5.00 per hour make-up fee will be charged students who must make up classes. Students who fail to make up time missed during an excused absence will not be given credit for summer school. UNEXCUSED ABSENCES: When a student is absent from school for ANY REASON other than personal illness or an extreme family emergency, the absence will be UNEXCUSED. Unexcused absences include the following: truancy, skipping classes or study hall, working in an out-of-school job during school hours, dental appointments, running personal errands, and any other absence for any reason other than personal illness or an extreme family emergency. STUDENTS WHOSE ABSENCES ARE UNEXCUSED WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY DROPPED FROM SUMMER SCHOOL WITH NO REFUND OF TUITION. CONTACT THE SCHOOL TO REPORT ANY ABSENCES.Rockefeller Elementary Summer School Parent/Student Handbook Page 4 SUMMER SCHOOL RULES 1. Enter quietly, on time, with necessary materials. 2. Walk inside the school. (Students must have a pass when in the halls.) 3. Students shall keep hands and feet to themselves. (Teasing, fighting, profanity, and abusive language are not allowed.) 4. Cooperate and follow directions of all staff members. 5. Respect the rights and property of others. CITIZENSHIP Poor behavior problems in summer school usually fall in one of the following categories: refusal to do class work\nmisbehavior in classrooms or corridors\nabuse of or bothering school propertysuch as disfiguring furniture or marking on walls\nprowling in unused parts of the school building\nviolation of smoking regulations\nleaving the campus during break period and then returning to school\nsitting in parked cars while school is in progress\ngambling in any form\npoor citizenship on city buses\nloitering\nbothering parked cars, motor scooters, or bicycles\ntaking other peoples property, etc. STUDENTS WHO FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE SCHOOL STAFF AND WHO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS OF ACCEPTABLE SCHOOL BEHAVIOR WILL BE DISMISSED FROM SUMMER SCHOOL WITHOUT REFUND OF TUITION.Rockefeller Elementary Summer School Parent/Student Handbook Page 5 GENERAL INFORMATION Students should not arrive at school prior to 7:45 a.m. When students arrive at school, they are to report to the cafeteria. Students may participate in the Early Bird Reading Club (from 7:45 a.m. to 8:10 a.m.) They may read silently or listen to stories read aloud to them. Students may bring reading materials (books, magazines, newspapers, etc.) from home. Students may bring a snack for the morning break. Students will not be allowed to purchase items from the Teachers Lounge. Homework will be assigned to all students the first four days (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) of each week. Interim Reports will be sent home during the third week of summer school. Siunmer School Report Cards will be sent home with students on the last day of school (July 25, 1994). A copy of this card will also be sent to the students home base school. The following grading scale will be used: A B C D F 90 - 100% 80- 70- 60- 0- 89% 79% 69% 59% Excellent Good Average Below Average Failing Visitors are always welcome at Rockefeller Elementary Summer School. To ensure the safety of students, we ask that all visitors check in at the office. Visitors will be given a visitors badge to wear while they visit at the school. Students will be issued appropriate textbooks for reading and mathematics. Students are responsible for assigned textbooks. Damaged or lost books will be replaced at parents expense. School supplies will not be sold at school. Students should come to school everyday with paper and pencil. Students wiU be scheduled for the Computer Lab by classrooms. Students will be scheduled for computer instruction for reading and mathematics at least twice a week (30 minutes per session). Students will work at their individual levels, with assistance from the classroom teacher and the computer lab attendant.LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 May 25 95 14:24 P.02/02 --auf Little Rock School District Public Service Announcement 30 Seconds The Little Rock School District will offer summer school classes beginning June 13. Summer school for grades one through six will be held at Rockefeller Incentive School, grades seven and eight at Forest Heights Junior High, and grades nine through twelve at Hall High Sch\u0026lt;x\u0026gt;l. Registration wiH be held from June 7 through June 12. For more information on summer school, tuition, courses, and registration, please contact one of the Little Rock public schools. -30- 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (5011324-2000LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jun 14 95 8:36 P. 02/02 Little Rock School District News Release Jr. High Summer School Open House June 14,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 Forest Heights Junior High School, site of the Little Rock School District's junior high level summer school program, wiU hold an open house on Thursday, June 15, at 6:00 p.m. Parents, guardians, and other family members of summer school students are encouraged to attend the event and to meet principal J. J. Lacey and the classroom teachers. Information on summer school curriculum will be available as well. Forest Heights Junior High is located at 5901 Evergreen. ###A iisji '1 Hi V t ! OpCT! I I i'-.07/ 18 9.\" S 002 002 1 1 fJ -I\n- -' (nC 1)424-2000-T- - I  ..K-4 SUMNfER SCHOOL STUDENT DATA FORM s' if f I  q T, I?' I 6 I 3  4 f \u0026lt; DISTRICT LEA# DIST-PROVroiNG SERVICE W~WH1TE B-BLACK HH1SPANIC A=AS1AN N^^NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN # Served M 7 K-W KB K-H K-A K-N 1-W 1-B LH 1-A 1-N 2-W 2.B 2-H 2-A 2-N 3-Vf 3-B 3-H 3-A 3-N 4-W 4-B 4-H 4-A 4.N total 3. / 1 / X I S\" Z 3 I  3 # Retained Attended SS* M F X. 3 v K Retained Did not Attend SS M f F 3, A ff Special d M F  # RETAINED COLUMS SHOULD BE UNDUMJCaTED COUKTS. .1 90d 00'ON 3:FT . \u0026amp;6,0 '''ON U LimiiBcl Digliih Proficient M F M . I # Chapter I F F0S0-Ft-I0:'!3i # Pre-Sehool Expwenoe M F J 1 \u0026lt; , eiw\u0026lt;\n_n7-n\n-nn\u0026lt;i 3d IIl K-4 SUMMER SCHOOL STUDENT DATA FORM DISTRICT LEA# DIST.PROVIDINO SERVICE W=WHITE B~BLACK HHISPANIC A=ASLAN N^NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAM K-W K-B K.-H K-A K-N 1-W CB H Served H Retained Attended SS* # RcUined Did not Attend SS\" It Special Ed H Limited English Proficient # Cheptsrl H Pre-Sebbo) Expwienee t -L 1-H 1-A 1-N 2-W 2-B 2'H 2-A 2-N 3-B 3-H 3-A 3-N 4-W 4.B 4-H 4-A 4-N IVTAl.   RETAINED COLUMS SHOULD BE WTOUPLICATED COUNT\u0026amp; O'd 00ON T3:Pl t7OO-r3-T.OS: 131 RI Ns-ri7_ns_fTns Jdl 3 W F M F M M F M F M F M F t I I 5 1  I RK-4 SUMMER SCHOOL STUDENT DATA FORM DISTRICT LEA#____________DIST.PROVTDING SERVICE W^WH1TE B-BLACK H-HISPANIC AASIAN N=NATIVE AMERICAN fNDlAN # Served # Rcuintd Attended SS it Reteinod Did not Attend SS' # Specttl Ed # Limited English Proficient #Cb.pterI # Pn\u0026gt;-Sboot Experience K-W K-B K-H K-A K-N LW 1-B I-H l-A 1-N 2.W J-B 2-H 2-A 2-N 3-W 3-B 3-H 3-A 3.N 4-W 4-B 4-H 4-A 4-N TOTAL  M retained COLUMS SHOULD BE UNDUPLICATED COUNr\u0026amp; tzO'd 00.0N T3:rT S6 1 0 Ao[\\) f0S0-Fc2-T0S:n3i BI w\u0026lt;\n--n7_ni-nn'5 3d I I F M F M F M f M F M F M F I  IK-4 SUMMER SCHOOL STUDENT DATA FORM DISTRICT__________ LEA# DIST.PROVIDING SERVICE W-WHITE \u0026amp;-BLACK H==H]SPAN1C A\"AS1AN N^NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN Served If Rctainsd Attended SS* # Retained Did not Attend SS\" 4 Special Ed it Ijnulfid Englixh Proficient # Chapter I Pre.ih\u0026lt;X3l Experience K-W K-B K-H K-A K-N I-W I-B l-H  I-N 2-W 2-B 2*H 2-A 2-N 3-W 3-B 3-H 3-A 3-N 4-W 4-B 4-H 4-A 4.N total  H RBTAINtD COLUMS SHOULD BE UNDUPLICATED COUNTS. U'd 200-ON 0c:17l S6\u0026lt;0' '''CM 170b0-V2-I0S:l3i RI N.R-nv-ns-nn'? jdl ifi 1 I 3 1 2 Sl / L I M F M F M F M F M F M F 3 t L IK-4 SUMMER SCHOOL STUDENT DATA FORM DISTRICT LEA# DLST.PROVTDING SERVICE W^WHITE B-BLACK H-HISPAMC A=ASIAN N=NAT1VE ?J4ERJCAN fNOIAN \u0026gt;' t Served c. / Z- K-W K-B !-  K-A K-N 1-W l-B 1-H 1-A 1-N 2.W 2-B 2-H 2-A 2-N 3-W 3-B 3-H 3-A 3-N 4-W 4-B 4-H 4-A 4-N TOTAl M / / 1 /3 / 1  F 3' # Retained Attended SS M F 1 # Retained Did not Attend SS* M F # Special Ed M I F J, * # RETAINED COLUMS SHOULD BE U\u0026gt;DLTUCATEO COUNTS. SOd 00'ON 03:FT S  4 0 It. I *1 # Limited English PioCeient M F # Chapter I M F I T I F0S0-F3-T0S:33i tl Pre-School Expetienee M F 1 I I RINS-07-05-005 Jdl AJOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 R.tss3 DEC / d JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Office of Dess, Via Facsimile - 324-2146 December 13, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I was somewhat surprised to learn that while a northwest Little Rock school has been slated for closing it is slated to be rebuilt. Please provide to me, pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA, all documents and written communication which have exchanged hands, between you, school district officials, consultants and patrons of northwest Little Rock regarding the closing and rebuilding of Jefferson Elementary school. Monday, December 18, 1995. May I have this information by Thank you for your cooperation. Vi truly yours, f W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ms. Ms. Ann Brown Linda Pondexter Pankye Fells Mr. Jim Lynch Summer School Timeline 1998 November FEB 2 6 1999 OfFlCECf Date November November November ______________Tasks______________ Select summer School Committee______ Forward letter to neighboring Districts for Little Rock Summer School Participants Select Summer School Dates Person Responsible Sadie Mitchell Marian Lacey 'Summer School Committee Resolution Listed below Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Victor Anderson Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Gene Parker Lillie Carter Doug Eaton Gail Hester Mike Martello Morlin McCoy Suellen Vann Leon Adams Dick Hurley Mark MilhollenSummer School Timeline 1999 January Date January 26 ______________Tasks____ Summer School Planning Meeting ______Person Responsible Summer School Committee Resolution Jan-Feb 26 Attend Legislative Sessions Timeline completed Brady Gadberry Sadie Mitchell Submit Budget Mark Millhollen Sadie Mitchell Gene ParkerSummer School Timeline 1999 February [ Date 12 19 Tasks Identify Programs School Sites Identified 19 24 26 Staffing - Identify Positions General Principals Meeting Review Summer School Programs Advertise Principal Positions City op Little Rock Summen Pnognam Secondary Programs ] K-5 IniCiatiue Programs Person Responsible Bonnie Lesley__________ Sadie Mitchell Doug Eaton Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Dick Hurley 4-G Refjcjlan Resolution IncenCiue School Extended DqySummer School Timeline 1999 March Date 12 19 19 26 26 26 26 __________________Tasks Summer School Planning Meeting Summer School Principal Interviews_________ Summer School Principal Recommendation to Superintendent Advertise Staff Positions Incentive Schools K-3 Initiative_____________________________ Send Summer School Applications to Printer Regular Summer School ______Elementary/Secondary_______________ Student Identification Process Completed for Recommended Students__________________ Projected Summer School Attendance Person Responsible Summer School Committee Members Dick Hurley Sadie Mitchell Dick Hurley Frances Cawthon Dick Hurley Charlotte Washington Linda Jones Linda Smith Teachers/Principals Gene Parker CompletedSummer School Timeline 1999 April Date 5 5 5 6 12 16 April 19 - May 7 _____________Tasks______ Food Grant Due For Funding_____ Forward Incentive School Summer Enrichment Forms to the Schools Meeting with Transportation Information Services Student Assignment 10:00 a.m. Summer School Principals Meeting Retrieve Incentive Schools Summer Enrichment Forms_______________ Notify Schools of Selected Students Teacher Training Person Responsible Morlin McCoy___________ Linda Jones Frances Cawthon Victor Anderson Ed Streeter Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Lillie Carter John Ruffin Julie Wiedower Marian Lacey Frances Cawthon Lillie Carter Summer School Principals Gene Parker Linda Jones Frances Cawthon Gene Parker Gene Parker Staff ResolutionSummer School Timeline 1999 May Date 3 4 1 10-14 18 21 ________________Tasks____________ Submit finalized list of students______________ Elementary Summer School Principals' Meeting Summer School Planning Meeting___________ Parent Notification Letters Sent_____________ Elementary Summer School Principals Meeting Summer School Planninq Meeting Person Responsible Principals_______________ Summer School Principals Gene Parker Marian Lacey Frances Cawton Lillie Carter Summer School Committee Principals_______________ Summer School Principals Gene Parker Marian Lacey Frances Cawthon Lillie Carter Summer School Committee Resolution0 2i' 1 S'33 il: 43 EC132\u0026gt;i05!:i4 lPE'O PAGE 02 DISTRICT little Rock w='HrrE P\u0026gt;Bi C\u0026lt;AO SERVfcO M F KV KB 5 64 J i KH 4 1 KA KN lU/ 9 S 18 r.8 5S ih IA 1 I W '6 85 52 2 :a I 1 I 2N L:' .rv 6 .K 110 80 3H 4 3A 1 OP\u0026lt;1ORI 4* I u f 4B 'P 4 A 4N iM iN L rCTAb ^T Arkansas OcpiXment jf tdutntion Eariv ChiidtiOod.Reiding Unit K.3 SUMMER SCHOOL STCOEM' DATA FORM LEAt__.... EIST PRO'/iDiNG SER _ Litt! a Rock 4 ACK H=HI$PANIC A^ASIAN N^t|7!VE AMERICAN 1NDl*.N 3 afPtArtNC Rfc7MNk'C *RVrA.\u0026gt;F.O \u0026lt;.rtCl?J 9 aertAHNO SS  Rt7 MNeU kITP\u0026gt;0D SS CC NO ATTZNC SS* PROFiCirNT M F M M F M F I I I J. .. I  Ff I 1 1 6 0 T + 5-4 I I X I 1 1 2 X 1 1 I . I  1 2 I I T T X i i T Jb. 1 4 2 I r I t + A I 3 1 1 I I 1 r 4 i I I T 12 3 i ! t I 4 J 3 2 3 I 2 ! 2-1 4-^- I T I T 4- I 4 i t r t i T 1- 2 41 I I I t 5 T I X 1 1 i I I 1 I 1 I lel 6 I t I T 1 s i 4 1 i I I A i 3 I 2 52 i 2i TH ! 55 1 1 16 I I I T-  I X t 51 I f427 280 Ttaineo C'Ou-^ 15 4 13 i 10 i ^fNEO COtV-MNS SMOJlO 83 UJ^'PtiCAlXD COUNIS 33 2G i*' I J i T 1 1 1 I I ! 1 j ! 1 i_ .L. I I I I I i u. f +- t- T I f I I J. 1 I J T* j T\" I 11 I J I I I f I -i I J ------1 ____I X ! I T I + J I05/18/1999 14:29 501-324-2213 SCHOOL SERVICES PAGE 01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACC SUMMER SCHOOL ANNOUNCEMENT METROPOLITAN AREA VOCATIONAL CENTER GRADE 12 JUNE 14-JULY 23,1999 We are pleased to announce that ACC Summer School courses wiU be held for 12' graders needing one-half or one unit of credit ACC SCHEDULE Dates: June 14 through July 23,1999 (full six weeks) (July 5 - holiday) First Semester (three weeks) June 14 - July 1 Second Semester (three weeks) July 6 - July 23 Hours: 8:00 a-m. to 12:00 p.m. - Monday through Friday 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. - Monday through Friday Students will attend ACC Summer School to earn credit needed to receive their high school diploma. TUITION $ 60.00 for Vi unit of credit (three weeks) $120.00 for one (1) unit of credit (fnU six weeks) REGISTRATION Dates: Jone 8-9,1999 - 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.iii. Late Registration: June 10,1999 - 8:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. \u0026gt; (add $10 late registration fee) NO STUDENT WILL BE PERMITTED TO REGISTER AFTER JUNE 10,1999 COURSES OFFERED AU courses are one (1) credit (full six weeks) Social Studies Civics Math Algebra I U.S. Government - Algebra n Biology Science Physical Science U-S. History World History World Geography Geometry Chemistry Science Tech English English I English n English HI English IV Communications 05/18/1999 14:29 501-324-2213 SCHOOL SERVICES PAGE 02 REGULATIONS FOR ACC SUMMER SCHOOL Both parentZguardian and student are required to sign the ACC Summer School application form and contract indicating that they have read, understand and are willing to abide by the following regulations. ADMISSION Students who attend must be age 18 years or older, classified as a senior and need Vz to 1 credit to complete the requirements needed to receive their high school diploma. attendance ' A student in the ACC Summer School program is required to put in 120 full clock hours for one unit of credit or 60 hours (three weeks) for 1/2 unit of credit EXCUSED ABSENCES When a student is absent from class because of personal illness or an extreme family emergency, an excused absence will be given. But- the time missed must bejnade up to the satisfaction of the , administration and teacherfs)jnvolved, A SS.00 per hour make-up fee will be charged students who ' must make up classes. Students who fail to make up time missed during an excused absence will not be given credit for summer schooL . . UNEXCUSED ABSENCES When a student is absent from school for any other reason than personal illness or an extreme family emergency, the absence will be UNEXCUSED. Unexcused absences include the following: truancy, skipping classes, working during school hours, dental appointments, running personal errands, and other absences for any reason other than personal illness or an extreme family emergency. STUDENTS WHOSE ABSENCES ARE UNEXCUSED WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY DROPPED FROM SUMMER SCHOOL WITH NO REFUND OF TUITION. CITIZENSHIP Poor behavior problems in summer school usually Call in one of the following categories: refusal to do class work\nmisbehavior in classrooms or corridors\nabuse of or bothering school property such as disfiguring furniture oy marking on walls\nprowling in unused parts of the school building\nviolation of smoking regulations\nleaving the campus during break period and then returning to school\nsitting in parked cars while school is in progress\ngambling in any form\npoor citizenship on city buses\nloitering\nbothering parked cars, motor scooters or bicycles\ntaking otiier peoples property\netc. STUDENTS WHO FAIL TO COOPERATE WITH THE ACC STAFF AND WHO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS OF ACCEPTABLE SCHOOL BEHAVIOR WILL BE DISMISSED FROM SUMMER SCHOOL WITHOUT REFUND OF TUITION.  CLASSWORK Students will receive individualized, computer-based instruction H of the instructional day (2 hours)\nthe remaining class time win be used to complete supplementary course work.05/28/1999 14:07 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS \u0026lt;\u0026gt;i  PAGE 01/02 For more information, please contact Morlin M. McCoy Director of Child Nutrition 1S01 Jonas Street Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 324-2250 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DISTRICT ANNOUNCES SUMMER FOOD PROGRAM May 28. 1999 The Little Rock School District announces sponsorship of the Summer Food Service Program. Free meals will be made available to all children and will be provided without regard to age, sex, race, color, disability or national origin. Meals will be provided at the following sites:  Southwest Middle School  Brady Elementary  Rightsell Elementary  Baseline Elementary  Geyer Springs Elementary  Washington Elementary The following sites are enrolled sites, and students must be enrolled in these sites to participate:  Hall High School  McClellan High School Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any USDA related activity should write to: -MORE- t 05/28/1999 14:07 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/02 LRSD SUMMER FOOD Page 2 of 2 Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria. VA 22303. note TO THE PRESS: Please also publish the following guidelines with the above statement. FORMAT FOR INCOME ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR MEDIA RELEASE These are the income scales used by the Little Rock School District to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals. To figure monthly income\nweekly x 4.33\nevery 2 weeks x 2.15\ntwice a month x 2. FREE MEALS Household Annual Size Monthly Weekly REDUCED PRICE MEALS Household Annual Monthly Weekly Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10,465 14,105 17,745 21,385 25,025 28,665 32,305 35,945 ...873 1,176 1,479 1,783 2,086 2,389 2,693 2,996 202 272 342 412 482 552 622 692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14,893 20.073 25,253 30,433 35,613 40,793 45,973 51,153 1,242 1,673 2,105 2,537 2,968 3,400 3,832 4.263 287 387 486 586 685 785 885 984 For additional household member add: +3.640 +304 +70 For additional household member add: +5,180 +432 +10003/06/2002 0j0S____ 501-570-4027 FACILITIES SERVICES PAGE 01/02 SUMMER SCHOOLS 2002 No Elementary Summer Schools Pulaski Heights Middle School Parkview High School Rockefeller Elementary School - Early Childhood Baseline Elementary' School - Special Program (possibly - applied for Grant) Carver Elementary School - Special Program Southwest Middle School - Special Program Wakefield Elementary School (Lower building available for Share Amenca) McCtellan High School - Community Education Other Buildings Available: Metropolitan Vo-Tech Dunbar Middle School Forest Heights Middle School Mann Magnet Middle School Badgett Elementary School Booker Magnet Elementary Chicot Elementary School Cloverdale Elementary School Fair Park Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Mitchell Elementary School Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Elementary School Washington Elementary School Williams Magnet Elementary Alternative Learning Center ZA/ZR WTAMic \"innunc CT7'7 t7e TQC TO  TT TOOT/TT/QQArkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 11,1994 LRSD plans summer school for pupils not making grade A new summer school program for as many as 1,360 pupils in kinde^arten through third grades is in the planning stages at the Little Rock School District. The program is the result of a 1993 law that requires districts to offer a free summer i school for children who are performing below their grade level in reading and mathematics. The law requires pupils to attend the summer classes to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. The summer curriculum will stress hands-on experiences and practical application of the information taught. Sites for the Little Rock program are Carver, Cloverdale, King, Washington and Terry elementary schools. Funding for the program  $428,361  will be provided by the state Department of Education. The Little Rock School Board is expected to act on the summer school proposal and hire the staff for the program at its March 24 meeting. Staff training also will be provided by the Education Department. Also at the March 24 meeting, board members will decide whether to put up for sale about 25,000 square feet of land near J.A. Fair High School. The land was separated from the rest of the campus when David 0. Dodd Road was relocated.Arkansas Democrat gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 10,1994 LR students can sign up for summer Students may register for the Little Rock School District summer school program Monday- Thursday. Summer school will be held  at three sites, and late registration will be allowed only on June 17. The sites are:  Rockefeller Elementary School  Grades 1-6 from 8:15 to 11:30 a.m. June 20-July 25, Monday through Friday. Tuition is $115. Courses will be offered in mathematics and reading. Enrichment courses will be in writing, oral language and reading development.  Forest Heights Junior High School  Grades 7-8 from 8 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. June 20-Aug. 1, Monday through Friday. Tuition is $115. Seventh-^ade courses offered are English, math, life science and social studies. Eighthgrade courses offered are English, math, earth science, American History and reading.  Central High School  Grades 9-12 from 7:45 a.m. to noon June 20-Aug. 1. The first semester runs from June 20-July 11. The second semester will be from July 12-Aug. 1. Tuition varies: $57.50 for a half credit, three-week regular courses\n$115 for one-credit, six-week regular courses\n$60 for a half credit, three-week lab classes\n$120 for six-week lab classes\nand $165 for a half unit, three-week driver education courses. A wide range of academic courses will be offered. For more information about summer school, contact the district at 324-2000.Arkansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, JUNE 20,1995 Elementary schools plan open houses Five Little Rock School District schools are hosting open houses tonight to let the families of their summer school pupils meet principals and teachers and discuss the summer curricula. A sixth school has an open house scheduled for June 27. The open house at Cloverdale Elementary School will begin tonight at 5:30. Open houses will start at 6 p.m. at Carver Elementary, Washington Elementary, Fulbright Elementary and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary. Rockefeller Elementary plans a summer open house at 5:30 p m June 27. Denn locrat AV^dnesday. JULY 22. J. 17-year-old| Shooting shot in neck after school Dispute at J.A. Fair continued on street BY JIM BROOKS .ARKANSAS DE.\\IOCRAT-GAZETTE An argument between students summer school at JA - nuivuuisou saia. Marigold Street resident re- ^e? neck Tuesday .ported hearing at least three gun- pha !with a ,\ngun ^shots from up the street about 120 chased anotherpair off campus, Ut- -p.m. T I said to myself.-That sounded 17 Jacksoi^ \"really close, so 1 went outside and upgraded tsaw the car wecked against the from critical to serious after sui^ery Tuesday night and he was in inten- Upp Hospital, po- ..auu one oi me ooys was civmg. t \"could tell the other boy was hurt so bullet had struck him in the back of  ................. ''  his neck and lodged in his throat police said. Police arrested one of the youths Tuesday ni^t when his mother turned him in to investigators, detective Lt J.R. Hall said. He said investigators had sworn out two: terroristic-act warrants Tuesday afternoon for each of the two teen-age suspects. HaU refused to identify the two. But a police report listed AJ. Washington, 17, of 1505 W. 22nd St as a suspect and Pulaski County jail records showed he was charged as an adult with two counts of committing a ten-ori^c act and was being booked into jail Tuesday night. A charge could be lodged for each person in the car when shots were See SHOOTING, Page 38  Continued from Page 1B  fired. Hall said the other teen-ager re- mained at large. Sometime during school hours, the four teens got involved in an argument police spokesman Lt. .'John Hutchinson said. \".After . school let out two students got into \u0026gt;^their car and were followed out by . 'the students they had argued with /earlier. That argument led to gunfire, ' Hutchinson said. ^-p.m. 'tree, said the woman, who did not  give her name. \"I went out there and one of the boys was cning. I I went back inside and called 911. Police found a tan 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Cierra crashed into a tree in front of338 Marigold St. less than two miles east of Fair High. The Oldsmobiles back window had a single bullet hole on the drivers side. Moses Crawford and James Dixon, who work for the citys Parks and Recreation Department came across the crime scene shortly after the Cierra struck the tree. The driver wasn't talking, but i he was moving around. Dixon said. ' The passenger was really freaking I out I Emergency workers quickly i treated Jackson at the scene. His neck was immobilized in a cervical collar and he was strapped onto a back board before being put tn an ambulance and taken to University Hospital. Brandon Landers, 16, of 3024 Summit St. in Little Rock, Jacksons passenger, was uninjured, police said. Detectives questioned him at police headquarters. Shortly after arriving at the scene, police broadcast a description of the vehicle driven by the suspects, as well as names of two youths wanted for questioning in the shooting. The suspects were last seen heading south on Marigold in a white 1939 Isuzu I-Mark, police said.Arkansas Democrat ^(Oazellc * JANUARY 27, 1999 Panel OKs bill to end K-3 classes I in summer I i BY DOUG THOMPSON ARKANSAS DEMOCR.AT-GAZETTE One piece of the governors education package got a slow start Tuesday in the House Education Committee. Gov. Mike Huckabee and state Education Department Director Ray Simon asked the committee to support I a bill to repeal some state requirements that the governor sees as counterproductive to schools. After the governor left the first bill of his package led to 20 minutes of debate in the committee before receiving just enough votes to get out of committee with a favorable recommendation. House Bill 1212 would repeal a i requirement that school districts of- i fer summer school for pupils in ' kindergarten through third grade. i The bill got the 11 votes needed for a \"do pass recommendation, dianks to Chairman Olin Cook. D-Russell- I ville, exercising his option to vote ' when a bill has 10 votes. Rep. Jimmy Jeffress, D-Crossett,  said during debate hed prefer to see J how Huckabee s program to improve J the academic performance of pupils ! fares \"before we completely devas- i tate summer school. Huckabee is proposing that the state eliminate a number of state requirements to give schools more freedom. In return, most of a districts students must pass their fourth grade bench mark exam on reading and math or face consolidation or direct takeover of their operations by the state. The districts will also be judged on attendance rates, dropout rates, safety and other objective criteria. Simon said.18K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL STUDENT RECOMMENDATION PROCESS TEACHER DIRECTIONS 1. Use the Teacher Recommendation Form to recommend students for participation in the 1996 K-5 Summer School Program. making appropriate recommendations, following general guidelines: In please adhere to the Follow the directions for completing Parts I, II, and III for all students, grades K-6. component is a pay program. (Although the sixth grade sixth grade summer school teachers will need the recommendation criteria to profile their students.) Be sure to complete both the Readinq/Lanquaqe Arts and Math forms for each student. Use the accompanying Skills/Knowledge Continuum as a guide for determining if students are currently emerging, developing, or mastering as learners in each of the key skills areas. If students are currently emerging, check the rig column adjacent the corresponding key skills area. If they are currently developing or mastering, check the appropriate yes column. Total the es columns and the ng columns for Parts I and II in order to complete Part III. Be sure to record each student's fall '95 Stanford Eight Reading (LA) and Math NCE's at grades 2 through 6 on the appropriate blank. Since several students may have the same total number of yes's. the NCE's will help determine rank order. A lower NCE will place these students higher on the classroom forms for Reading/Language Arts or Math. At kindergarten and first grade, if several students have the same total number of yes's. please consider each student's overall academic performance, attendance, and interaction/social skills to determine rank order. The student with poorest performance, attendance, and social interaction records should precede others with the same number of total yes's on the Reading/Language Arts or Math. classroom forms for Complete No. 2 on Part III by listing students on the Reading/Language Arts and Math forms beginning with the student who has the fewest yes's and ending with the student who has the most yes's. In cases where more than one student has the same number of total yes's, refer to the Fall Stanford Eight Reading or Math NCE to determine ranking or follow the directions above for kindergarten and first grade.received Oilice .nil 2 4 1996 oi Dessfl'QQ^''\" MonilotinaK5 SUMMER SCHOOL STUDENT RECOMMENDATION PROCESS TEACHER DIRECTIONS PAGE 2 2. Before Wednesday, April 3, turn in to the principal or his/her designee the original white form and the yellow copy of the Reading/Language Arts and Math recommendation forms for each student, along with the classroom rank order lists. The original white forms will be forwarded to the IRC, along with the rank order lists. The yellow copy is for school use and the pink copy should be retained for teacher records. 3. All forms from each school must be Reading/Language Arts Office by Friday, turned in April 5, to I the 1996. Principals will be notified by Friday, April 19, 1996, with the names of students who can be served by the summer program, along with instructions for parent notification. NOTE: Recommendation Education Status: Process for Students with Special The Summer Supplemental Instructional Progreim is governed by rules and regulations set by the Arkansas Department of Education in accordance with Act 1139 of 1993 and addressed in Regulatory Memo No: 1993. 93-274, December 9, Regulation 3.02 states: For students identified as disabled under state and federal regulation, the including local district using \"grade level\" shall be determined at attainment of a combination of criteria goals and Individualized Educational Plans (lEP)... objectives on EXPLANATION: Because of this stipulation school teams must review the progress of special education students in the context of their lEP's. Progress or lack of progress on the lEP becomes as important factor in determining whether or not to recommend. Teachers should rank order these students based on their judgment of the special education student's progress on an lEP in relation to progress of the other students in each of the identified key skills areas. For additional explanation, please contact Dr. Patty Kohler.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE STUDENT STUDENT ID # LA NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Five (5) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK READING PROCESS/COMPREHENSION 1. Begins to recognize letters and sounds of the alphabet 2. Begins to use picture clues to make meaning 3. Begins to recognize that letters make words 4. Begins to recognize story progression 5. Bogins to understand role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Begins to experience independent reading YES NO COMMUNICATIONS 7. Begins to participate as listener \u0026amp; speaker in ___ discussion \u0026amp; questioning 8. Experiments with print vocabulary in writing ___ 9. Experiments with print mechanics in writing ___ 10. Begins to use invented spelling ___ 11. Experiments with mechanics of sentence structure when ___ speaking and writing 12. Begins to tell/retell stories orally and in writing with ___ a beginning, middle, and end 13. Begins to experience written and spoken language as ___ expression of culture TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES NO A. B. C. D. Fewer than five no's on the Student Learning Profile above Good overall performance in Reading/Language Arts as indicated by daily grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) Good classroom interaction/social skills TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.RECEIVED Jill, 2 4 1996 Office of Desegregation MonitoringSTUDENT SCHOOL LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM  TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM MATH STUDENT ID #. TEACHER GRADE _K_ MATH NCE FALL '95 DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Four (4) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO MATHEMATICS 1. Begins to understand the meaning of numbers \u0026amp; sets S counts to 20 2. Demonstrates one-to-one correspondence 3. Identifies numerals to 20 4. Writes numerals to 20 5. Identifies plane shapes (triangles, circles, \u0026amp; rectangles including squares) 6. Writes, reads, and discusses mathematics 7. Identifies and uses coins 8. Sorts \u0026amp; classifies objects 9. Explores the operation of addition 10. Extends a geometric pattern TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES NO A. B. C. D. Fewer than four (4) no's on Student Learning Profile ___ above Good overall performance in Math as indicated by daily ___ grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ TOTALS PART III. 1. 2. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM STUDENT STUDENT ID #. GRADE SCHOOL TEACHER DATE 1 RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM AND/OR THE 1996-97 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM (TITLE ONE READING/LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM) BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Two or more no' s in one or more of the three Student Learning Profiles Skills (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) A. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO READING PROCESS/COMPREHENSION 1. Identifies letters of alphabet and their sounds 2. Uses picture clues \u0026amp; letters of alphabet and their sounds to decode word 3. Recognizes high-frequency sight words 4. Recognizes story progression 5. Begins to understand role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Begins to read \u0026amp; comprehend print materials independently TOTALS I. B. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Begins to participate as listener \u0026amp; speaker in discussion \u0026amp; questioning 2. Begins to independently use basic print vocabulary in writing 3. Begins to independently use basic print mechanics in writing 4. Uses invented spelling 5. Begins to attend to basic mechanics of sentence structure when speaking \u0026amp; writing 6. Tells/retells stories orally \u0026amp; in writing with clear beginning, middle, \u0026amp; end 7. Begins to understand written \u0026amp; spoken language as expression of culture TOTALS II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES NO A. B. C. D. Two (2) or more no's in a single skills area on the ___ student learning skills profile above. Overall performance in Reading/Language Arts is poor ___ as indicated by daily grades and report card grades. Attendance is poor (excessive tardies/10 or more absences). ___ Classroom interaction/social skills are poor. ___ TOTALS III. CHECK ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING AS APPROPRIATE: 1. Recommended to begin the K-5 Summer School Program 2. 3. 4. (2 or more yes /s from PART II) Recommended to continue the K-5 Summer School Program (2 or more yes /s from PART II) Recommended to exit the K-5 Summer School Program (fewer than 2 yes /s from PART II) Recommended for the Title One Program in Reading/Language ArtsLRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM  TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM MATH GRADE _1_ STUDENT STUDENT ID #. MATH NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE. RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: Four (4) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) 1. 2. Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO MATHEMATICS 1. Reads numeral words to 20 \u0026amp; matches words to sets 2. Identifies numbers to 20 as even or odd 3. Counts I's . counts to 100 by I's, 2's, 5's, \u0026amp; 10's . Knows addition facts to 18 \u0026amp; subtraction facts from 9 4 or less 5. Recognizes and names values of coins 6. Compares numbers through 20 7. Identifies numbers created by groups of tens \u0026amp; ones to 100 8. Identifies fractions of a whole for halves \u0026amp; thirds 9. Identifies 3-dimensional shapes including spheres, rectangular prisms \u0026amp; cones 10. Tells \u0026amp; writes time to the hour TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES A. B. C. D. Fewer than four (4) no's on Student Learning Profile --- above Good overall performance in Math as indicated by daily --- grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) --- Good classroom interaction/social skills --- NO TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes' s TOTAL PART II yes' s TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM GRADE 2 STUDENT STUDENT ID # LA NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: ' Five (5) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) 1. 2. PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS 71REA. MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK READING PROCESS/COMPREHENSION 1. Identifies letter sounds in initial, medial, \u0026amp; final YES NO 2. positions Interprets meaning through yisual and written clues 3. Recognizes at least 50 high-frequency sight words 4. Comprehends character, setting, plot in story sequence 5. Understands role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Reads \u0026amp; comprehends print materials independently COMMUNICATIONS 7. Participates as listener \u0026amp; speaker in discussion S 8. 9. questioning Uses basic print yocabulary in independent writing Uses basic print mechanics in independent writing 10. Begins to use conventions of spelling 11. Attends to basic mechanics of sentence structure 12. 13. when speaking and writing Tells/retells stories orally \u0026amp; in writing with supporting details \u0026amp; using proper sequence of events Understands written and spoken language as expression of culture TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. A. Fewer than five no's on the Student Learning Profile above YES NO B. C. D. Good overall performance in Reading/Language Arts indicated by daily grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies  10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ as TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM  TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM MATH GRADE STUDENT STUDENT ID # MATH NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Four (4) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO MATHEMATICS 1. Identifies place value of digits in numbers through 500 2. Adds 2 two-digit numbers with \u0026amp; without regrouping 3. Recalls basic subtraction facts to 18 4. Tells \u0026amp; writes time to the Js hour 5. Identifies fractions of a region including fourths, fifths, \u0026amp; sixths 6. Subtracts two two-digit numbers without regrouping 7. Solves simple word problems using addition \u0026amp; subtraction facts 8. Reads a calendar to tell the day, date,  month 9. Reads  interprets a pictograph  a bar graph 10. Compares three digit numbers using the symbols or TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES A. B. C. D. Fewer than four (4) no's on Student Learning Profile ___ above Good overall performance in Math as indicated by daily ___ grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies  10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ NO TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes * s from PART I to total number of ves's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II ves'S TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE _3_ STUDENT STUDENT ID # LA NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Fiye (5) or more no * s in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK pj:ading process/comprehension YES NO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Uses phonetic principles to decode words Interprets meaning through use of context clues Builds yocabulary through context clues Identifies main idea \u0026amp; comprehends story elements in printed text Begins to use personal background to make meaning from print materials Selects, reads \u0026amp; comprehends print materials independently COMMUNICATIONS 7. Participates appropriately as listener \u0026amp; speaker in classroom, small group, \u0026amp; one-on-one discussion  questioning 8. Begins to independently expand print yocabulary in writing 9. Uses print mechanics appropriately to make meaning in independent writing and begins to self-edit 10. Uses conventions of spelling 11. Begins to vary sentence structure to make speaking \u0026amp; writing interesting 12. Attends to appropriate organization of thoughts, ideas, sequence of events, \u0026amp; supporting details when speaking \u0026amp; writing 13. Begins to independently identify expression of culture in written S spoken language TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. A. YES NO B. C. D. Fewer than fiye no * s on the Student Learning Profile ___ aboye Good oyerall performance in Reading/Language Arts as ___ indicated by daily grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes * s from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes * s TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM  TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM MATH GRADE _3_ STUDENT STUDENT ID # MATH NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Four (4) or more no * s in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO MATHEMATICS 1. Reads \u0026amp; writes numbers through ten thousands 2. Writes numbers in order from least to greatest \u0026amp; greatest to least 3. Adds \u0026amp; subtracts two or three numbers through three digits with \u0026amp; without regrouping 4. Identifies \u0026amp; counts money to $5.00 5. Estimates/measures lengths to the nearest centimeter 6. Recalls basic multiplication facts through fives 7. Identifies 3-dimensional figures including spheres. cones, rectangular prisms, \u0026amp; cylinders 8. Identifies numbers as even or odd through 3 digits 9. Constructs, reads, S interprets a bar graph given a set of data 10. Solves word problems using addition \u0026amp; subtraction through three digits TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MUI.TIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. A. YES B. C. D. Fewer than four (4) no's on Student Learning Profile ___ above Good overall performance in Math as indicated by daily ___ grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ NO TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE 4 STUDENT STUDENT ID # LA NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Five (5) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK READING PROCESS/COMPREHENSION 1. Uses phonetic principles and context clues to decode \u0026amp; make meaning 2. Independently constructs meaning in recreational, textual, \u0026amp; functional print 3. Independently builds vocabulary through context clues 4. Analyzes story elements to interpret main idea YES NO 5. Uses personal background to make meaning from print materials 6. Reads fluently while attending to meaning COMMUNICATIONS 7. Uses appropriate communication skills in a yariety of listening \u0026amp; speaking situations 8. Expands independently print yocabulary in writing 9. Begins to use editing strategies to appropriately make meaning in independent writing 9. 10. Uses conyentions of spelling 11. Begins to independently use process strategies to 12. make personal writing \u0026amp; speaking interesting Begins to appropriately use outlining to organize speaking S writing 13. Identifies independently expressions of culture in writing and spoken language TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. A. Fewer than fiye no's on the Student Learning Profile aboye YES NO B. c. D. Good oyerall performance in Reading/Language Arts indicated by daily grades and report card grades as Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes' s TOTAL PART II yes ' s TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM  TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM MATH GRADE STUDENT STUDENT ID # MATH NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. PART I. Four (4) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO MATHEMATICS 1. Recalls basic multiplication facts through 9's 2. Recalls basic division facts through 9's 3. Multiplies a 2-digit or 3-digit number by a 1-digit number 4. Rounds whole numbers through 3-digits to the nearest 10  100 5. Finds perimeter of regular  irregular polygons 6. Divides a 2-digit number by a 1-digit number with  without a remainder 7. Compares fractions with like denominators using the symbols \u0026lt; or \u0026gt; 8. Adds  subtracts fractions with like denominators without simplifying 9. Identifies shapes as quadrilaterals 10. Tells  writes time to the nearest minute TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES NO A. B. C. D. Fewer than four (4) no's on Student Learning Profile ___ above Good overall performance in Math as indicated by daily ___ grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies S 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes * s from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II ves's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE _5_ STUDENT STUDENT ID #. LA NCE FALL '95 SCHOOL TEACHER DATE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Five (5) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SKILLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES READING PROCESS/COMPREHENSION 1. Uses phonetic/structural/contextual clues to determine _ meaning 2. Uses strategies in reading to summarize, draw conclu- _ sions, predict, \u0026amp; infer in recreational, textual, S functional print 3. Uses semantic and syntactic information to expand _ vocabulary 4. Uses comprehension strategies to analyze main idea/ _ supporting details S to make generalizations about meaning 5. Begins to independently apply appropriate personal _ background when interpreting print materials 6. Reads developmently appropriate material for variety _ of purposes NO COMMUNICATIONS 7. Identifies appropriate communication skills to independently participate in variety of listening \u0026amp; speaking situations 8. Varies print vocabulary to suit audience, occasion, \u0026amp; topic in personal writing 9. Uses appropriate editing strategies (mechanics/grammar) to make meaning in independent writing 10. Uses conventions of spelling 11. Uses process strategies independently to make personal writing \u0026amp; speaking interesting 12. Uses appropriate outlining to organize personal speaking \u0026amp; writing 13. Begins to analyze expressions of culture in writing S spoken language TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. A. B. C. D. YES Fewer than fiye no's on the Student Learning Profile ___ aboye Good overall performance in Reading/Language Arts as ___ indicated by daily grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ NO TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes' s TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.STUDENT SCHOOL LRSD SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM  TEACHER RECOMMENDATION FORM MATH STUDENT ID #. TEACHER GRADE MATH NCE FALL '95 DATE 5 RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. Four (4) or more no's in the Student Learning Profile (PART I below) Classroom multiple criteria (PART II below) PART I. COMPLETE THE STUDENT LEARNING PROFILE FOR ALL S^UDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM IN EACH SI iLLS AREA. TOTAL THE NUMBER OF CHECK MARKS IN EACH COLUMN FOR EACH SKILLS AREA. THEN PROCEED TO PART II. YES NO MATHEMATICS 1. Multiplies a 2-digit number by a 2-digit number 2. Reads S writes numbers through millions 3. Divides a 3-digit number by a 1-digit number with and without a remainder 4. Finds the area of rectangles, including squares 5. Measures elapsed time 6. Identifies place value of decimals through hundredths 7. Adds \u0026amp; subtracts decimals 8. Simplifies fractions 9. Compares \u0026amp; orders decimals through hundredths 10. Solves word problems using multiplication S division TOTALS PART II. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MULTIPLE CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR ALL STUDENTS IN YOUR CLASSROOM BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN NEXT TO EACH ITEM, BASED ON YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS. THEN PROCEED TO PART III. YES A. B. C. D. Fewer than four (4) no' s on Student Learning Profile ___ aboye Good overall performance in Math as indicated by daily ___ grades and report card grades Good attendance (few/no tardies \u0026amp; 10 or fewer absences) ___ Good classroom interaction/social skills ___ NO TOTALS PART III. 1. RANK ORDER Add total number of yes's from PART I to total number of yes's from Part II. TOTAL PART I yes's TOTAL PART II yes's TOTAL 2. On classroom form list students from lowest score (#1) to highest score.* f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 mvwa Mo/ mem Ci?A NEf UM TO: AU ElEMENTAE V PRiNGPALS 1 FROM: Sadie Mitchell, Assistant Supehntenaent Margaret GremiHion. Assistant Superintendent SUBJECT: Site for K~5 Summer School Students participating in tne K-S Summer Program from your school will be otter,dina ______________________School. Sb(th^^deis,y^tt^ FranUin Incentive Schoo! ONL Y. You MH need to fiH in the blanks and send the attached letter home with ail participants. You may want to foHow-up with a phone call. ThanK you for your continued support. cOd IT. L.6 'll r' .U'- dii'-a r4ii*jGj GsyiLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY SUMMER SCHOOL ANNOUNCEMENT GRADES K  6 JUNE 12 - JULY 19, 1996 We are pleased to announce that summer Cloverdale, Franklin, King, l eny and Washington for grades K through 6. school will be offered at Brady, Caiver, l^ERMENTARY SCHEDULE Dates: Hours: June 12 through July 19, 1996 (full five weeks) July 3, 4, \u0026amp; 5, 1996 Holidays 8:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m  Monday through Friday Tuition: $115.00 (Grade 6 students only) Students who did not reside in the Little Rock School District during the 1995-96 school year will be charged an additional $10.00 per semester REGISTRATION Dates\nLate Registration: June 1 - 11, 1996 June 12, 1996 Add $10.00 Late Registration Fee NO STUDENT WILL BE PERMITTED TO REGISTER AFTER JUNE 12, 1996 itj d 17' TI ^6 unf iOc-K W t: - J etCtlTlS 'NlkWri Ijsa'iI I f ! i I Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, LR, AR 72201 FAX Io: Phone: Fax phone: CC: RLMARKS: LRSD. Room 200 3J7_-Z2ZnQ n Urgent lJ For your reshew Date\n/ Number of pages rnciudjug ojver sheet: [ I I j i I 1 From: Phone: Fax phone  Reply ASAP 5 Sadie Mitchels 50I/'324-2007 501/324-2032 LJ P'e\nb comment U? d :TT ^6.  !jnf TOS-T: 'NIUW a'?\u0026lt;5 SKictonf^ Nam*_ Pofentj Nome _ AcWpots _. UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Elementary/Junior High Summer School -( student I,D. ___ preliminary S.h|gaiLMtU. ___ . _________DO*_.__ J----------- ooESNOffleaxseceisaow Lixbaixfv\u0026lt;iAtx\u0026gt;f\u0026gt;iSB\u0026lt;WAtU _ Heme Ptxx*___ Business Phone___ _ last School ArJefided ZJp Code Sfudenh* Blrfhdahs_____ Lott Gracie, X  * W    MJ WW\u0026gt; ^T'****\"' CAS4WROOKd Putpoae for flartdino aummer eotwab*- Ratwision or Roinfenjerriert C3? ErwIctinM'nt O Suolact aoMt daeired\nn ReedtnglangiuACje Arts O ReedinflAjanguega Am aJA\u0026lt;altt*naWaa  errichn*a (liat oourea or oowaaa)----------- School CtoeiwJ___ \u0026lt;4AOES 7 ANO a \u0026lt;nA\u0026gt; Sublet orCoun* Oa\u0026lt;t*\u0026lt;l_____ Grade Levet zC)  Purooea lor taking thia course\niKfittti\u0026gt;iaeaCiMuaM Ennchment Courae(8) Oealrod__ Course Level. HsjSotIjOrt or flwit9eanarrt O entWwwrt O. llUgUMM Cl nwimmOoNN:: TluunWsoonn mmuusmt accornpery iie ppcatk\u0026gt;n rwAfliiPD AN after daaa orflimlzatofl hw be arxJ otawwcr* h* be$Nn, STUDENTS REGUTER^ K - - lXamaa ia/Ka xAiafs aaI fa th* I ffrlA HACK aCf lOOl LMKiIm aner Class organimnon np wwn^wvrw wm w..eTw.- *  -- __ riM^rw ADDiTtONAL^O FEE. Also, an additional $10 tultten w be ohaigod atudenta wtw were not naeOanta at the Little Roefc Scftooi maww during the pravloua school yaar. Maxe checka payable to EUsMENTARY/JUNlOR HIGH SUMMER SCHOOL. FawW Sl-jnatura____ Piinctpal Signature ' 0a MOT whits IN -mW WPAeiB SOaM- Miw ONW Chech Enefoead O Amount $____ Cash Endosed O .. Amou(it\n$_^j.\n.:\n^ nt-rvf.nftmaPee Lots SC\" CtwcKNO.__L fbqHpttta.  \u0026lt; X } X ** !\u0026gt;* K'.K-X: Booh No. 1 X J0MrtN^Oi^  -Sv' , f 'ii-Xx # X A. * PajenoneRwcH' t -'4M CXSoe: . : \u0026gt;\u0026gt; - .s ^^Ubae # . -n \n--x\u0026lt;.:- .S:xx-\n.6 X i L/n'' iOfc'.XSHXXS-Tv':.\n* S * X I, M iW' M.n ^4?^ -VC r. tSwl xXt 48\u0026amp; \u0026lt;\u0026lt;! It'S A-r A \"tit .sov Av  f- *  \u0026gt;i! xj{ :Xx$ s . sj M 'It llIWGH GSd? si LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SIO WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 20, 1996 TO: Summer School Principals FROM: Sterling IngrarfTDirector of Staff Development SUBJECT: Corrected Summer School Statistics Attached is information related to summer school enrollment and staffing. Please make corrections as needed and return to niy office by Wednesday, June 26, 1996. In addition, plea.se list the teachers who have been transterred out of your building and the site to which they are currentiy assigned. Thank you for your assistance. Sl/adg SO'd .6 UOf cSOc-t?-\nEJNIQU'iaS' J?- ^k' !i \u0026gt;v LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL ENROLLMENT- !K-6) DATE: June 19, 1996 J996 Schoo! Carver Carver# of Teachers CloverCde C^ Sfdale 4 afreochers Brcdy ' Brady # o f i \"^'Ochers , Franklin frorkSc # of Teachers ! King' I ^ing ^of I Teachers ! Teny xr 22 14 20 29 13 J 2 3 4 5 6 T Tota! /54''  54  59 46  25-V: 25 20 17 9 9 102 38 22 10 12 29/9CB: 134 2 7 17 2.3 20 17 1 48 I 29 41 43 30 22 194 36 42 19 i 4?/7y \u0026lt;' of 1 Teachers Washington \\rrashingtor) 4 cf Teachers ! 22 51 4.3 43 0d Of:U 26, unf :0c--7\u0026lt; .31 16 ] .5 7 51 :-T03-T:*t:j 42 2 52, !a -oiwio asdiLittle Rock School District K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL 1996 STUDENT PORTFOLIO CONTENTS 1. Teacher Recommendation Fomns (yellow copies): - Reading/Language Arts Math 2. Weekly Progress Report 3. Personal Reading Record 4. Seven (7) Samples of Student Work* - 2 Writing Products - 2 Literature Response Products - 2 Math and/or Science Products 1 Student-Selected Product * Work from all five (5) weeks should be represented and all work should be dated. 5. Anecdotal Records, Notes, Conferences, Checklists, Etc. 6. Other Forms of Assessment - Teacher-Made Tests, Scoring Rubrics, Etc. 7. Post-Assessment for Reading and Math (use original Teacher Recommendation Form - See #1 above)WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE K - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT STUDENT ID# SUMMER SCHOOL SITE TEACHER MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Begins to recognize letters and sounds of the alphabet 2. Begins to use picture clues to make meaning 3. Begins to recognize that letters make words 4. Begins to recognize story progression 5. Begins to understand role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Begins to experience independent reading 1. Begins to participate as listener/speaker in discussion and questioning 2. Experiments with print vocabulary in writing 3. Experiments with print mechanics in writing 4. Begins to use invented spelling 5. Experiments with mechanics of sentence structure when speaking and writing 6. Begins to tell/retell stories orally and in writing wi.h a beginning, middle, and end 7. Begins to understand written/spoken language as expression of culture Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE. MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 1 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Identifies letters of alphabet and their sounds 2. Uses picture clues/letters/sounds to decode words 3. Recognizes high-frequency sight words 4. Recognizes story progression 5. Begins to understand role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Begins to read/comprehend print materials independently 1. Begins to participate as listener/speaker in discussion/ questioning 2. Begins to independently use basic print vocabulary in writing 3. Begins to independently use basic print mechanics in writing 4. Uses invented spelling 5. Begins to attend to basic mechanics of sentence structure when speaking and writing 6. Tells/retells stories orally/in writing with clear beginning/ middle/end 7. Begins to understand written/spoken language as expression of culture Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 2 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Identifies letter sounds in initial, medial, \u0026amp; final positions 2. Interprets meaning through visual and written clues 3. Recognizes at least 50 high-frequency sight words 4. Comprehends character, setting, plot in story sequence 5. Understands role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Reads and comprehends print materials independently 1. Participates as listener/speaker in discussion and questioning 2. Uses basic print vocabulary in independent writing 3. Uses basic print mechanics in independent writing 4. Begins to use conventions of spelling 5. Attends to basic mechanics of sentence structure when speaking and writing 6. Tells/retells stories orally and in writing with supporting details and using proper sequence of events 7. Understands written and spoken language as expression of culture Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19-96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 3 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Uses phonetic principles to decode words 2. Interprets meaning through use of context clues 3. Builds vocabulary through context clues 4. Identifies main idea and comprehends story elements in printed text 5. Begins to use personal background to make meaning from print materials 6. Selects, reads, and comprehends print materials independently 1. Participates appropriately as listener and speaker in small group, and one-on-one discussion and classroom, questioning 2. Begins to independently expand print vocabulary in writing 3. Uses print mechanics appropriately to make meaning in independent writing and begins to self-edit 4. Uses conventions of spelling 5. Begins to vary sentence structure to make speaking and writing interesting 6. Attends to appropriate organization of thoughts, ideas, sequence of events, and supporting details when speaking and writing 7. Begins to independently identify expression of culture in written and spoken language Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORTS LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 4 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Uses phonetic principles and context clues to decode and make meaning 2. Independently constructs meaning in recreational, textual, and functional print 3. Independently builds vocabulary through context clues 4. Analyzes story elements to interpret main idea 5. Uses personal background to make meaning from print materials 6. Reads fluently while attending to meaning 1. Uses appropriate communication skills in a variety of listening and speaking situations 2. Expands independently print vocabulary in writing 3. Begins to use editing strategies to appropriately make meaning in independent writing 4. Uses conventions of spelling 5. Begins to independently use process strategies to make personal writing and speaking interesting 6. Begins to appropriately use outlining to organize speaking and writing 7. Identifies independently expressions of culture in writing and spoken language Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE. MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 5 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Uses phonetic/structural/contextual clues to determine meaning 2. Uses strategies in reading to summarize, draw conclusions, predict, \u0026amp; infer in recreational, textual, S functional print 3. Uses semantic \u0026amp; syntactic information to expand vocabulary 4. Uses comprehension strategies to analyze main idea/supporting details and to make generalizations about meaning 5. Begins to independently apply appropriate personal background when interpreting print materials 6. Reads developmentally appropriate material for variety of purposes 1. Identifies appropriate communication skills to independently participate in variety of listening \u0026amp; speaking situations 2. Varies print vocabulary to suit audience, occasion, and topic in personal writing 3. Uses appropriate editing strategies (mechanics/grammar) to make meaning in independent writing 4. Uses conventions of spelling 5. Uses process strategies independently to make personal writing and speaking interesting 6. Uses appropriate outlining to organize personal speaking and writing 7. Begins to analyze expressions of culture in writing and spoken language Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE. MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE K MATH STUDENT ID#. TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Begins to understand the meaning of numbers and sets and counts to 20 2. Demonstrates one-to-one correspondence 3. Identifies numerals to 20 4. Writes numerals to 20 5. Identifies plane shapes (triangles, circles, and rectangles including squares) 6. Writes, reads, and discusses mathematics 7. Identifies and uses coins 8. Sorts and classifies objects 9. Explores the operation of addition 10. Extends a geometric pattern Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 1 MATH STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Reads numeral words to 20 \u0026amp; matches words to sets 2. Identifies numbers to 20 as even or odd 3. Counts to 100 by I's, 2's, 5's, \u0026amp; lO's 4. Knows addition facts to 18/subtractions facts from 9 or less 5. Recognizes and names values of coins 6. Compares numbers through 20 7. Identifies numbers created by groups of tens \u0026amp; ones to 100 8. Identifies fractions of a whole for halves \u0026amp; thirds 9. Identifies 3-dimensional shapes including spheres, rectangular prisms,  cones 10. Tells and writes time to the hour Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE. MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 2 MATH STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Identifies place value of digits in numbers through 500 2. Adds 2 two-digit numbers with or without regrouping 3. Recalls basic subtractions facts to 18 4. Tells and writes time to the half-hour 5. Identifies fractions of a region including fourths, fifths, and sixths 6. Subtracts 2 two-digit numbers without regrouping 7. Solves simple word problems using addition \u0026amp; subtraction facts 8. Reads a calendar to tell the day, date, and month 9. Reads and interprets a pictograph and a bar graph 10. Compares three digit numbers using the symbols or Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 3 MATH STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Reads and writes numbers through ten thousands 2. Writes numbers in order from least to greatest and greatest to least 3. Adds \u0026amp; subtracts two or three numbers through three digits with \u0026amp; without regrouping 4. Identifies and counts money to $5.00 5. Estimates/measures lengths to the nearest centimeter 6. Recalls basic multiplication facts through fives 7. Identifies 3-dimensional figures including spheres, cones, rectangular prisms, and cylinders 8. Identifies numbers as even or odd through 3 digits 9. Constructs, reads, and interprets a bar graph given a set of data 10. Solves word problems using addition and subtraction through three digits Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 4 MATH STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK Never \nPROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Recalls basic multiplication facts through 9's 2. Recalls basic division facts through 9's 3. Multiplies a 2-digit or 3-digit number by a 1-digit number 4. Rounds whole numbers through 3-digits to the nearest 10 \u0026amp; 100 5. Finds perimeter of regular S irregular polygons 6. Divides a 2-digit number by a 1-digit number with \u0026amp; without a remainder 7. Compares fractions with like denominators using the symbols \u0026lt; or \u0026gt; 8. Adds \u0026amp; subtracts fractions with like denominators without simplifying 9. Identifies shapes as quadrilaterals 10. Tells and writes time to the nearest minute Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:STUDENT SUMMER SCHOOL SITE MARKING KEY: WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 5 MATH STUDENT ID# TEACHER Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I WEEK PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1 2 3 4 1. Multiplies a 2-digit number by a 2-digit number 2. Reads and writes numbers through millions 3. Divides a 3-digit number by a 1-digit number with and without a remainder 4. Finds the area of rectangles, including squares 5. Measures elapsed time 6. Identifies place value of decimals through hundredths 7. Adds and subtracts decimals 8. Simplifies fractions 9. Compares and orders decimals through hundredths 10. Solves word problems using multiplication and division Week 1 (6/12/96-6/21/96) COMMENTS: Week 2 (6/24/96-6/28/96) COMMENTS: Week 3 (7/1/96-7/12/96) COMMENTS: Week 4 (7/15/96-7/19/96) COMMENTS:QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE K - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Begins to recognize letters and sounds of the alphabet 2. Begins to use picture clues to make meaning 3. Begins to recognize that letters make words 4. Begins to recognize story progression 5. Begins to understand role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Begins to experience independent reading 1. Begins to participate as listener/speaker in discussion and questioning 2. Experiments with print vocabulary in writing 3. Experiments with print mechanics in writing 4. Begins to use invented spelling 5. Experiments with mechanics of sentence structure when speaking and writing 6. Begins to tell/retell stories orally and in writing with a beginning, middle, and end 7. Begins to understand written/spoken language as expression of culture Comments:2 4 1996 QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 1 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT STUDENT ID#. DATE. SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd NARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Identifies letters of alphabet and their sounds 2. Uses picture clues/letters/sounds to decode words 3. Recognizes high-frequency sight words 4. Recognizes story progression 5. Begins to understand role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Begins to read/comprehend print materials independently 1. Begins to participate as listener/speaker in discussion/ questioning 2. Begins to independently use basic print vocabulary in writing 3. Begins to independently use basic print mechanics in writing 4. Uses invented spelling 5. Begins to attend to basic mechanics of sentence structure when speaking and writing 6. Tells/retells stories orally/in writing with clear beginning/ middle/end 7. Begins to understand written/spoken language as expression of culture Comments:QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 2 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Identifies letter sounds in initial, medial, \u0026amp; final positions 2. Interprets meaning through visual and written clues 3. Recognizes at least 50 high-frequency sight words 4. Comprehends character, setting, plot in story sequence 5. Understands role of personal background in making meaning from print materials 6. Reads and comprehends print materials independently Participates as listener/speaker in discussion and questioning 2. Uses basic print vocabulary in independent writing 3. Uses basic print mechanics in independent writing 4. Begins to use conventions of spelling 5. Attends to basic mechanics of sentence structure when speaking and writing______________________ 6. Tells/retells stories orally and in writing with supporting details and using proper sequence of events 7- Understands written and spoken language as expression of culture Comments: I IQUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 3 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT. STUDENT ID#. DATE. SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally O\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Uses phonetic principles to decode words 2. Interprets meaning through use of context clues 3. Builds vocabulary through context clues 4. Identifies main idea and comprehends story elements in printed text 5. Begins to use personal background to make meaning from print materials 6. Selects, reads, and comprehends print materials independently 1. Participates appropriately as listener and speaker in classroom, small group, and one-on-one discussion and questioning 2. Begins to independently expand print vocabulary in writing 3. Uses print mechanics appropriately to make meaning in independent writing and begins to self-edit 4. Uses conventions of spelling 5. Begins to vary sentence structure to make speaking and writing interesting 6. Attends to appropriate organization of thoughts, ideas, sequence of events, and supporting details when speaking and writing 7. Begins to independently identify expression of culture in written and spoken language Comments:QUTIRTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 4 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) Never \n1. Uses phonetic principles and context clues to decode and make meaning 2. Independently constructs meaning in recreational, textual, and functional print 3. Independently builds vocabulary through context clues 4. Analyzes story elements to interpret main idea 5. Uses personal background to make meaning from print materials 6. Reads fluently while attending to meaning I 1. Uses appropriate communication skills in a variety of I listening and speaking situations 2. Expands independently print vocabulary in writing I 3. Begins to use editing strategies to appropriately make I r meaning in independent writing I 4. Uses conventions of spelling 5. Begins to independently use process strategies to make personal writing and speaking interesting I 6. Begins to appropriately use outlining to organize speaking I and writing I 7. Identifies independently expressions of culture in writing 1 and spoken language I Comments: I i iQUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 5 - READING/LANGUAGE ARTS STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Uses phonetic/structural/contextual clues to determine meaning 2. Uses strategies in reading to summarize, draw conclusions, predict, S infer in recreational, textual, S functional print 3. Uses semantic \u0026amp; syntactic information to expand vocabulary 4. Uses comprehension strategies to analyze main idea/supporting details and to make generalizations about meaning 5. Begins to independently apply appropriate personal background when interpreting print materials 6. Reads developmentally appropriate material for variety of purposes 1. Identifies appropriate communication skills to independently participate in variety of listening S speaking situations 2. Varies print vocabulary to suit audience, occasion, and topic in personal writing 3. Uses appropriate editing strategies (mechanics/grammar) to make meaning in independent writing 4. Uses conventions of spelling 5. Uses process strategies independently to make personal writing and speaking interesting 6- Uses appropriate outlining to organize personal speaking and writing 7. Begins to analyze expressions of culture in writing and spoken language Comments:QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM STUDENT SCHOOL MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nGRADE K MATH STUDENT ID# DATE NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd Occasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Begins to understand the meaning of numbers and sets and counts to 20 2. Demonstrates onetoone correspondence 3. Identifies numerals to 20 4. Writes numerals to 20 5. Identifies plane shapes (triangles, circles, and rectangles including squares) 6. Writes, reads, and discusses mathematics 7. Identifies and uses coins 8. Sorts and classifies objects 9. Explores the operation of addition 10. Extends a geometric pattern Comments:2 QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 1 MATH STUDENT STUDENT ID#, DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Reads numeral words to 20 \u0026amp; matches words to sets 2. Identifies numbers to 20 as even or odd 3. Counts to 100 by I's, 2's, 5's, \u0026amp; 10's 4. Knows addition facts to 18/subtractions facts from 9 or less 5. Recognizes and names values of coins 6. Compares numbers through 20 7. Identifies numbers created by groups of tens \u0026amp; ones to 100 8. Identifies fractions of a whole for halves \u0026amp; thirds 9. Identifies 3-dimensional shapes including spheres, rectangular prisms, S cones 10. Tells and writes time to the hour Comments:QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 2 MATH STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Identifies place value of digits in numbers through 500 2. Adds 2 two-digit numbers with or without regrouping 3. Recalls basic subtractions facts to 18 4. Tells and writes time to the half-hour 5. Identifies fractions of a region including fourths, fifths, and sixths 6. Subtracts 2 two-digit numbers without regrouping 7. Solves simple word problems using addition \u0026amp; subtraction facts 8. Reads a calendar to tell the day, date, and month 9. Reads and interprets a pictograph and a bar graph 10. Compares three digit numbers using the symbols \u0026lt;, \u0026gt;, or Conunents:QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 3 MATH STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Reads and writes numbers through ten thousands 2. Writes numbers in order from least to greatest and greatest to least 3. Adds \u0026amp; subtracts two or three numbers through three digits with S without regrouping 4. Identifies and counts money to $5.00 5. Estimates/measures lengths to the nearest centimeter 6. Recalls basic multiplication facts through fives 7. Identifies 3-dimensional figures including spheres, cones, rectangular prisms, and cylinders 8. Identifies numbers as even or odd through 3 digits 9. Constructs, reads, and interprets a bar graph given a set of data 10. Solves word problems using addition and subtraction through three digits Comments:QUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 4 MATH STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Recalls basic multiplication facts through 9's I 2. Recalls basic division facts through 9's 3. Multiplies a 2-digit or 3-digit number by a 1-digit number 4. Rounds whole numbers through 3-digits to the nearest 10 \u0026amp; 100 5. Finds perimeter of regular S irregular polygons 6. Divides a 2-digit number by a 1-digit number with S without a remainder 7. Compares fractions with like denominators using the symbols \u0026lt; or \u0026gt; 8. Adds S subtracts fractions with like denominators without simplifying 9. Identifies shapes as quadrilaterals 10. Tells and writes time to the nearest minute i 1 I Comments: IQUARTERLY FOLLOW-UP REPORT LRSD K-5 SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM GRADE 5 MATH STUDENT STUDENT ID# DATE SCHOOL NINE WEEKS PERIOD (circle one) 1st 2nd 3rd MARKING KEY: Consistently +\nOccasionally o\nNever \nNot yet introduced N/I PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PROGRESS TO DATE (See Marking Key) 1. Multiplies a 2-digit number by a 2-digit number 2. Reads and writes numbers through millions 3. Divides a 3-digit number by a 1-digit number with and without a remainder 4. Finds the area of rectangles, including squares 5. Measures elapsed time 6. Identifies place value of decimals through hundredths 7. Adds and subtracts decimals 8. Simplifies fractions 9. Compares and orders decimals through hundredths 10. Solves word problems using multiplication and division Comments:09/14/95 08:23:15 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 1 LA-OORl Language Arts Revised Obj. Kindgarten Objective Description M- TI GL LA-OORl-001 Listen to variety of print for variety of purposes. LA-OORl-002 Listen for sustained periods of time. LAOORl-003 Attend to what others are saying. LA-OORl-004 Listen to develop strategies for asking questions. LA-OORl-005 Exhibit reactions that reflect comprehension. LA-OORl-006 Listen to follow directions sequentially. LA-OORl-007 Use technology to reinforce/extend learning. LA-OORl-008 Listen to discriminate sounds. LA-OORl009 Take turns in group discussion. LA-OORl-010 Volunteer in speaking activities. LA-OORl-011 Tell/retell stories from writing/reading/pictures. LA-OORl-012 Dramatize familiar stories, rhymes, and fingerplays. LA-OORl-013 Use technology to enhance/evaluate performances. LA-OORl-014 Give oral directions. LA-OORl-015 Make comments appropriate to the situations. LAOORl-016 Express ideas clearly/accurately. LA-OORl-017 Rephrase/adjust if others do not understand. LA-OORl-018 Use print/pictures to convey meaning. LA-OORl-019 Leave space between words/groups of letters. LA-OORl-020 Write daily for a variety of purposes. LA-OORl-021 Evaluate own writing/drawing and that of others. LA-OORl-022 Participate in shared writing activities. LA-OORl-023 Accept responsibility for completing/writing. LA-OORl-024 Use pre-writing skills. LA-OORl-025 Write letters/symbols/numerals randomly. LA-OORl-026 Write from left to right. LA-OORl-027 Use partial phonetic representation for word. LA-OORl-028 Use a few known words in correct places. LA-OORl-029 Experiment with punctuation/capitalization. LA-OORl-030 Recognize and write own name. LA-OORl-031 Use technology to write/revise text. LA-OORl-032 Understand that from the print comes the message. LA-OORl-033 Know where to start reading, left to right, return. LA-OORl-034 Participate in shared reading experiences. LA-OORl-035 Use pictures as clues to story line. LA-OORl-036 Identify letters of the alphabet. LA-OORl-037 Distinguish letters from words. LA-OORl038 Recognize/associate letters and sounds. LA-OORl-039 Recognize some high frequency words. LA-OORl-040 Use specific strategies to comprehend variety of genres. LA-OORl-041 Recognize opposites. LA-OORl-042 Show awareness of story elements. LA-OORl-043 \"Read\" from original stories to others. LA-OORl-044 Choose to look at/talk about books. LA-OORl-045 Use skills to achieve goals in/out of classroom. LA-OORl-046 Dictate stories using background knowledge. 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75 % 75% 75% 75 *6 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% S8I received Illi 2 4 1996 Office of Desooregaton Monitoring03/-L^/3S 08:19:36 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 1 LA-OIRI Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 1 Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-OlRl-001 Listen to variety of print for variety of purposes. LAOlRl-002 Listen for sustained periods of time. LA-OlRl-003 Exhibit reactions that reflect comprehension. LAOlRl-004 Attend to what others are saying. LA-OlRl-005 Listen to follow directions sequentially. LA-OlRl-006 Listen to discriminate sounds. LA-OlRl-007 Listen to develop strategies for asking questions. LA-OlRl-008 Listen to appreciate genres from diverse cultures. LA-OlRl-009 Listen to reinforce/extend learning through technology. LA-OlRl-010 Volunteer for speaking activities. LA-OlRl-011 Take turns in group discussions. LA-OlRl-012 Give oral directions. LA-OlRl-013 Tell/retell stories from writing/reading/pictures. LA-OlRl-014 Dramatize familiar stories/rhymes/books. LAOlRl-015 Experiment with creative/playful languages. LA-OlRl-016 Contribute to group/individual dictated stories. LA-OlRl-017 Use technology to enhance/evaluate performances. LA-OlRl-018 Express ideas clearly and accurately. LA-OlRl-019 Make comments appropriate to the situation. LA-OlRl-020 Illustrate stories to convey meaning. LA-OlRl-021 Follow patterns from predictable books, stories, poems. LA-OlRl-022 Create/write simple stories/poems for publication. LA-OlRl-023 Write daily for a variety of purposes. LA-OlRl-024 Evaluate own writing/drawing and that of others. LA-OlRl-025 Participate in shared writing experiences. LA-OlRl-026 Use technology to write/revise text. LA-OIRI027 Write for social interaction. LA-OlRl-028 Write for variety of purposes. LA-OlRl-029 Master manuscript handwriting. LA-OlRl-030 Spell/write first, last name, and phone number. LA-OlRl-031 Edit writing for complete sentences. LA-OlRl-032 Edit writing for developmentally appropriate mechanics. LA-OlRl-033 Edit writing for developmentally appropriate spelling. LA-OlRl-034 Edit writing for developmentally appropriate usage. LA-OlRl-035 Accept responsibility for collecting/completing products LA-OlRl-036 Use major cuing systems to decode/construct meaning. LA-OlRl-037 Participate in shared/guided reading experiences. LA-OlRl-038 Recognize/associate letters and sounds. LA-OIRI039 Expand vocabulary through reading. LA-OlRl-040 Recognize synonyms/antonyms/homophones. LA-OIRI041 Use a variety of strategies to aid comprehension. LA-OlRl-042 Develop fluency in silent/oral reading. LA-OlRl-043 Recognize story elements. LA-OlRl-044 Use specific strategies to comprehend variety of genres. LA-OlRl-045 Understand that texts have different purposes. LA-OlRl-046 Select appropriate resource material. LA-OlRl-047 Use developmentally appropriate study skills. 75 IS IS Q. *6 S8 IS^ 75% IS^^ 10 75% 1S^ IS^^ 75% IS^^ IS^ lSi, 1S\u0026lt;. 1S\u0026lt;. 1S^\u0026lt;. 75% IS^. 75 Q, S8 S8 1S'^\u0026lt;. IS^ IS^^ IS^ IS^ 75% IS^'i IS^ IS'^^. ns^^ 1S^ 75% IS^^, 48 S8 75% 19 S8 75% 67 S8 75% 75 *0 75% 74 S8 4 75%128 S8 75% 60 75% 20 75% 62 S8 75 IS^'i ns^^ 24 S8 75% S8 75% 75% 24 S809/14/95 08:19:36 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 2 LA-OIRI Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 1 (Continued) Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-OlRl-048 Use strategies for visual organization. LA-OlRl-049 Identify minority writers. LA-OlRl-050 Choose to look at/read books for sustained periods. LA-OIRI051 Establish a purpose for reading.* LA-OlRl-052 Use a variety of word recognition strategies as needed. 75% 10 75% 75% 75% 14 75%09/14/95 08:20:33 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 1 LA-02R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 2 Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-02R1-001 Listen to variety of print for variety of purposes. LA-02R1-002 Appreciate variety of genres from various cultures, LA-02R1-003 Listen for sustained periods of time. LA-02R1-004 Listen to discriminate sounds. LA-02R1-005 Listen selectively/attentively for variety of purposes. LA-02R1-006 Develop strategies for understanding what is heard. LA-02R1-007 Reinforce/extend learning through technology. LA-02R1008 Volunteer for speaking activities. LA-02R1009 Take turns in group discussions. LA-02R1-010 Tell/retell stories from writing, reading, pictures. LA-02R1-011 Participate in speaking activities. LA-02R1-012 Give oral directions. LA-02R1-013 Make/respo.id to introductions. LA-02R1-014 Experiment with creative/playful language. LA-02R1-015 Use technology to enhance/evaluate performances LA-02R1-016 Speak to variety of audiences. LA-02R1-017 Make comments/give feedback appropriate to situation. LA-02R1-018 Express ideas clearly and accurately. LA-02R1-019 Write/illustrate stories to convey meaning. LA-02R1-020 Write in one or more subject areas daily. LA-02R1021 Use five steps of writing process. LA-02R1-022 Write independently. LA-02R1-023 Monitor progress of self and others. LA-02R1-024 Create/write poems/stories for publication. LA-02R1-025 Use technology to write/revise. LA-02R1-026 Participate in shared writing activities. LA-02R1-027 Write for a variety of purposes. LA-02R1-028 Write for social interaction. LA-02R1-029 Edit writing for complete sentences. LA-02R1-030 Edit writing for developmentally appropriate mechanics. LA-02R1-031 Edit writing for developmentally appropriate spelling. LA-02R1-032 Edit writing for developmentally appropriate usage. LA-02R1-033 Accept responsibility for collecting/completing writing. LA-02R1-034 Demonstrate mastery of manuscript writing. LA-02R1-035 Recognize and appreciate letters and sounds. LA-02R1-036 Participate in shared/guided reading experiences. LA-02R1-037 Use major cuing systems to decode. LA-02R1-038 Expand vocabulary through reading. LA-02R1-039 Recognize synonyms/antonyms/multimeaning words. LA-02R1-040 Develop fluency in silent/oral reading. LA-02R1-041 Recognize story elements. LA-02R1-042 Use a variety of strategies to aid comprehension. LA-02R1-043 Use specific strategies to comprehend variety of genres. LA-02R1-044 Understand that texts have different purposes. LA-02R1-045 Monitor progress of self and others. LA-02R1-046 Use strategies for visual organization of information. LA-02R1-047 Read from different genres from variety of cultures. 75% 75% 75% 75 % S8 79 S8 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 60 S8 75% S8 75% 60 S8 75% 75% 75% 26 S8 75% 75% 70 S8 75% 70 75% 29 S8 75% 75% 18 S8 75% 36 S8 75% 53 S8 75% 75% 75% 75% S8 S809/14/95 08:20:33 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 2 LA-02R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 2 (Continued) Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-02R1048 Use developmentally appropriate study skills, LA-02R1-049 Identify minority writers. LA-02R1-050 Select appropriate resource materials. LA-02R1-051 Choose to look at/read books. LA-02R1-052 Establish a purpose for reading. LA-02R1-053 Use variety of word recognition strategies. LA-02R1-054 Use technology to support growth in reading. 75% 10 S8 75% 75% 75% 75% 18 75% 75%09/14/95 08:21:34 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 1 LA-03R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 3 Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-03R1001 Listen to variety of print for variety of purposes. LA-03R1002 Listen selectively/attentively for variety of purposes. LA-03R1-003 Listen to discriminate sounds. LA-03R1-004 Develop strategies for understanding what is heard. LA-03R1-005 Listen to/appreciate genres from many cultures. LA-03R1-006 Listen to reinforce/extend learning through technology. LA-03R1-007 Participate courteously in group discussions. LA-03R1-008 Respond to guestions in complete sentences. LA-03R1009 Give oral directions. LA-03R1-010 Make/respond to introductions. LA-03R1-011 Volunteer for speaking activities. LA-03R1-012 Recite poetry/participate in choral reading/dramas. LA-03R1-013 Create/tell original stories in sequence. LA-03R1-014 Experiment/create with language. LA-03R1-015 Use technology to enhance/evaluate performances. LA-03R1-016 Express ideas clearly, accurately. LA-03R1-017 Speak to variety of audiences for variety of reasons. LA-03R1-018 Make comments/feedback appropriate to situation. LA-03R1-019 Participate in shared writing activities. LA-03R1-020 Use five steps of writing process. LA-03R1-021 Write in one or more subject areas daily. LA-03R1-022 Write independently for sustained periods of time. LA-03R1-023 Write and illustrate stories to convey meaning. LA-03R1024 Write paragraphs and whole pieces. LA-03R1-025 Create/write stories/poems for publication. LA-03R1-026 Use technology to write/revise text. LA-03R1-027 Write for social interaction. LA-03R1-028 Write for a variety of purposes. LA-03R1-029 Demonstrate mastery in handwriting. LA-03R1-030 Write complete simple and compound sentences. LA-03R1-031 Edit writing for correct usage. LA-03R1-032 Edit writing for mechanics. LA-03R1-033 Edit writing for correct spelling.* LA-03R1-034 Understand that texts have different purposes.* LA-03R1-035 Use major cuing systems to decode.* LA-03R1-036 Expand vocabulary through reading. LA-03R1-037 Develop knowledge of vocabulary. LA-03R1-038 Develop fluency in oral/silent reading. LA-03R1-039 Recognize and compare story elements. LA-03R1-040 Identify minority writers. LA-03R1-041 Use a variety of strategies to aid comprehension. LA-03R1-042 Participate in shared/guided reading activities. LA-03R1-043 Use strategies for visual organization of information. LA-03R1-044 Use specific strategies to comprehend variety of genres. LA-03R1-045 Appreciate diversity in literature. LA-03R1-046 Monitor progress of self and others. LA-03R1-047 Use developmentally appropriate study skills.* 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75 75% 1'5'^ 15^ 75% 75% 15^ 75% S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 10 75% 60 S8 75%157 S8 75% 24 S8 75% 10 S8 75 90 S8 75% 88 S8 75% 50 S8 75% 75% 29 S8 75% 75% 68 S8 15^ 15^ 15^106 S8 75% 75% 75%148 S809/14/95 08:21:34 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 2 LA-03R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 3 (Continued) Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-03R1-048 Select appropriate resource materials. LA-03R1-049 Establish a purpose for reading. LA-03R1-050 Read for a variety of purposes. LA-03R1-051 Use variety of word recognition strategies. LA-03R1-052 Select a variety of print.* LA-03R1-053 Participate in conversations about reading. LA-03R1-054 Use reading to achieve goals outside classroom. LA-03R1-055 Use technological aids to support growth in learning. 75% S8 75% 14 S8 75% 75% 75% 10 75% 75% S8 7509/14/95 08:27:42 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 1 LA-04R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 4 Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-04R1-001 Listen to variety of print for variety of purposes. LA-04R1-002 Listen selectively/attentively for variety of purposes. LA-04R1-003 Develop strategies for understanding what is heard. LA-04R1-004 Listen to/appreciate genres from many cultures. LA-04R1-005 Listen to reinforce/extend learning through technology. LA-04R1-006 Participate courteously in group discussions. LA-04R1-007 Give directions/explanations. LA-04R1-008 Participate in speaking activities. LA-04R1-009 Experiment/create with language. LA-04R1010 Use technology to enhance/evaluate performances. LA-04R1-011 Express ideas clearly, accurately. LA-04R1-012 Speak to variety of audiences for variety of reasons. LA-04R1-013 Make comments/feedback appropriate to situation. LA-04R1-014 Participate in group writing activities. LA-04R1-015 Use five steps of writing process. LA-04R1-016 Write in one or more subject areas daily. LA-04R1-017 Write independently for sustained periods of time. LA-04R1-018 Write paragraphs and whole pieces. LA-04R1-019 Create/write stories/poems for publication. LA-04R1-020 Use technology to write/revise text. LA-04R1-021 Write for social interaction. LA-04R1-022 Write for a variety of purposes. LA-04R1-023 Demonstrate mastery of cursive writing. LA-04R1-024 Write/edit for complete sentences. LA-04R1-025 Edit writing for correct usage. LA-04R1-026 Edit writing for mechanics. LA-04R1-027 Edit writing for correct spelling. LA-04R1-028 Maintain and evaluate a collection of writing samples. LA-04R1-029 Understand that texts have different purposes.* LA-04R1-030 Use major cuing systems to decode. LA-04R1-031 Expand vocabulary through reading. LA-04R1-032 Develop knowledge of vocabulary. LA-04R1-033 Read orally/silently for increased periods of time.* LA-04R1-034 Analyze story elements. LA-04R1-035 Make comparisons from literature. LA-04R1-036 Identify minority writers.* LA-04R1-037 Use a variety of strategies to aid comprehension. LA-04R1-038 Use strategies for visual organization of information. LA-04R1-039 Use specific strategies to comprehend variety of genres. LA-04R1-040 Appreciate diversity in literature. LA-04R1-041 Monitor progress of self and others. LA-04R1-042 Use study skills. LA-04R1-043 Establish a purpose for reading.* LA-04R1-044 Read for a variety of purposes. LA-04R1-045 Use a variety of strategies to understand text. LA-04R1-046 Select a variety of print.* LA-04R1-047 Participate in conversations about reading. 75 o 75% 75 6 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% S8 S8 9 S8 75% 59 S8 75%150 S8 75% 75% 75% S8 9 S8 75% 71 S8 89 75% 60 S8 75% 7 75% 23 S8 75% 15^ 4 90 S8 75% 66 S8 75% 89 S8 75% 75% 75% 73 S8 75% 14 S8 75% S8 75% 10 S8 75%09/14/95 08:27:42 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 2 LA-04R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 4 (Continued) Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-04R1-048 Use reading to achieve goals outside classroom. LA-04R1-049 Use technological aids to support growth in learning. 75% 75% S809/1^/95 08:28:15 CM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 PAGE 1 LA-05R1 Language Arts Revised Objectives Grade 5 Objective Description M-% TI GL LA-05R1-001 Develop listening skills for the classroom. LA-05R1-002 Develop listening skills for varied social situations. LA-05R1-003 Develop listening skills appropriate to the workplace. LA-05R1-004 Analyze and evaluate what is heard. LA-05R1-005 Give directions/explanations. LA-05R1-006 Participate courteously in group discussions. LA-05R1-007 Summarize/seguence/paraphrase what others have said. LA-05R1-008 Read orally with meaning and expression. LA-05R1-009 Participate in speaking activities. LA-05R1-010 Conduct an interview. LA-05R1-011 Make/respond to introductions. LA-05R1-012 Use clear, concise language. LA-05R1-013 Exhibit confidence as a speaker. LA-05R1-014 Write in class for sustained periods of time. LA-05R1-015 Analyze thinking through writing. LA-05R1-016 Apply variety of prewriting strategies. LA-05R1-017 Use five steps of writing process. LA-05R1-018 Write in a variety of modes. LA-05R1-019 Evaluate writing in relation to purpose/audience. LA-05R1-020 Write to reflect personal/multicultural/universal ideas. LA-05R1-021 Write to synthesize information from multiple sources. LA-05R1-022 Maintain and evaluate a collection of writing samples. LA-05R1-023 Edit written work for correct spelling. LA-05R1-024 Edit written work for correct usage. LA-05R1-025 Edit written work for mechanics. LA-05R1-026 Write/edit for complete sentences. LA-05R1-027 Demonstrate mastery of cursive writing. LA-05R1-028 Read individually and in groups. LA-05R1-029 Establish purpose for reading. LA-05R1-030 Analyze main idea/supportive details. LA-05R1-031 Analyze literature using patterns of organization. LA-05R1-032 Use specific strategies to comprehend variety of genres. LA-05R1-033 Analyze literature. LA-05R1-034 Understand developmentally appropriate literary concepts LA-05R1-035 Expand personal vocabulary. LA-05R1036 Use library and reference skills. LA-05R1-037 Read works by authors of different race/beliefs/sex/age* LA-05R1-038 Use strategies for visual organization of information. LA-05R1-039 Read a variety of materials. LA-05R1-040 Read to discern validity of written material. LA-05R1-041 Read and follow directions. LA-05R1-042 Read to research an idea using technical resources. 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 15 15 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% S8 S8 S8 75% 27 S8 75%171 S8 '1'5^ 2Q S8 15^ 15^ 15^ S8 S8 75% 35 S8 75%126 S8 75% 6 S8 75% 79 75% 75 S8 75%170 S8 75% 15^ S8 5 75% 14 75%38/08/94 39:27:06 :M32O1OO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT AUGUST 8, 1994 PAGE 1 lA-OORl Math Revised Objectives Kindergarten Dbjective Description M-% TI GL iA-OORl-OOl Use a variety of strategies to solve problems. -IA-OORl-002 Solve problems related to other countries/cultures. lA-OORl-003 Write, read and discuss mathematics. 4A-00R1-004 Read and write numbers and number words. iA-OORl-005 Explore the operation of addition. \u0026lt;IA-00Rl-006 Explore the operation of subtraction. lA-OORl-007 Explore the concept of 1/2. lA-OORl-OOS Identify and describe plane shapes. IA-OORl-009 Identify and describe 3-dimensional shapes. 4A-00R1-010 Recognize, extend and create geometric patterns. :4A-00Rl-011 Demonstrate understanding of measurement concepts. .4A-00R1-012 Identify and use units of time. .4A-00R1-013 Identify and use coins. iA-OORl-OlA Explore and use measurement. ?1A-OOR1-O15 Make and interpret graphs. MA-OORl-016 Sort and classify objects. '4A-00R1-017 Identify, describe, copy, extend and create patterns. 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% i.38/08/94 39:27:06 0M320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT AUGUST 8, 1994 PAGE 5 4A-01R1 Math Revised Objectives Grade 01 Objective Description M-% TI GL 'lA-OlRl-001 Use a variety of strategies to solve problems. 'IA-OlRl-002 Solve problems related to other countries and cultures. 'lA-OlRl-OOS Write, read and discuss mathematics. MA-OlRl-004 Read and write numbers and number words. MA-OlRl-005 Identify numbers to 20 as even or odd. MA-OlRl-006 Count to 100 by I's, 2's, 5's, and lO's. MA-OlRl-007 Identify order relationships of numbers. MA-OlRl-008 Know basic addition and subtraction facts. MA-OlRl-009 Find the missing addend using basic addition facts. MA-OlRl-010 Investigate the order and zero properties of addition. MA-OlRl-011 Show place value through hundreds using manipulatives. MA-OlRl-012 Relate computation algorithms to hands-on experiences. MA-OlRl-013 Add numbers with and without regrouping. MA-OlRl-014 Subtract numbers with no regrouping. MA-OlRl-015 Model and write number sentences. MA-OlRl-016 Solve word problems. MA-OlRl-017 Identify fractions of a whole number. MA-OlRl-018 Identify plane figures and points in a plane. MA-OlRl-019 Identify 3-dimensional shapes. MA-OlRl-020 Identify and extend geometric patterns. MA-OlRl-021 Investigate lines of symmetry. MA-OlRl-022 Explore/recognize examples of geometry in environment. MA-OlRl-023 Identify and use units of time. MA-OlRl-024 Identify and count coins. MA-OlRl-025 Use coins to solve money problems. MA-OlRl-026 Select/use the appropriate standard/nonstandard units. MA-OlRl-027 Collect, organize and describe data. MA-OlRl-028 Record data by constructing pictographs and bar graphs. MA-OlRl-029 Read graphs and make generalizations. MA-OlRl-030 Explore patterns. MA-OlRl-031 Identify, create, compare sets by size and measurement. MA-OlRl-032 Use calculators to discover relationships and patterns. 75% 75% 75% 151 75% 75% 151 75% 15^ 15^ 75% 75% 151 15% 15% 15% 15% 75% 15% 75% 15% 15% 15% 15% 75% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 75% 15% S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8D8/08/94 39:27:06 IM320100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT AUGUST 8, 1994 PAGE 9 IA-02R1 Math Revised Objectives Grade 2 Dbjective Description M-% TI GL 4A-02R1-001 Use a variety of strategies to solve problems. iA-02Rl-002 Solve problems related to other countries or cultures. 'iA-02Rl-003 Write, read and discuss mathematics. 4A-02R1-004 Identify ordinal numbers through 20th. \u0026lt;A-02Rl-005 Read/write numbers/identify place value. 4A-02R1-006 Identify even and odd numbers through 3 digits. 4A-02R1-007 Comparing numbers. IA-02R1-008 Recall basic addition and subtraction facts to 18. '1A-02R1-009 Find the missing addend using basic addition facts. 4A-02R1-010 Show the order and zero properties of addition. 4A-02R1-011 Add numbers with and without regrouping. '1A-02R1-012 Subtract numbers with and without regrouping. 4A-02R1-013 Demonstrate the meaning of addition and subtraction. 4A-02R1-014 Recognize inverse relationship of addition/subtraction. 4A-02R1-015 Recall multiplication facts (0-5) and identify symbols. IA-02R1-016 Explore division using manipulatives. 4A-02R1-017 Solve word problems. -IA-02R1-018 Identify fractions and fractional parts. 4A-02R1-019 Identify plane figures. 4A-02R1-020 Identify 3-dimensional shapes. 4A-02R1021 Locate points inside, outside, and on geometric figures. 4A-02R1-022 Investigate the concept of congruency/lines of symmetry. IA-02R1-023 Create and record perimeter of shapes. 'IA-02R1-024 Identify units of time. IA-02R1-025 Determine elapsed time given a problem situation. 4A-02R1-026 Identify currencey, count money and make change. -IA-02R1-027 Compare to find least and greatest price. 4A-02R1-028 Use a ruler to measure to the nearest inch/centimeter. 4A-02R1-029 Select appropriate units of measurement. 4A-02R1-030 Determine reasonable estimates working with measurement. 4A-02R1-031 Collect, organize and describe data. IA-02R1-032 Read charts and maps and make generalizations. 4A-02R1-033 Record data by constructing pictographs and bar graphs. 75% 75% 15% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 5 S8 S8 1 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S8 S818/08/94 19 : 27 : 06 :M32O1OO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OBJECTIVE REPORT AUGUST 8, 1994 PAGE 13 2A-O3R1 Math Revised Objectives Grade 3 )bjective Description M-% TI GL LA-03R1-001 Use a variety of strategies to solve problems. 1A-03R1-002 Solve problems related to other countries or cultures. IA-03R1-003 Write, read and discuss mathematics. IA-03R1-004 Identify ordinal numbers through 31st. IA-03R1-005 Read/write/identify place value. 1A-03R1-006 Identify even and odd numbers through 3 digits. IA-03R1-007 Comparing numbers. IA-03R1-008 Round numbers through four digits. IA-03R1-009 Explore and investigate number patterns. IA-03R1-010 Recall and use basic addition and subtraction facts. IA-03R1-011 Demonstrate the meaning of addition and subtraction. IA-03R1-012 Recognize inverse relationship of addition/subtraction. IA-03R1-013 Add and subtract numbers with and without regrouping. IA-03R1-014 Identify and use properties for addition/multiplication. 1A-0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_580","title":"Program evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2004-01/2005-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/580"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["66 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMemorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the seventeenth day of October 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date ), is entered into by and between James S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand W HEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions ' hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on October 31, 2006. The tenn of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors A+ Program (hereinafter A+) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains particularly performance of African-American students. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary Information shall not include information which: (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 1.9 Confidential Infonnation shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluation. 2. Evaluation 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluator shall conduct an Evaluation of Sponsors A+ on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A), within the mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C), and substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The Evaluations name is A+. 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner: Amount: Rate: Travel: 3.1.3 3.1.4 To be Paid: Invoices: Not to exceed Forty-five Thousand dollars (US $45,000.00). $1,500 per day for effort, plus travel expenses. Travel expenses for travel between Los Angeles, CA and Little Rock, AR including Little Rock accommodations and meals not to exceed $6,000.00 (economy class airfare only). Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice. Shall state days of effort. 3.2 Payee Taxpayer ID Address: Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to: James S. Catterall 141-38-3478 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 3.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein, Evaluator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluators sendees rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator a pro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 10/17/05 24. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the freedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at symposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE. 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure The Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the tennination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluation. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination This MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No tennination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3 through 17 herein. 3 10/17/059. Indemnification Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or (b) actions by Evaluator in violation of applicable laws or regulations (c) violations of this MOU. or The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers serv'ed on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 4 10/17/0512. Severability If any one or more of the provisions of this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict perfonnance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluator s President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee. 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other its respective address as follows: party at If to Sponsor: Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387, Fa.x (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator: James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Office 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 15. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 5 10/17/0516. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement of Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator. 17. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date. By: SPONSOR Signature Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District By: EVALUATOR Signe lure James S/catterall, Ph. D. Ic' ''/v-o 0 17-^ ao L\u0026gt; Date Date 6 10/17/05 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy. 7 10/17/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Little Rock School District 8 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply w'ith requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How io Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  Utility(U) -evaluations are informative, timely, and influential  Feasibility (F) -evaluations must be operable in the natural setting and must not consume more resources than necessary  Propriety (P) - rights of individuals must be protected  Accuracy(A) -evaluations should produce sound information Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities m this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots . As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewcr standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluaiion Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually' applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy cs'ery standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports 9 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews Standard____________________ Ul Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness Pl Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility Al Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data A10 Justified Conclusions AI 1 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations F + -h-F -F-t- F-F -F-F -F+ -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F -F-F F-F ++ 10 Informal Assessments 0 -F -F-F -F -F -F T\" + -F + -F -F-F -F ++ + -F -F -F-F -l-t- (j Formative Assessments (School Portfolios)  -F -F -F -F -F T -F + \"o' 0 -F + V F + + + F F T\" F F 0 Snapshots 0 0 -F -F -F 0 -F V -F + V -F -F V 0 -F -F -F -F -F -F -F + -F-F + 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include d proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry\nand Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculumdnstruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 11 10/17/057. 8. 9. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R D. E. F. G. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports {e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines: 153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 12 10/17/0510. 11. 12. 13. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. B. C. D. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). W hen the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 16, 2004 13 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2\"** Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator .credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. 14 10/17/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Rights of human subjects. Evaluation design and conduct should respect and protect human rights and welfare. Human interactions. Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Meta-evaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summativcly against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 15 10/17/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES Evaluation of A+ Program This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will conduct an Evaluation of the Sponsors A+ Program and produce reports of that Evaluation. Evaluation questions For this Evaluation, the primaiy questions are: I. Has A+ as implemented in the Little Rock School District improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African-American (AA)? II. Has A+ as implemented in the Little Rock School District decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)? III. To what extent does A+ account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step-two) questions are 1. What competing events or programs (relative to A+) explain changes in student performance? 2. What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them? 3. What changes in A+ do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs? 4. How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluation, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A. theoretical model(s), B. Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program C. D. E. F. G. Assessment Process, specific variables for the Evaluation, data adjustments and statistical methods, format(s) of data for use in the Evaluation delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of ser\\'ices and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (200506) November 2005 DecemberJuly 2006 August 1,2006 August 2006_____ September 1, 2006 ___________________________Service and Products__________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will observ'e classes, conduct interviews and surveys, and receive test and other data from Sponsor__________________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.___________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly.________ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing, Evaluator will track his efforts in increments of days or some portion thereof. 16 10/17/05Exhibit D A+ Program Evaluation Primaiy Evaluation Question: 1. Have the A+ Program (A+) been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description A+ combines daily arts instruction with academic subjects to boost both self-confidence and achievement. Committed to the Four Beliefs and Eight Essentials as the guiding philosophy for the program, A+ was built on the principle that every child learns better when his/her whole self engages in learning. Thus, A+ lessons stimulate all eight intelligences. Arts enrichment combines with the rich LRSD curriculum. The magic of the A+ program allows light bulbs experiences to illumine students, whether they learn in classroom groups or in movement, music, or visual arts lessons. The magic of the A+ program energizes students with the simple thrill of learning in ways many of them have never experienced before. Included in this scope of A+ is professional development for the faculty. Currently Woodruff Elementary School implements A+. Schools Name Woodruff Number of Teachers Number of Students Percent Africa n- American 21 235 91 Percent Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch 86 17 10/17/05Proposed Design Primary Evaluation Question 1. Have the A+ lessons been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African- American students? IVhole School. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Subsample: Within Woodruff Elementary School, students who participated in A+ will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of A+ instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of A+ instructional strategies? A+ teachers will be interviewed by phone. A+ instruction will be observed. 3. What is the level of participation in A+ lessons by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2004-05 and 2005-06 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The A+ teacher interviews and the A+ Teacher Survey will address this question via closed-ended and open- ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A survey will be administered to program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent Survey will address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 18 10/17/05Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question _________Evaluation Question Primary Question: Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in A+ on student achievement? All grades at Woodruff Elementary School Benchmark, ITBS, and school records Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies? All A+ teachers Teacher phone interview Classroom observations 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies? 3. What is the level of participation in A+ Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? All A+ classes School records/archival data 4. What are the perceptions of A+ teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All A+ teachers A+ teacher interview and survey 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A+ students A+ student survey 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of A+ students A+ parent survey 19 10/17/05November DecemberMarch MarchApril MayJune July JuneJuly August 1, 2006 August September 1, 2006 Schedule (2005-2006) Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRJ2 and A+ experts\nand instrument development A+ classroom observations and A+ teacher interviews Survey A+ school teachers and complete A+ teacher interviews Records/archival data analyses Evaluator will receive benchmark test results. Evaluator will analyze data of benchmark tests, surx'eys, and interviews. Evaluator will submit draft report to PRE. Evaluator will receive feedback from PRE and finish final draft. Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. received OCT 2 5 2005 desegregation monitoring 20 10/17/05Cfiri^ecfed Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between Education Innovations, LLC (hereinafter Evaluator), a Tennessee limited liability company, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHERE.AS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows\n1. Definitions For purposes of this MOD, the following definitions apply: 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of .-Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. / iilaski C ounty Special School Districi No. I el al., Mrs. Lorene .Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A), which is incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Plincipal Investigator shall mean Steven M. Ross, Ph D., appointed by Evaluator to conduct the step-two evaluations hereunder 1.4 Formal step-two evaluations (hereinafter Evaluations) shall mean summative evaluations of the three programs conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. 1.5 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by the Sponsors Board of Directors December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1, 2004. 1.6 Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Ev-aluator in accordance with this MOU. 1.7 Evaluation Team shall mean the Principal Investigator and the research personnel under the Principal Investigators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds. 4 8 0.'=: 1BI 1.8 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean the department of the Sponsor who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluations. 1.9 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable, not generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary' Information shall not include information which: (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluations. 2. Evaluations 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluation Team shall conduct three (3) Evaluations on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A). Evaluator agrees to perform the Evaluations within a mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C) and further agree,s to complete Evaluations substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The three Evaluations are named below. 2.2.1 Reading Recovery (Exhibit D) -7 9 9 9 Compass Learning (Exhibit E) Smart/Thrive (Exhibit F) 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner. Amount: 3.1.2 Rate: To be Paid: 3.1.4 Invoices. Not to exceed one hundred eighty thousand (US$180,000.00) plus reimbursable expenses as indicated below. $1,000 per day for effort. Travel cost to be reimbursed at actual cost. Translation cost to be reimbursed at actual cost. Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice, and/or reimbursable expenses, documentation included with invoice. Shall state days of effort for each of the Evaluations. 3.2 Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to: Payee Tax ID #: Address. Educations Innovations, LLC 56-2288391 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3830 2 4/8/053.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein, Principal Investigator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluator's services rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator 'dpro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 4. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the treedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at s^'mposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure rhe Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluations. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination 1 his MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No termination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 18 herein. 3 4.8/059. Indeinnincation Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or the Principal Investigator, or (b) actions by Evaluator or the Principal Investigator in violation of applicable laws or regulations, (c) violations of this MOU. or The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers served on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 12. Severability It any one or more of the provisions ot this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability ot the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 4 4/8'0513. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluators President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other party at its respective address as follows: If to Sponsor. Karen DeJarnette, Ph.D Director, PRE Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387/Fax (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator with respect to all non-technical matters: Cindy Hurst Education Innovations, LLC 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, TN 38152-3830 Phone (901) 678-5063/Fax (901) 678-4257 If to Evaluator with respect to technical questions. Steven M. Ross, Ph D. Director, Education Innovations, LLC 3161 Campus Postal Station Memphis, TN 38152-3830 Phone (901) 678-3413/Fax (901) 678-4257 16. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 17. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement ot Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this 5 4  (5Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator, 18. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date SPONSOR EVALUATOR By. Signature By: Signature Superintendent P?*r-e\u0026lt;te., /rie^ct Samuel Hurst Vice PresidentBusiness and Finance Date Date 4/8/05 /5-\u0026lt;^y 6 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock- Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene .Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy of this document but may request another copy from Sponsor. 7 4/8/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process of the Little Rock School District is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy of this document but may request another copy from Sponsor. 8 4/8/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will perform Evaluations of three programs of the Sponsor, viz.^ Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, and Compass Learning, and produce reports of the Evaluations. Evaluation questions For each of the three Evaluations, the primary' questions are I. II. 111. Has the program improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African- American (.A.A) as implemented in the Little Rock School District' Elas the program decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)' To what extent does each program account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step two) questions are 1. 2. 3. 4. What competing events or programs (relative to each evaluated program) explain changes in student performance? What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them What changes in the program do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs' How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluations, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A B C D E. F G theoretical model(s), Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process, specific variables for the summative evaluations, data adjustments and statistical methods, format) s) of data for use in the Evaluations delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of services and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (2004-05) OctoberFebruary October 1 October November 1 ___________________________Service and Products________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.__________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly._______ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing. Evaluator will track its efforts in increments of days or some portion there of. 9 4.'8C5Payments Little Rock School District Desegregation Court Mandate Support Project Period October 2004 to November 2005 Costs: Consulting @ $1,000 per day - 180 days maximum Actual Cost - Travel (est. $500) Actual Cost - Translation Seivices (est. $500) $180,000 * Maximum Payment $180,000* Plus actual cost of travel and translation services 10 4/8/05Exhibit D Reading Recovery Proposal for the Evaluation of Reading Recovery in Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation (Juestion. 1. Has the Reading Recovery (RR) program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American (AA) students? Supplemental (Qualitative Level 2) Evaluation (Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in RR by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? J. What is the progress demonstrated by African American and other student participating in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued? 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and w'eaknesses'i 5. What are the perceptions of K.-3 classroom teachers in the school regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'^ 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Program Description RR is one of the eight literacy programs, interx entions, and/or models used by various LRSD schools. It is restricted to the first-grade and involves providing systematically designed individual tutoring to students identified as having the highest need for supplemental support. LRSD funds support the RR Program. Currently, RR is implemented by 18 elementary schools (whose .AA student composition follows their names): Bale: 82%, Booker: 53%, Carver: 53%, Chicot: 73%, Dodd: 54%, Franklin: 96%, Geyer Springs: 88?o, Gibbs: 53%, Meadowcliff: 78%, Mitchell: 96%, Otter Creek: 60%, Rightsell: 100%, Stephens: 95%, Terry: 53%, Wakefield: 78%, Watson: 96%, Williams: 52%, and Wilson: 89%. Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will address the research questions as follows: 11 4-'8/O5Printaiy Evaluation Question. 1. Has the RR program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AA students? A. Whole School'. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 1- 3. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. It may be decided to examine (a) all 18 schools relative to the entire district elementary-school database or (b) a stratified random sample of RR schools relative to matched control schools. Pretests: DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the most usable database) administered in kindergarten. Posttests: 2004-05 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests. B. Reading Recovery Subsample: Within each of the RR schools, first- to third-grade students who participated in RR as first graders will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status (RR vs Control), and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: I. What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05'^ RR teachers will be interv-iewed by phone. First grade teachers and other grade-level teachers will be surveyed. Observations of RR tutoring sessions will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 12 tutoring classroom observations will be conducted. RR Teachers in-training will not be observed. 2. What is the level of participation in RR by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 3. What is the progress demonstrated by AA and other student participants in RR in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program-specific measures? What percentage of students is discontinued or not discontinued'^ RR Teachers will provide Recommendations for Discontinuing and Statement of Progress for Non- Discontinued Student data information on each 2004-05 RR student. 4. What are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' The RR teacher survey will directly address this question. RR teachers in-training will be interviewed by phone. 5. What are the perceptions of K-3 classroom teachers in the school regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 12 4/8/05The K-3 classroom teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Only experienced RR schools will be surveyed. Respondents will identify their status by grade and role 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A RR Parent Surv'cy will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items in experienced RR schools. Suinmary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question: Reading Recovery Evaluation Question | Participants Data Sources Primary Question: 1. Wliat are the effects of participation in RR on AA student achievement? Supplemental (Step 2) Questions:  All grades I -3 students at 18 RR schools and other elemcntaiy schools  RR student participants within above samples  DRA or DIBELS (pretest in K)  2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (posttest in grades 1-3) 1 What is the quality and level of implementation of RR at the 18 schools implementing it in 2004-05? 2. What is the level of participation in RR by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the schixil?____________________ 3. What is the progress demonstrated by RR students in improving achievement, as demonstrated on program- specific measures? What percentage of students are discontinued or not discontinued\"?______________ 4. W hat are the perceptions of RR teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  All RR teachers  Classroom teachers at experienced RR schools  Principals at RR schools All RR schools All RR teachers will provide program data for first grade students All RR teachers 13  Random sample of principals and teachers intraining interview  K-3 classroom Teacher Surt'ey (faculty meeting)  RR student data  RR Tutoring Session Observation (min. of 12 observations)  School records/archival data  RR student program data  RR teacher survey  RR teacher in-training interview 4\nS 05no 5. Whal are the perceptions of  K-3 classroom teachers regarding RR program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' All K-3 classroom teachers in experienced RR schools K-3 classroom teacher survc\u0026gt; (disaggregated by 1 grade vs. other grades) 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of first grade RR students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Timelines Februan,' 2005\nMarch: MarchApril: May-June: JulySeptember: October 1\nNovember 1: Parents of RR students in experienced RR schools RR Parent Survee Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and RR experts\nInstrument Development Begin observations, RR Teacher In-Training Phone Interviews Complete observations, RR Teacher and K-3 Classroom Teacher Survey, RR Principal Phone Interviews RR Student Data, Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of finding\nto PRE\nReceive feedback from PRE Finalize and submit final repon to PRE 14 4/8/05Exhibit E Compass Learning Proposal for the Evaluation of Compass Learning in Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evahialion Question. 1 What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African-American (AA) and other students? Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? What is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the implementing schools J. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL, with regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? Program Description Compass Learning is a computer-based program designed to develop students skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Additional purposes are to support teacher management of student performance, personalize instruction, and connect communities of learners. The theme-based lessons and activities provided by CL take a crosscurricular approach and offer a real world context for learning. The Compass Management system assessment is either automatic or customizable. A Technology Specialist assists classroom teachers with any technology question or need. In the 2004-05 school year, 20 LRSD elementary schools utilized CL programs, while 2 middle schools and 1 high school used the program in previous years. The AA student composition follows the individual school names: Elementary Schools Bale. 82%, Booker: 53%, Brady: 78%, Carver: 52%, Chicot: 73%, Fair Park: 75%, Forrest Park: 20%, Franklin: 96%, Fulbright. 26%, Geyer Springs: 88%, Gibbs: 53%, Mabelvale: 80%. McDermott: 62%, Mitchell. 96%, Otter Creek: 60%, Rightsell: 100%, Rockefeller: 67%, Stephens: 95%, Wakefield: 78%, Williams: 52%. 15 4.8/05Middle Schools: Cloverdale: 82%, and Henderson\n82% High School: Accelerated Learning Center (ALC): 92% Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows\nPrimary Evaluation Question. 2. What are the effects of participation in CL on the achievement of African American and other students? A. Quasi-experimental desist: Due to the insufficient sample size and unique nature of the high school (n = 1), the quasi-experimental analysis will be conducted with the elementary (n = 20 schools) and middle (n = 2) school samples only*. A descriptive examination (see below) of test scores for the high school will also be conducted to determine trends and patterns at that site. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design will compare CL elementary and middle schools to other schools in the district, most likely using multiple-regression type analyses in which the dependent variable is posttest (2004-05) scores (Arkansas Benchmarks in grades 3-8, and Iowa Test ot Basic Skills in grades K-8) and covariates are pretest (pre-program) test scores, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Pretests. Iowa Test ot Basic Skills (ITBS) (for grades K-8), Arkansas Benchmarks (for grades 4- 8) Posttests: 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math Subtests (for grades 1-8)\nArkansas Benchmarks (for grades 3-8). Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1 What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementary schools identified as implementing the program in 2004-05? Phone interviews will be conducted with (a) the LRSD CL Coordinator and (b) all school Technology- Specialists and (c) the lab attendant at the 7 elementary schools randomly selected for observations. All teachers at the 20 elementary schools will be surveyed so that site-specific data regarding implementation will be available. Observations of CL laboratory sessions will be conducted at a random sample of 7 elementary schools. At four of the observed schools, a brief (20-min.) student focus group {n = 5 to 7 students per school) will be conducted to ascertain students perspectives on their experiences in using CL (nature of activities, usefulness, enjoyment, etc.) 2. U hat is the level of participation in CL by AA students relative to other ethnic groups at the schools involved? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 and CL observation data will be analyzed. Recent information indicates that the nnddie and high schools are no longer using CL. The principals will be intei^iewcd at these schools regarding CL usage. If the schools are not using CL, CREP will work w ith PRE to modify the achievement analy sis accordingly. 16 4/8'053. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the teacher survey and Technology Specialist interviews in schools identified as implementing CL and interviews with lab attendants in the 7 schools randomly selected for CL observations. 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A CL parent survey consisting of closed- and open-ended items will be administered to parents at 5 randomly selected schools. 5 What arc the perceptions of school principals, w hose schools no longer use CL, w ith regard to past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? This question will be addressed via the Principal Interview. Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question: Compass Learning Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in CompassLearning (CL) on the achievement of African American and other students? Participants Supplemental Questions: 1. Whal are I be qualih. naliire. and level of implementation of CL at the 20 elementaiy schools identified a.s implementing the program in 2004-05?  Students al 20 CL elementary and middle schools and comparison schools  Whole grade-level means al ihc Compass Learning high school. (T)ic middle schools and high school may not be included in the achievement analysis depending on CL usage)________________  All CL school teachers  All Technology Specialists at schools implcinenting CL  CL Lab Attendants at the 7 schools randomly selected for observations  District CL Program Coordinator  Student Focus Groups at 4 randomly selected elementan schools Data Sources ITBS as pretest for Grades K-9 Arkansas Benchmarks as poshest for 3-8) 2004-05 ITBS Reading and Math subtests (as poshest in grades 1- 9)2004-05 Grade 11 Literacy Exam (as poshest) 2004-05 Algebra I and Geometry End- of-Course Exams (as posttest)  Teacher Survey (faculty meeting)  Technology Specialist Phone Interview  District CL Program Coordinator Phone Interview  Lab Attendant Phone Inten iew  Two-hour CL Laboratory Observations (7 randomly selected elementary schools)  20-min. Student Focus Groups (n = 5-7 students), one each at 4 schools randomly selected from the 7 observation schools 17 4'8'052. What is the level of participation in CL by African American students relative to other ctlmic groups at the schools concerned? .3. What are the perceptions of teachers, lab attendants, and Technology Specialists regarding CL program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of CL students regarding program impacts, strengths, and n eaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of school principals, whose schools no longer use CL. with regard Io past use of the CL program and possible adoption of a different program? All Coinpass schools School rccords/archiv al data Two-hour CL Laboratory Observ ations (J randomly selected elementary schools) Ail CL school teachers All Technology Specialists al schools implementing CL CL Lab Attendants al the 7 schools randomly selected for observations Parents of CL students Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Technology Specialist Phone Inlcn ie Lab Allendani Phone Inlen ieu CL Parent Suney Distributed to one class at each grade level al 5 elenicnlarv schools Principals at two middle schools, one high school, and possibly one elementary- school Principal Phone Inlen iew 18 4/8/052005 Timeline January. February: March-April: May-June\nJuly-September: October 1: Planning/Refmement, consultation with PRE and CL experts, and instrument development Complete instrument development and begin observations CL Teacher Surx'ey (at faculty meetings), conduct phone interviews with district CL program coordinator, technology specialists, lab attendants, and principals in schools no longer implementing CL\ncomplete obsen'ations\nconduct student focus Groups. Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE\nreceive feedback from PRE November 1: Finalize and submit report to PRE 19 4/8/05Exhibit E Smart/Thrive Proposal for the Evaluation of the Smart/Thrive (S/T) Programs in the Little Rock School District: Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question. 1. 1 .Have the Smart/Thrive programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students' Supplemental (Qualitative Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Sniart and Thrive by African American students'^ 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions' 3. What are the perceptions of Smart/Thrive Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra 1 teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What arc the perceptions of parents/guardians of Smart/Thrive students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses' Program Description The S/T program was designed as an intervention for S\"- and 9\"'-grade African-.American students who are lacking the knowledge, skills, and/or confidence required for success in Algebra I. This program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in /Algebra 1 classes. During the 2003-2004 academic year, the program served 264 students. Participants were offered pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (Smart Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year Thrive Program). Various local grants have fiinded this program since 1999. In the current school year, S/T serves students from all eight LRSD middle schools (whose AA student composition follows their names): Cloverdale: 82%, Dunbar: 61%, Forest Heights: 77%, Henderson: 82%, Mablevale: 81%, Mann: 52%, Pulaski Heights\n57%, and Southwest: 94% Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows\n20 4 8/05Primary Evaluation Question . 1. Have the S/T programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students'  A treatment (2 levels)-control student, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Three types of Algebra I students will be compared depending on their program enrollment . i. No program ii. Smart program only iii. Both Smart and Thrive programs Pretests: 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test  Posttests: 2004-05 (ITBS) Math Subtests\nAlgebra I EOC\nMath Benchmark Test. Supplemental CQiialitative/Slep 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African American students'  Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation will be gathered as a potential variable for the student achievement analyses. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions?  Random observation visits will be conducted during the Saturday Thrive Program sessions. Approximately five visits will be made. Observations of the Summer Smart Program can be conducted in 2005. 3. What are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A questionnaire will be administered to S/T Tutors. 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'  A questionnaire will be administered to Algebra I teachers. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  A questionnaire will be administered to program participants. A sample of program participants will also be selected to participate in student focus groups. Approximately 3-5 focus groups will be conducted, with each comprised of approximately 5 students. 6. What are the perceptions ot parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses'  An S/T Parent survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 21 4.'g/05Summary' of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question: Smart/Thrive Evaluation Question [ I Primary Question:___________ 1. What are the effects of participation in the Smart and/or Thrive Programs on student achievement? Participants Data Sources Timelines  All 8* and 9* grade Algebra I students 2003-2004 Math Benchmark 2004-05 ITBS Math subtests\nMath Benchmark\nAlgebra I EOC Supplemental Questions: I. What is the level of participation in Smart and Thrive by African American students?__________________ 2. What instructional strategics are used during the tutoring sessions?___________ 3. WJiat are the perceptions of S/T Tutors regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?________________ 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra 1 teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?____________ 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses/ 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of S/T students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? January', 2005. Febiuary: March-April: May-June: July-September: October T. October: November 1  All program participants ST teachers and students All S/T Tutors  All Algebra I teachers  Program participants Parents of ST students School records/archival data  Observations of tutoring sessions  ST Tutor Questionnaire  Algebra 1 Teacher Questionnaire  ST Student Questionnaire  Focus Groups  ST Parent Questionnaire Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE, Instrument Development Begin observations of Thrive sessions Administer Teacher, Tutor, and Student Questionnaires and begin focus groups. Complete focus groups and observations and analyze records and archival data Analyze achievement data and complete survey and interview analyses. Submit draft report to PRE. Discuss draft report of findings with PRE and write final report. Submit final report to PRE 22 4\n8/05RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2005 OfRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGi-C\u0026gt; 'rvtc4ecl te Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between James S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply\n1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors Year-Round Education (hereinafter YRE) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains differences among schools as w'ell as for the LRSD. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietary Information shall not include information which\n(a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of individuals such as Sponsors students, teachers, administrators including PRE, or Board of Directors\nguardians or relatives of such students\ncommunity members\nor any other individuals related to the Evaluation. 2. Evaluation 2.1 2.2 During the MOU Period, the Evaluator shall conduct an Evaluation of Sponsors YRE on behalf of Sponsor in accordance with the Compliance Remedy (Exhibit A), within the mutually agreed schedule (Exhibit C), and substantially in accordance with the terms and conditions of this MOU. The Evaluations name is YRE. 3. Payments 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 Sponsor shall pay Evaluator the Evaluation Funds in the following manner: Amount: Rate: Travel\n3.1.3 3.1.4 To be Paid: Invoices\nNot to exceed Forty-five Thousand dollars (US $45,000.00). $1,500 per day for effort, plus travel expenses. Travel expenses for travel between Los Angeles, CA and Little Rock, AK including Little Rock accommodations and meals not to exceed $6,000.00 (economy class airfare only). Upon invoice for effort (days) expended, stated in invoice. Shall state days of effort. 3.2 Payments under the terms of this MOU shall be made by check payable to\nPayee Taxpayer ID Address: James S. Catterall 141-38-3478 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 3.3 Anything herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should this MOU terminate early pursuant to Article 8 herein. Evaluator and Sponsor shall agree upon the estimate of the percentage of completeness of the Evaluators services rendered hereunder as of the date such notice is given. The Sponsor shall pay the Evaluator a pro rata fee based upon the agreed estimated percentage of completion such that payment will at least include all project costs incurred by Evaluator prior to the date of early termination. 2 3/22/054. Non-Exclusivity and Disclosure Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to limit the freedom of the Evaluator to engage in similar research performed independently under other grants, contracts, or agreements with parties other than Sponsor. If the Evaluator undertakes any research or evaluation that uses data from this Evaluation, Evaluator shall disclose such research or evaluation to PRE. 5. Publication and Disclosure The Evaluator shall have the right to present at symposia and national or regional professional meetings, and to publish in scientific or other publications,, the results of the Evaluations conducted under this MOU. Evaluator agrees to make such publication(s) conveniently available to PRE. 6. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure The Sponsor and Evaluator expressly acknowledge that Evaluator may need to provide to Sponsor information that Evaluator considers to be Proprietary Information. Sponsor agrees to hold Proprietary Information in strict confidence during the term of this MOU and for a period of two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU except as required by law. Similarly, the Evaluator shall protect Confidential Information and prevent its disclosure in any manner, except as required by law. Not later than two years after the termination or expiration of this MOU, Evaluator shall destroy all Confidential Information or return it to Sponsor. 7. Ownership and Patents The Evaluator shall have sole and exclusive ownership rights to any intellectual property, including but not limited to copyrights and/or inventions of a product, device, process, or method, whether patentable or unpatentable (an Invention), deriving from the Evaluators efforts, exclusive of any data or information, arising out of the Evaluation. Data or information furnished to Evaluator by Sponsor shall remain the property of the Sponsor. 8. Termination This MOU shall remain in effect for the MOU Period unless extended in accordance with the terms of this MOU, as set forth in Section 1.2. In the event that either Evaluator or Sponsor shall be in default of any of its obligations under this MOU and shall fail to remedy such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof, the party not in default shall have the option of canceling this MOU by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination to the other party. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of the parties, which shall have accrued prior to termination. No termination of this MOU, however effectuated, shall release either party from its rights and obligations under Articles 3 through 17 herein. 3 3/22/059. Indemnification Sponsor agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Evaluator and its officers and employees (all such parties are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees and court costs) arising directly or indirectly out of the Evaluation or the design, manufacture, sale or use of any embodiment or manifestation of the Evaluation, regardless of whether any and all such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) arise in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the Indemnified Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Sponsor will not be responsible for indemnification of Evaluator pursuant to this Article 9 for any liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs) which arise solely from: (a) the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Evaluator or (b) actions by Evaluator in violation of applicable laws or regulations or (c) violations of this MOU. The Sponsor agrees to provide a diligent defense against any and all liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys fees and court costs), brought against the Indemnified Parties with respect to the subject of the indemnity contained in this Article 9, whether such claims or actions are rightfully or wrongfully brought or filed. Evaluator shall be indemnified by Sponsor after Evaluator has completed the following: (a) within a reasonable time after receipt of notice of any and all liability, claims, lawsuits losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, or after the commencement of any action, suit, or proceeding giving rise to the right of indemnification, notify Sponsor, in writing, of said liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses and send to the Sponsor a copy of all papers served on the Indemnified Party\nand (b) allow Sponsor to retain control of any such liability, claims, lawsuits, losses, demands, damages, costs, and expenses, including the right to make any settlement. 10. Independent Contractors Sponsor and Evaluator shall act as independent parties, and nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed or implied to create an agency or partnership. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall have the authority to contract or incur expenses on behalf of the other except as may be expressly authorized by collateral written agreements. No member of the Evaluation Team shall be deemed to be an employee of Sponsor. 11. Use of Evaluator Name The use by either Sponsor or Evaluator of the others name or any other names, insignia, symbol(s), or logotypes associated with the other party or any variant or variants thereof in advertising, publicity, or other promotional activities is expressly prohibited, unless required by law or the other party provides written consent. 4 3/22/0512. Severability If any one or more of the provisions of this MOU shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions of this MOU shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 13. Waiver The failure of any party hereto to insist upon strict performance of any provision of this MOU or to exercise any right hereunder will not constitute a waiver of that provision or right. This MOU shall not be effective until approved by Evaluators President or his official designee. Whenever the consent or approval of the Evaluator is required or permitted hereunder, such consent or approval must be given by the Evaluators President or his official designee. 14. Notices Any notice or communication required or permitted to be given or made under this MOU by one of the parties hereto to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given or made for all purposes if mailed by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to such other party at its respective address as follows: If to Sponsor: Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1306 Phone (501) 447-3387, Fax (501) 447-7609 If to Evaluator: James S. Catterall, Ph.D. Research and Evaluation Office 120 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd. Suite 203 Topanga, CA 90290 15. Assignment Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator shall assign its rights or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the other party. 5 3/22/0516. Entirety This MOU represents the entire agreement of Sponsor and Evaluator, and it expressly supersedes all previous written and oral communications between them. Neither Sponsor nor Evaluator was induced to enter into this Agreement by any statements or representations not contained in this MOU. This MOU may be modified only by written amendment executed by the Sponsor and the Evaluator. 17. Headings The headings of sections and subsections, if any, to the extent used herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision hereof, and therefore shall not be used in construing or interpreting the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sponsor and Evaluator have caused this MOU to be executed in duplicate counterpart original by their duly authorized representatives to be effective as of the Effective Date. EVALUATOR By: SPONSOR Signature Darral Paradis, Director Procurement Department Little Rock School District By: Jame: 'ure 'atterall. Ph. D. Date Date 3/22/05 a 6 Exhibit A COMPLIANCE REMEDY The Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors, is incorporated here by reference. Evaluator has a copy. 7 3/22/05Exhibit B COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Little Rock School District 8 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance in the appraisal of programs and to comply with requirements of the US District Court for the Eastern District. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides resources for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^ Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  Utility(U) -evaluations are informative, timely, and influential  Feasibility (F) -evaluations must be operable in the natural setting and must not consume more resources than necessary  Propriety (P) - rights of individuals must be protected  Accuracy(A) -evaluations should produce sound information Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of activities that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include formative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots. As rigor and formality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs (++) indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses (+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and other examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note, however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports. 9 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Checklist of Evaluation Standards for Examples of Program Reviews Standard____________________ UI Stakeholder Identification U2 Evaluator Credibility U3 Infonnation Scope \u0026amp; Selection U4 Values Identification U5 Report Clarity U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination U7 Evaluation Impact Fl Practical Procedures F2 Political Viability F3 Cost Effectiveness Pl Service Orientation P2 Formal Agreements P3 Rights of Human Subjects P4 Human Interaction P5 Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment P6 Disclosure of Findings P7 Conflict of Interest P8 Fiscal Responsibility Al Program Documentation A2 Context Analysis A3 Described Purposes and Procedures A4 Defensible Information Sources A5 Valid Information A6 Reliable Information A7 Systematic Information A8 Analysis of Quantitative Data______ A9 Analysis of Qualitative Data AIO Justified Conclusions A11 Impartial Reporting A12 Meta-evaluation Summative evaluations Informal Assessments Formative Assessments (School Portfolios) ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ 10 0 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 4- y 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- T 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- V 0 + + + + + + + 0 4- 4- 4- V 4- 4- 4- + 4- 4- y 4- 4- 0 Snapshots 0 0 + + 4- _0 + 2 4- y _0 4- 4- y _0 4- 4- 4- + + + + + + 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agendawith anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 11 3/22/057. 8. 9. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R D. E. F. G. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data should be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet) to stakeholders. (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\nThomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African-American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 12 3/22/0510. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE\nIL-R 11. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 12. The Director of PRE will prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 13. 14. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46,123-124.) Approved: December 16, 2004 13 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: IL-R Evaluation Standards Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board-approved Program Evaluation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2\"** Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgments are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed infonnation is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to bias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. 14 3/22/05LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R Rights of human subjects. Evaluation design and conduct should respect and protect human rights and welfare. Human interactions. Evaluators should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Meta-evaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summatively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. 15 3/22/05Exhibit C SCOPE OF SERVICES Evaluation of Year-Round Education This states services and products by the Evaluator, who will conduct an Evaluation of the Sponsors YRE Programs and produce reports of that Evaluation. Evaluation questions For this Evaluation, the primary questions are: 1. II. III. Has YRE as implemented in the Little Rock School District improved the academic achievement of students identified by the Sponsor as African-American (AA)? Has YRE as implemented in the Little Rock School District decreased the differences between AA students and those identified by the Sponsor as white (W)? To what extent does YRE account for changes in student performance? Secondary (step-two) questions are 1. What competing events or programs (relative to YRE) explain changes in student performance? 2. What traits of each group explain their performance and differences in performance between them? 3. What changes in YRE do these results indicate to improve the effectiveness of the programs? 4. How will these recommendations improve AA student performance? Evaluation design, data, and products Prior to Evaluators commencing the Evaluation, Sponsor will agree with Evaluator regarding A. B. C. D. E. F. G. theoretical model(s). Evaluation design(s), to conform with summative evaluations of the Comprehensive Program Assessment Process, specific variables for the Evaluation, data adjustments and statistical methods, format(s) of data for use in the Evaluation delivered by the Sponsor to the Evaluator, content of deliverable products (written reports) and their formats, and schedule of services and product delivery. The following table is the schedule of services and product delivery. Delivery (2005-06) FebruaryMarch October 1,2006 October November 1,2006 ____________________________Service and Products_________________________ Evaluator and Sponsor will negotiate MOU and agree on design of the Evaluations, their schedules, and instruments.___________________________________________ Evaluator will submit draft report of results to PRE.___________________________ Evaluator will discuss draft reports with PRE and alter report accordingly.________ Evaluator will submit final report to PRE. For the purpose of invoicing. Evaluator will track his efforts in increments of days or some portion thereof. 16 3/22/05Exhibit D Year-Round Education Programs Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the Year-Round Education (YRE) Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? '4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description Year-Round Education is a concept which reorganizes the school year so that instruction occurs throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks interspersed. Instruction and vacations are shorter and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. YRE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. LRSDs design is a single-track, 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Currently there are five elementary schools implementing YRE\nElementary Schools Cloverdale Mablevale Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Number of Teachers 26 25 22 39 21 Number of Students 360 257 156 499 235 Percent of Students African- American 77 80 96 95 91 Percent of Students Free/Reduced Lunch 89 88 92 91 86 17 3/22/05Primary Evaluation Question Proposed Design 1. Have the YRE Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? fVhole School-. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Subsample: Within each YRE school, students who participated in intersession will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status and student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular sessions? Year-Round Education teachers will be interviewed by phone. Year-Round Education classrooms, both regular and during intersession, will be observed. 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2003-04 and 2004-05 will be analyzed. 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The Year-Round Education teacher interview and the Year-Round Education Teacher Survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A survey will be administered to program participants. 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A Parent Survey will be conducted to address this question via a questionnaire including closed- and open-ended items. 18 3/22/05Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question: Participants Data Sources 1. What are the effects of participation in YRE on student achievement? All grades at YRE schools and other elementary schools. Year-Round Education intersession student participants within above samples Benchmark, ITBS, and school records Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? All YRE teachers Teacher phone interview Classroom observations 2. What are the quality and level of implementation of instructional strategies during regular session? 3. What is the level of participation in YRE Programs by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? All YRE schools School records/archival data 4. What are the perceptions of YRE teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? AH YRE teachers YRE teacher interview and survey 5. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? YRE students grades 4 and 5 YRE student survey 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of YRE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of YRE students YRE parent survey 19 3/22/05Timelines February-March: March: March-April: May-June: July-September: October: November 1 Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and YRE experts\nand instrument development Begin YRE classroom observations and YRE teacher interviews Survey YRE school teachers and complete YRE teacher interviews Records/Archival data analyses Analyze achievement data/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE and receive feedback from PRE Finalize and submit report to PRE received OCT 2 5 2005 .OFFICE OF DKEGfiEGAnONMONirORING 20 3/22/05Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter MOU), effective the first day of February 2005 (hereinafter the Effective Date), is entered into by and between Janies S. Catterall (hereinafter Evaluator), Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024, and Little Rock School District (hereinafter Sponsor), whose offices are located at 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sponsor, to comply with the June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, and Program Evaluation Standards, will hire outside consultants to prepare formal, step-two evaluations\nand WHEREAS, Evaluator possesses unique knowledge and experience relating to such formal step-two evaluations and Program Evaluation Standards\nNOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter recited, the Sponsor and Evaluator do hereby agree as follows: 1. Definitions For purposes of this MOU, the following definitions apply: RECEIVED OCT 2 0 2005 OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring 1.1 Compliance Remedy shall mean the entire June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Intervenors (Exhibit A). 1.2 MOU Period shall mean the period commencing on the Effective Date of this MOU and terminating on November 1, 2005. The term of this MOU may be extended by the mutual written consent of the duly authorized representatives of Evaluator and Sponsor. 1.3 Formal step-two evaluation (hereinafter Evaluation) shall mean a summative evaluation of Sponsors Year-Round Education (hereinafter YRE) program conducted by the Evaluator according to the Sponsors Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and described more fully in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. Evaluation ascertains differences among schools as well as for the LRSD. 1.4 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (Exhibit B) shall mean the process required by the Compliance Remedy, adopted by Sponsors Board of Directors on December 16, 2004, and incorporated as Appendix B in the first quarterly written update by the Sponsor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua, December 1,2004. 1.5 with this MOU. Evaluation Funds shall mean those funds paid by the Sponsor to the Evaluator in accordance 1.6 Evaluation Team shall mean the Evaluator and any personnel under the Evaluators direction and control who are supported in whole or in part by the Evaluation Funds.1.7 Planning, Research, and Evaluation (hereinafter PRE) shall mean Sponsors department who shall represent the Sponsor and oversee the Evaluation. 1.8 Proprietary Information shall mean any data, information, concepts, routines, artwork, design work, advertising copy, specifications, or improvement that is commercially valuable\nnot generally available to or known in the industry\nand belonging to Evaluator. Proprietaiy Information shall not include information which, (a) is or becomes a part of the public domain through no act or omission of the receiving party\n(b) was in the receiving party's lawful possession prior to the disclosure and had not been obtained by the receiving party either directly or indirectly from the disclosing party\n(c) is lawfully disclosed to the receiving party by a third party without restriction on disclosure\n(d) is independently developed by the receiving party\nor (e) is disclosed by operation of law. 2.0 Confidential Information shall mean data or information related to the identities of ind\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16957","title":"Freedom Rides and Reverse Freedom Rides a debate between Winslow Drummond and Amis Guthridge presented by Fayetteville Jr. Chamber of Commerce","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":["Drummond, Winslow","Guthridge, Amis Robert, 1908-1977"],"dc_date":["1962-09-07"],"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":["KAAY Collection (BC.MSS.11.158)"],"dcterms_subject":["Arkansas--History--20th century","Civil rights movements","Politics and government","Race relations","Segregation","Communism","Capital Citizens' Council (Little Rock, Ark.)","Freedom Rides, 1961"],"dcterms_title":["Freedom Rides and Reverse Freedom Rides a debate between Winslow Drummond and Amis Guthridge presented by Fayetteville Jr. Chamber of Commerce"],"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/16957"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["open reel audiotapes"],"dcterms_extent":["01:03:54","43,643 KB"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Guthridge: The the Ladies and gentlemen, it's a distinct pleasure to be here on this program of controversy, and I want to take this time to express my appreciation for Don Trumbull, Jr. and the Fayetteville, Jr. Chamber of Commerce for having the foresight and alertness and energy to present these programs to you. I think it's a wonderful thing. that you have great issues presented to you both sides. And I know you've already had two fine programs. And of course, my worthy colleague and opponent from Little Rock, who is certainly a young, a fine young man and an excellent lawyer with whom I have tangled with before. And I are going to do our best to make this informative, I'm sure. And we have not discussed this and what comes from here on. I don't imagine he knows too much and maybe I don't either. In fact, I wouldn't. The first thing I'm going to do, because I don't know about this time element, I'm going to read you an editorial, given over the, or rather a little piece given over the American Broadcasting Company's radio network, when these Freedom Rides of this summer, the ones north, first started. It was by the well-known commentator. called Harvey. He pretty well pleased our kids for us. The name of this is living in glass houses. He's not a southerner, although I do understand he lives in Missouri. Listen to them swarm. The hypocrisy of pompous northern do-gooders has never been more apparent. Such a little while ago they sent armies of photographers and news hawks down across the Mason-Dixon line with orders to look for trouble. You go anywhere and look for trouble, you'll find it. In the name of brotherhood, they flooded the nation's magazines with reams of invidious, slanderous distortion. In the name of equal rights, these Yankee carpetbaggers proclaimed themselves custodians for the conscience of America, pronounced new proclamations of emancipation for the Southern Negroes, while their own Northern Negroes were subjected to a more subtle but more degrading form of discrimination than the South has seen in almost a century. But many Southern Negroes did not know this. Some of them, the voices raised in their behalf, imply genuine compassion. Surely they reasoned up north the Negroes can enjoy recognition, equality, limitless opportunities. Now, the terrible awakening for a race so long used by political and economic opportunists. Suddenly, the northbound Negroes are told that they are not wanted. Many of the same persons and publications, which posed as their champions, now tell them to stay away. New Orleans—this was before Little Rock got into it—New Orleans is— A militant segregationist thirsting for retribution are offering busloads of Negroes a free one-way ticket north. They are collecting funds to send trainloads of freedom riders in reverse. Hurriedly, the director of public welfare in Detroit warns, you'd better not come here. Detroit already has 122,000 unemployed, 15,100 families on welfare. Chicago's welfare director says his city cannot care for these migrants. A New York state senator says southern Negroes should not jump from the frying pan. Discrimination in New York is more serious than most people realize. Listen to them squirm. It would be humorous if it were not so abysmally, desperately disillusioning to the hapless legions now left hopeless. The smile was a mask. Southern Negroes, again, were flagrantly deceived by the Northern do-gooders who were so eager to champion their cause from a distance. Now I'm going to read you. First, I'm going to tell you that we have sent from Little Rock. at their request, at their desire, all expenses paid, 57 Arkansas Negroes to points north, most of them to heinous Massachusetts. I selected a few letters. We received a few thousand letters, mostly from the north, and the ratio of those favoring what we were doing was a good ten to one supporting our side. I have a few letters here. supported by the postmark. I will not read from whom they are, but any reporter could see these later. But here's one May the 29th addressed to us in Little Rock from Hines, Massachusetts. You sure got our local bigwigs in one heck of a sweat trying to make out they don't have segregation here. When anyone who walks around Cape Cod with his eyes open can tell you they do. Send a lot more riders in July and August when this place is loaded with summer people who will go home. knowing for sure that old Kennedy, that all Kennedy wants out of colored folks is a vote. Signed, well I won't read what he signed. Here's another one. Postmark Oak Grove, Grove City, Pennsylvania addressed to us. Good work, keep it up. Keep sending Kennedy's black brothers to Massachusetts. Those Kennedy boys, Sammy Davis, Frank Sinatra, Martin Luther King, Lyndon Johnson, Ed Sullivan, and so forth, should welcome them to their new culture. My head is... Bowed in shame, I voted for Kennedy. Next time when I am confronted with such a choice, I shall not vote. Remember, I'm not saying this, I'm reading you letters. Here's one postmarked in Manchester, Connecticut. As a northerner who has been down south many times, I'm glad to see that your group is teaching many of our so-called integration zealots a fine lesson in the elementary facts of life. I've been following with great interest and amusement. the exodus of some 65 colored folks from the South destined for the High Ennis Court area. Let us see how sincere the vociferous Kennedy forces are in their extension of aid and hospitality to these folks. Now, I want to tell you this. The first Negro we sent to High Ennis Court was met by Edward M. Ted Kennedy, who is a candidate for the Democratic nomination to the United States Senate, age 30, at which election we'll be on September the 18th. He met David Harris, the cook that we sent from Little Rock. Two hundred people were there. Edward Kennedy met him and the old made a big to do. The pictures were on the front page of the Little Rock papers. When the next one showed up, that two hundred, it's the sharing of two hundred people that grumbled to two. And from then on it was just one. It was a selectman, a town councilman, Mr. E. Thomas Murphy, who met them from then on. And after the third one arrived, they panicked. It was all great for these government officials to try and force their integration policies upon the good people of the South, who know better than any other group the many complexities of this situation, having lived with it these many years. Now let us see if they will practice what they preach up in their own bailiwick of Hireness Court. You have given them a golden opportunity to either put up or shut up. My guess is that they will be searching for some solution to this little embarrassment, 65 people. and all the while hoping, a heaping of youth upon you and your council for dragging this condition right out in the open. Everywhere in the north we have segregation in effect, but the folks don't recognize it or dare to openly admit it. But very few whites want to mix in the same living quarters or neighborhoods with colored folks who also realize that they should stay among their own elements for the most part. We'll be looking for further development, sincerely yours. Here's one from Boston I want to read. Now let's skip that. Here's one from Boston. Way in a large city in the far west. And so man, I'm gonna give you his name, not going to give you his city for a reason. Use the next letter I'm going to read. I didn't write any of this. It's postmarked in a large city in California by a medical doctor named Weinberg, addressed to me, the iron is for the idea is excellent. Those hypocrites can dish it out, but you have them at their Achilles heel. They can't take it. Keep up the pressure. If they want equality, let them prove it. You're doing a good service in an important matter. Now here's one from Boston. Now I told you I didn't write these letters, especially to any members of the press here, but I'm reading them to you. You can inspect them later if you want to. Dress to me, June the 10th, from Boston. Congratulations on your good work in sending the Negroes to the north. The late Franklin D. Roosevelt never lifted a finger toward integration and carried the solid south for four turns. I suggest when talking to the reporters you ask for the names and addresses of those freedom riders to the South, Jews, ministers, rabbis, and so forth, and ask how many Negroes they want to take care of in their home. Also that Jew president of the NAACP in New York, Fingorn, how many he will take care of. Tell them also you're surprised none of the Negro lovers are meeting the Negroes up here who won't want South. The Jews are responsible for all this Negro trouble, and every politician, judges, police, and other public officials are living in fear of the Jews. A new KKK has been formed in the White House, Kennedy, Kosher, cabinet. The white people of the North are 98 percent with you white Southerners signed. Well, I've got some good ones, but I'm going to read this one. Here's one from a lady in Boston. In my opinion, the program which the Southern states have been forced to develop is exactly what is needed to quell the Northern politicians and various officials of government coercive pressures to subdue all rights to Southern states through illegal court decrees. I was all but frustrated by the laws being brought into action by Northern courts and judges impeding the Southerner in every step to reserve his own way of order regarding race relations. I feel somewhat encouraged by the recent Freedom Ride. North action. The enclosures is a small contribution and so forth. Now, I want to go into a little history with you. The NAACP was organized in 1909 in New York City by five people, four of them white people and extreme socialists. The other was a Negro named W.E.B. Du Bois, who is an admitted member of the Communist Party. It's true what was said in that letter, Arthur Spingorn of New York has a Communist front record that long. and he has been president of the NAACP since 1939 and he succeeded his uncle. And since 1909, no Negro has ever been president of the NAACP. Now the 1928, rather the Communist Party, and I have all the documents for everything I say and I'm well aware of the laws for civil action for slander and also criminal slander laws. And I have everything that I say documented, but in 20 minutes I can't go back to it. But in 1923, the American Communist Party was started here in 1919. Lenin issued orders, which I have documented, for the Communist Party to infiltrate the NAACP. The Communist Party has done so. The 1928 platform of the American Communist Party has been adopted by both the Democratic and Republican parties nationally, and everything that the 1928 American Communist platform stood for is now in effect in the United States of America pertaining to race relations except striking down the various laws against intermarriage like we have in Arkansas between. people of the Negro and Caucasian races. They have infiltrated all the way through. I can't develop that, but that is what happened. In the 1940s, Joseph Stalin, who was a great with his cohorts from the United States like Paul Robeson and others in W.E.B. Du Bois, developed a plan, and I have some maps of it. I couldn't find one to bring, but I do have a documentation of it with me. That they held out to the southern Negro that they were going to set up a black Soviet Republic of the South. That was in the 1940s. I want to develop that for you. The pro-communist... are calling the turn in most of the governmental actions in the United States today. Their methods, their theories and all, and it's being done through organizations like the NAACP, the Americans for Democratic Action Corps, and others. The United States, and they really took over when Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt became president. That's when they moved in with Felix Frankfurter and a lot of his students like Alger Hiss. And Dean, he used to be Secretary of State, nevertheless he'll be back. What's his name? Dean Atkinson. Then the United States Supreme Court took over with their various Supreme Court rulings, knocking out restrictive clauses in housing, private housing in the 1940s, and they came on down when Judge that Scalawag from Charleston, South Carolina, Judge... Jay Waddy's wearing in the 1940s, 1948 I believe it was, said that the Democratic primary, the Democratic Party in the South was not a private political party and in effect out went the word white in the Democratic rules of the South. Up until that time it was a white party. And then we came on down to 1954 when we had the celebrated case of Brown versus Board of Education, about which we've had a lot of trouble. There was, in Montego, Tennessee, a Communist training school. The name of it is Highlander Folk School. I have pictures of it here. Highlander Folk School, it is a Communist training school. And I'm sure I'm right when I say the state of Tennessee closed it up two or three years ago. These Communists who have infiltrated all of these organizations in... trying to put into effect the black Soviet Republic of the South were training people there. Now there was a young Negro of talent going to Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. He was graduated there and he went to Cozier, C-O-Z-I-E-R Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania. And he came under the tutelage of a man named Chalmers, who has a long communist history. He saw a lot of—this fellow Chalmers had been trained. He'd been to Moscow, and he's on the advisory committee of core today, Congress on Racial Equality. He saw in this young man potential, and this fellow Chalmers had already—had also gone to India and had studied about Mahatma Gandhi, the nonviolent, violent passage situation. And who is this young man I'm talking about who is 33 years of age today? His name is Martin Luther King. He got a scholarship from Crozier Seminary and went to Boston University and obtained his doctorate, where he fell under the tutelage of some more of these people. So he was selected. They sent him to Highlander Folk School, and I have his picture with known communists. When he was a professor there in the fall of 1957, when you were hearing so much about Little Rock. He was there. And then what happened? They picked him. Remember Stalin's plan of a black Soviet republic of the South. Then next, they started this southern something Christian nonviolent movement and moved into Montgomery, Alabama. Who was the head of it? Dr. Martin Luther King. He became the darling of all the left-wing commentators and instability that ilk. controls the national radio, the national television, and the national news services. We know in Little Rock, and you do too if you observe, how many times have you seen Dr. Martin Luther King on Meet the Press or Issues and Answers? And Harry Aschmo and people like that, how many times have you seen, what let us say, Orville Falbert? never has seen Amos Guttons on there either, except in a derisive smear of proposition. Anyhow, this thing was going along. Well, the national television, national newspapers and all picked up Dr. Martin Luther King, and he was immediately projected into a position of prominence all over the United States and, I guess, the world. And then what happened? In 1961, to fight for their rights and so forth, there was an organization called CORE. knew by any means. And I have the documentation. The people that are on the advisory board of core, you can't prove that they have communist cards, but you can prove that they are pro-communist in all of their acts. And I have it here, and it's loaded with pro-communists, just like the NAACP is. And it's an interesting thing. that the leaders in core are also leaders in NAACP. It's all interchanged. They're all locked up together. And they're under the leadership of a lot of white people like Eleanor Roosevelt and others too numerous to mention. What did they come south for in 1961? They came south to cause trouble. And I'll find before this situation's over a quote where the head of the American Communist party named Gus Hall, whose real name is Yorberg or something like that, I have it there. He's head of the secretary, general secretary of the American Communist Party. He says that we must get into these things and foment strife and trouble, and the idea is to bring on a revolution and the Soviets take over the United States, and the poor Negro will be a slave of the Red Master. They don't care anything about the Negro. But nevertheless, They did this with the official, or rather unofficial, sanction of high members of the government of the United States, these Freedom Rides they called in 1961. When they moved into Montgomery, Alabama and Birmingham and Jackson, Mississippi, and I have it documented here that Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General of the United States, called the manager of the Greyhound bus terminal in Birmingham, Alabama. the bus drivers, 15 minutes, when the bus drivers would not take the bus out with all of those Negro and white agitators on the bus, Robert Kennedy called him and told him, you better call Mr. Greyhound or somebody and get a driver for that bus, so he can't get one. So he'll get a Negro driver, so he can't get one, so to hell, go out and find one. And I have pictures of Robert Kennedy sitting up all night at his desk calling the mayor of Montgomery. and the governor of Alabama, Governor Patterson, and trying to order those state officials and the city officials of Montgomery around and interceding in this thing, and I also have quotations from him where he says that he helped plan it, and he told this manager, the Greyhound Bus Line, said, we've worked hard to organize this, and we want those riders to go through. So there's Robert Kennedy, the brother of the president of the United States and the man who's in charge of the FBI and, of course, the whole Department of Justice. Now, one other thing, since time is short. I've got about a two-week talk in 20 minutes here. In the May issue of Harper's Magazine, May 1962, there's an article in there by Louis Lomax. Louis Lomax is a Negro, and he writes pro-Negro articles. And the name of that article is the Kennedy's Move on Dixie. You get it and read it. And in that, you know what they say, Robert Kennedy, Jack Kennedy, according to this writer. They say that they're going to get the vote for all of those Negroes. There are 131 counties in the South where there are more Negroes than there are whites. And we're going to elect Negro congressmen from the South. And it goes, it's all through there. The Kennedys move on Dixie. And it goes without saying. If they do that, you'll have Negro county judges, Negro sheriffs, Negro circuit judges, Negro city councilmen and all. And now I say... that this thing in Albany, Georgia started in early July. Why did it start? Dr. Martin Luther King. I say that is to be the implementation of Joseph Stalin's plan in the 1940s to have a black Soviet Republic of the South. And I've got quotations from communist leaders in America today that said, we must get the federal government to come in with troops and enforce the civil rights of the Negroes. So there's the plan, ladies and gentlemen. I had to do it hastily, but after this meeting, I'll be glad to show you anything about what you doubt, about what I'm saying. But now the Freedom Rides North, I've already read you something about that. I'll let the people from Boston and other places argue our case for us on that. But I will say this. We're going to educate those people of the North, those good white people who are in the majority because they don't know. But when they've encountered some of the problems that we have, Maybe we can come to a better understanding. Thank you very much. Moderator: Freedom Rides South against those North Winslow Drummond. Drummond: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guthridge, ladies and gentlemen, I also would like to reiterate everything Mr. Guthridge said with regard to the programs you are conducting here, particularly the work of the Fayetteville Junior Chamber of Commerce. It's virtually impossible for me to define this as a debate in that my text bears little or no resemblance to Mr. Gossard's discussion. In any event, I'm going to proceed in the manner in which I've prepared my discussion, and perhaps we'll iron these things out later on. As I see it, we have to discuss Freedom Rides North and South in terms of legality and morality. volumes have been written on the possible corollary between these two things. But by and large if you measure legality and morality on the same yardstick, morality often outgrips legality. For example, it is my guess that in a Southern community like Fayetteville, the community morality would suggest or dictate that all school children each morning acknowledge the existence of and express words of appreciation to a supreme being. But our legal system prohibits this. In other words, morality has outstripped legality on the yardstick. Because these two things are not correlated in a given area, we often find that immoral conduct continues unabated because it does continue to fall within the sphere of legally permissible conduct. And is this not precisely the description of the so-called reverse freedom ride of which Mr. Guthridge is a leading proponent? If we examine the reverse freedom ride from a legal standpoint, we find only that a group of citizens has invited individuals of a particular race to remove themselves from the community without the necessity of incurring personal travel expenses. The invitation is made in a country where every citizen has the constitutional right to travel from state to state unimpeded. The movement is entirely voluntary. The incentive offered is a minimum incentive, a one-way bus ticket. It's all very legal. But let me interject this at this time, and here I am talking strictly in terms of an hypothesis. If, and I emphasize the if. If. the Capitol Citizens Council has represented to a freedom rider that Hyannis, Massachusetts is a land of milk, honey, and full employment. And if this representation has been made with the intent to induce a rider to travel up there to his own detriment, if, and I emphasize the if, if this has taken place, the membership of the Capitol Citizens Council could well be exposed to a very tidy judgment for damages. But this is the only possible legal sanction, and it would have to be an after-the-fact legal sanction. So I think it is safe to assume that reverse freedom rides are perfectly legal. But let's look at it from a moral standpoint. That is, in light of accepted standards of community decency. and community justice. The Reverse Freedom Ride is characterized by a number of things. First, individual human beings, and more particularly, United States citizens, have been reduced to the status of livestock being shipped to market. Their fare has been paid, space has been purchased for them on a bus, and they depart with the status of merchandise. In the newspapers and in this very auditorium this evening, you have heard quoted the statistics in the Capitol Citizens Council box score, which is gleefully kept current and mounts rapidly as little children are sent off with their parents. How many of these 57 people were, in fact, small children? All of this seems to provide some kind of special satisfaction to the Capitol Citizens Secondly, the Capitol Citizens Council is preying on the minds of the ignorant and the poverty stricken, holding open the door to so-called greener pastures with tongue in cheek all the while. And third, the Capitol Citizens Council members have had not one decent motive in carrying out the entire program. They have stated openly and brazenly, here are the seeds. And in the newspaper. They are trying to harass citizens of other states, that they're trying to annoy and personally embarrass the President of the United States, and that they view this whole thing as nothing more than a practical joke being played on people who live several hundred miles to the north. Have you seen photographs of the council members bidding farewell to travelers at Little Rock bus stations? In my opinion, smiles on their faces reflect a very, very sick sense of humor. It's not enough to say the joke is backfired because it is indeed no joke at all. The anger of the entire world, including the people of our own state, has been voiced in editorials, magazine articles, television and radio commentary, and in other public forums. The distaste for reverse freedom rise is universally held by people of all political faiths, of all economic classes, north and south. It is condemned not only by the militant elements favoring desegregation, It is even condemned by some of the staunchest segregation. The Citizens Council has sought to make pawns out of American citizens. And in a nation where we value the dignity of human beings above all else, we deplore irresponsible tactics. Council has caused our state and our city to again become emblazoned in headlines around the world, headlines of disgrace and dishonor. They have even gone so far as to provide first-class accommodations for a goat. They sent a goat to Hyannis, Massachusetts, to a selectman of Barnstable Township, announcing that this was a delicacy savored by the Arkansas Negro on the 4th of July. They slipped their sides with laughter over this. Every thinking citizen in Arkansas was nauseated by it. Assuming that all of this is legal. It is obvious that the reverse freedom ride cannot meet the standard for morality in the community, in this country, or in the world. The law is not the answer to this thing. The law can do nothing and indeed it should not do anything. The answer lies with you the people, individually and collectively. and whispered statements of dismay will not do the job. Right now in Arkansas, we need a genuine public outburst against this type of activity. This activity and its proponents must be shamed into silence. Now, if you're reluctant to base an appeal against the reverse freedom rides on a moral persuasion, let's look at this thing economically for a moment. During the 1950s, approximately one and a half million non-whites left the South. We know that our state was one of three to suffer a loss of population, approximately 10 percent, during the decade. We sit here and we cry for industry, and we cry for new jobs. We're not overpopulated with Negroes in Arkansas. Twenty-three of our counties have a non-white population of under one percent. 18 others, a Negro population of 18 or 15 percent or less. A valuable human resource, in effect, is being wasted here. And it is being augmented by the Reverse Freedom Ride. The Reverse Freedom Ride's augmentation of the migration north is infinitesimal as far as numbers go. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But it is catastrophic to the state of Arkansas if this is interpreted as the public policy of our state to get rid of its native citizens. We cry for industrial jobs on one hand, and then we turn right around and permit racial strife to keep industries and factories out of our state until we can demonstrate some degree of racial harmony in the context of a surplus labor market. No factories are going to be built here. I would like now to turn to Freedom Ride South. Going back to this initial statement about legality and morality, I will overgeneralize and then later attempt to shatter my own generalization by saying that Freedom Rides South are illegal, but they are highly moral. When I refer to the illegality, that is in the context of state laws and local ordinances which prohibit pro-desegregation demonstrations such as sit-ins, mass prayer meetings, and the Freedom Ride. The Freedom Ride generally involves a racially mixed group, students and clergymen, who come into a city with a great deal of advance publicity. They then attempt to obtain dining service at a lunch counter or dining room in a transportation center. to which they have been delivered by an interstate carrier, such as a bus, plane, or train. Their movements are always distinguished by a complete lack of spirited talk. There is no belligerent and certainly no actual violence. When they arrive in town, so does a large crowd. The crowd is made up of curiosity seekers, among them an inordinate number of teenagers. other travelers who are frequenting the same eating establishments, and a very few vociferous agitators. And as soon as that happens, along comes Mr. John Law. He may arrive before the crowd gets there, but he certainly will arrive after the crowd gets there. He announces that the peace and good order of the community would best be served if the riders got back on their bus. The riders remain passive. The constable then says, a race riot is imminent, the lives and property of our citizens are threatened, and I will save the day and arrest the rioters. And off they go to jail. Now, we have said freedom rides are illegal in the context of this type of law, but are they actually illegal? These demonstrations have all taken place in restaurant facilities operated in interstate commerce. By federal regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, racial segregation in such facilities is prohibited. The United States Supreme Court has held to the same effect. Even our constable friend will admit that federal law controls here and that he understands it, but he argues further, I am acting to preserve lives and property threatened by mob violence. This would be fine except for the completely passive conduct of the freedom riders. So we ask ourselves, what about this constable who has exercised his good judgment? Are not his actions legal? He's trying to preserve peace and harmony in the community. Is he not properly exercising the police power granted to him? The answer to each of these questions is an emphatic no. The Freedom Riders, as already pointed out, remain passive. They only exercise rights already guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States. The only threat to law and order in this type of situation is the welcoming committee, which could better be termed the mob. If the police power is to be directed anywhere, it should be to the mob. True the Freedom Riders partially caused this mob to assemble, but the assembly itself is lawful. Now, we've seen here in our own state how local law enforcement properly handles this type of situation. In August 1959, the Little Rock School Board reopened its schools on a desegregated basis, pursuant to a federal court order. A mass meeting was held on the steps of the State Capitol Building on the morning school open. I saw this meeting from the window of an office building across the street, and Mr. Guthridge, I believe, was among those present at the time. The meeting was convened by an invitation by a Little Rock pastor. Several hundred persons were there. A number of speeches were made in the name of state rights, democracy, and even Christianity. Small children who could barely toddle around were carrying Confederate flags, and they cheered whenever their parents told them to do so. Many of these same persons then left the state capitol and headed for Little Rock Central High School and had the utter gall to do so in the name of the United States, the state of Arkansas, and in the name of God. Before they reached the high school, they encountered the late police chief, Gene Smith, and you know what happened. Now, the federal court helped to cause this mob by ordering the schools open, but Gene Smith didn't move against the federal court. The presence of Negro children in Little Rock Central High School helped cause this mob, but Gene Smith didn't imprison them or even remove them from the schools. The speakers on the Capitol step certainly helped to cause this mob. You should have heard some of the things that were said. But Gene Smith didn't arrest them. they were exercising their rights under a constitution which they turned around a few minutes later and tried to subvert. No, Gene Smith stepped into the picture only when a clear and present danger was presented by the mob to lives and property in the neighborhood of the high school. The police power was properly directed in that instance, and that is where it should have been directed. And the same applies to your freedom rider demonstration. The mob is the dangerous element, not these passive people sitting and eating a meal. What I'm getting at is this, constitutional rights in this country cannot be diluted or canceled merely because they may provoke lawless conduct by others. And the point was made perfectly clear in the opinion of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the Little Rock School case of Aaron against Cooper. These are great words. Listen to them. The time has not yet come in these United States when an order of a federal court must be whittled away or shamefully withdrawn in the face of violence. Going a bit further, even if we can see the legality of the freedom riders, are they not a bunch of rabble-rousers? And to this question comes the ready answer, if they're rabble rousers, are we not the rabble? and what is wrong with rabble rousers anyway. When Patrick Henry said, I care not course what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty and give me death, he wasn't calling for a spelling bee. You look at words like this, what country has existed a century and a half without rebellion? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. They're not the words of Karl Marx, they're the words of Thomas Jefferson. Our American forefathers exhorted men even to the point of war. Rouse the rabble, my friends, they advocated and achieved the overthrow of established government by force and violence. If I may paraphrase the words of the Smithers. We revere these men for their conduct, and yet we look at scant that modern-day rabble-rousers who act entirely within the law because they may tend to upset our way of life down here. Rabble rousing of the most despicable sort has enjoyed legal protection in this country for years. It's part of our American tradition. It's the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. What I'm saying here is that fighting words, fighting actions are permitted so long as they remain within the sphere of ideas. I've attempted here and perhaps badly to affect some kind of transition from legality to morality by putting it in the context of American tradition. It should be interesting to note that no freedom rider here is running around in disguise. He's not trying to avoid law enforcement. To the contrary, the freedom rider is deliberately exposing himself to possible violence, to the penalties of laws as they are on the books now, and might say they are placing themselves on an altar of imprisonment, derision, and even pain. If you view such conduct completely in the abstract, is there anything which more closely approaches our concept of the epitome of morality? Freedom Riders seek to effect change through orderly processes of law. They are offering themselves as a test case for eventual presentation to the United States Supreme Court. One such case was decided by the Court on June 4th of this year. They are convinced that their cause is just and that the law which they desire will emerge. And in the meantime, they swallow whatever is dished out. Our entire system has developed through this method what is referred to as civil disobedience, a willingness to violate the law and endure the appropriate punishment. in the hope that an unjust law might thereby be nullified by judicial decision or legislative enactment. Civil disobedience was the trademark of Henry David Thoreau, and it was advocated by someone no less than Mr. Justice Story of the United States Supreme Court, who stated a century ago, the privilege of bringing every law to the test of the Constitution belongs to the citizens who owes no obedience to any legislative act which transcends the constitutional limits. So finally, you must ask yourself this question. Even though we don't like freedom riders down here, and we don't like what they're trying to impress on our society, are they to be condemned as illegal, immoral, and un-American? And second, a more personal question, if you will. Would I, if I believed in something strongly enough— have the gut to endure what the freedom riders are enduring in pursuance of their objectives. It seems to me that in a world torn between two competing ideologies, in a world where we are interested in maintaining strength and unity with other nations, the Southern States have perhaps lost their perspective as to what are the crucial issues of this decade. How long are we going to continue cursing the federal government, cursing the federal courts, as we dispense in quantity heartaches, turmoil, and even blood in an attempt to forestall the inevitable? This, for all of us as citizens, is preeminently the time for a re-evaluation of our role as American citizens and a re-dedication to the cause of social justice for all mankind. Moderator: in rebuttal, Mr. Guthridge. Guthridge: The Freedom Riders of 1961, so dear to the heart of Mr. Drummond, admit that they spent eight million dollars a week, eight million dollars a week on those rides. They, according to the United States News and World Report of May the 7th, 1962, they had a training school in Miami, Florida, and I know they had one in Houston, Texas and other places. to train these riders, both white and Negro, to come into the South again this year. I want to ask, and others have asked, where is that money coming from to support those freedom riders, those agitators who come into the South with the idea of getting arrested and the idea of getting in jail? When Martin Luther King gets in jail, he gets mad when some unknown person pays his bond. That's a part of the plan. Now when almost a hundred ministers, rabbis, clergymen from New Jersey and New York, they both white and colored, block traffic, Parade around without a permit from the city of Albany, Georgia, created disturbance. They're referred to by Mr. Drummond and the national press as groups. But if a white group meets anywhere, it's a mob. Now you listen and you watch for that. Now Mr. Drummond dwells a lot on headlines that we've caused all over the world. Mr. Drummond, and I want to say to this audience, you have seen no headline. But those that are coming, unless this agitation, backed by the Communist Party of the United States, which is backed by the international communist conspiracy, formulating racial strife in the South, you've seen no headlines yet, and you'll be lined up one way or the other because they won't be able to tell you from me. And that's sad but true. That is the plan. And it's working, and I didn't hear any rebuttal about that. Now, about how much money did we spend in Little Rock, sending those 57 people? We spent less than $3,000 total in two months. And we have over 40 on the waiting list. With the difference between the core Freedom Riders South and the Freedom Riders North, we don't have any more money. We're not backed by the unseen organizations and... money from foundations and so forth tax exempt in the large northern and eastern cities. But none of our people have come back to my knowledge that we've sent. We do have over 40 who want to go. And a lot of them, most of them up there are doing real well. And well, thank you very much. Moderator: in rebuttal, Mr. Drummond. Drummond: Dr. Guthridge mentioned that $8 million a week was being spent on Freedom Rides South. I guess I should have mentioned that in addition to blood, pain, and derision, they're also enduring substantial stock in the pocketbook. As I gathered in listening to Mr. Guthridge's remarks, we are confronted here with a plot by the NAACP, CORE, the Communist Party, Jews, the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and others. Frankly, in listening to them, I almost wanted to join all of those groups. They sound quite appealing. Incidentally, I noticed in the Northwest Arkansas Times this afternoon that I had been referred to the Junior Chamber of Commerce by a former counsel for the NAACP. I think it might be well to state at this time, I do not belong to the NAACP, to CORE, to the Communist Party. I am a Protestant. I am a Democrat. A great point has been made here that hypocrisy exists in the North, that segregation exists in the North, and that is all very true. I've lived in the North. I was born there. I was brought up in the South. I decided to go North to college. I came back to the South to law school and decided to live in the South. There is segregation in the North, and there is hypocrisy in the North, but that does not justify the reverse freedom ride in any way. The issue here is how we handle our own problems and how we value individual human beings, more particularly our own native citizens here in the state of Arkansas. As I see it, that issue has not yet been discussed by the other side. Moderator: The floor is now open for questions to be demanded. Are there any questions for you, ladies and gentlemen? Question is, by meeting the reverse freedom ride, did Ted Kennedy encourage the people to come up north? Drummond: I think perhaps he did. I am sure that a Little Rock Negro in a situation where he would want to take advantage of a bus ride of this kind would look forward to the opportunity to meet the President's brother, if nothing else, particularly if the transportation was paid for. As I mentioned in the course of my initial discussion, the numbers involved here doesn't amount to anything. The 57 people. They don't amount to anything. The fact that so many others are waiting, and it's interesting to note the Citizens Council is having a hard time getting money to send them. That's not the important thing. Because we're not concerned so much with the numbers, despite the glee the Citizens Council seems to take in the numbers. We should be concerned more. about the fact that we are casting an image to the entire world that Arkansas is sending its people away. That's the thing that hurts, and that's what hurts when your Junior Chamber of Commerce or the Little Rock Junior Chamber of Commerce tries to bring some kind of industry into our state to develop a state and our economy is sliding. We're trying to keep pace with the rest of the country, and then we display this kind of thing to the rest of the world. That, in my opinion, is what we should be concerned about, not the fact that Ted Kennedy has perhaps encouraged a few people to come north. I don't think that'll make the slightest dent in this migration. It's not gonna step it up at all. Moderator: Mr Guthridge, do you think the South would be better off with an all-fight population? Guthridge: I never had thought of that. We've always had Negro people here. We have, and we've always gotten along well comparatively speaking, especially since the days of slavery. The Negro people in the South have made more progress in a hundred years than the Negro race did from time beginning up until that time. But we've got a long fine here. And this communist... projected situation to cause racial tension in the South is destined to upset it. I have great affection for the Negro people, but that doesn't mean that I want to go all the way of what the Communist Party is espousing in social mixture and amalgamation and mongolization, which is exactly what we're having in other parts of the United States, which you know, and it's being applauded. intermarriage and so forth. I'm against that, but I just never had thought about that, about whether or not we should have, that we'd be better off if we had an all-white South. But I will say this to you, for all the Negroes that are dissatisfied in the South, I for one will be glad to help send them to New England, the dissatisfied ones, to the place where they were first... brought from the teeming jungles of Africa to the shores of New England by those Yankee traders there, the forebears of those people that are yelling so loudly up there today. When they couldn't stand the cold weather at that time out of the jungles of Africa there, what did they do? The traders took them on their boats and headed to the fourth largest port in the United States, one time the largest, I think Charleston, South Carolina, and New Orleans, Louisiana. And they do say... and other places along the southern seaboard. They do say that the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the third and fourth generations, I believe, in the Bible. And we are reaping today what our forefathers sowed when they brought those Negroes from Africa because God put those Negroes in Africa, and we're reaping that whirlwind. And I say that is the greatest sin. that has ever been perpetrated by the Caucasian race. Moderator: Why was Hyannis Port picked as a place for the Freedom Riders to go? Mr Guthridge: The South has been the whipping boy of the northern politicians, northern educators, and certain northern clergymen for way more than a hundred years. Now the Negroes have infiltrated those northern cities to where they are the balance of power in those large electoral states in presidential elections and other elections. Very important to those politicians politically. If we send a few Negroes to Chicago, that's nothing. They have more Negroes in the city of Chicago today than we do in the state of Arkansas. We are trying to, we know that the majority of the white people in the North do not understand our problem because they can't. Many of them have never seen a Negro in small communities. We have received abuse and every form of oppression. by Robert Kennedy and plans for more, and others of his ilk like Jacob Javits, Senator Hubert Humphrey, Sophie Williams, and so forth. And what we plan to do is to send those who want to go, and they've all been happy about it, that have gone to places in the north where they will be seen. And we thought could think of no better place than Hyannis Port during the summer season where the millionaires from all over that part of the United States come, where there are a lot of jobs, and where they could be there were there are those who espouse this brotherhood like Robert Kennedy, alleged brotherhood, Robert Kennedy and others who have been conspicuously absent from Hyannis Port all summer up until recently. Where they could be there... and where we could make our point. And it's, we did more with the few hundred that have gone from the South this summer than all of the Freedom Riders South did. I've got an article there about the, how they had planned with these pro-communist teachers, that they had these schools. They were going to have freedom highways this summer. And you know what? They were going to start in May. And when the New Orleans Citizens Council started, sent their first Negroes out, that put the brakes on it. And if we have accomplished nothing else, we stopped. freedom riders south. And when they stop and get off of our backs, we'll stop. He said something about guts and you admire somebody that will stand up. Well, we will stand up. We believe in racial integrity. We're not against the Negro. But we may lose, we may win. But I'll tell you this in this citadel of liberalism in the state of Arkansas that fight will not go by default. Mr Guthridge: That's really good question, director. That's really good question. I agree with you. I want to read you something documented. This is in the Congressional record. There was a Well, I'm reading from this here. I will quote, verbatim, from yet another official Communist Party document of directive written by one Israel Cohen, a Communist Party top functionary in England. And this was written in 1913. That was a great year for the United States, too. among a lot of other things. This is a quote from Mr. Israel Cohen, a top communist functionary in England in 1913."},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1782","title":"Court filings regarding Court order filed May 12, 2004 requiring glossary of acronyms and educational terms, plaintiff's response to the order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2004-05"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Court order filed May 12, 2004 requiring glossary of acronyms and educational terms, plaintiff's response to the order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1782"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing documents in response to the Court order filed May 12, 2004; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing glossary of acronyms and educational terms in response to the Court's order filed May 12, 2004; 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.    A072A (Rev.8182) ECEIVED MAY 1 -\" 2004 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT,COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAY 1 2 - LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ --=-=-=-=::-:-:::-:= DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAY 1 '. 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER In preparing for the June 14 and 15 evidentiary hearing on LRSD 's Compliance Report, it is apparent that a number of matters need to be brought to the attention of counsel for LRSD and Joshua: (1) The LRSD Board, in approving the October 10, 2002 \"Compliance Plan,\" also adopted \"IL-Rl ,\" which sets forth ''the written procedures for evaluating the 2. 7 programs.\" While the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan is attached as Exhibit A to LRSD's March 14, 2003 ''Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Court's Compliance Remedy'' (docket entry #3745), \"IL-R 1\" is not attached to that document or otherwise included in the record. Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with a copy of \"IL-RI.\" (2) Exhibit A to LRSD's \"Compliance Report\" is an October 25, 2002 letter from Mr. John Fendley, one of LRSD's attorneys, to all parties, responding to certain written \"concerns\" raised by Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, regarding 864 A072A (Rev.8/82) LRSD's proposed \"Compliance Plan.\" In oroer for the Court to place Mr. Fendley's October 25, 2002 letter in context, I need the following additional documents: (a) Mr. Walker's October 10 and 24, 2002 letters to Mr. Fendley raising his \"concerns\" about the \"Compliance Plan\"; and (b) a copy of the document that Mr. Fendley repeatedly quotes Mr. Walker referring to in his October 10 and October 24, 2002 letters as ''your document.\"1 Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with copies of the foregoing documents. (3) In my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I thought I made it clear that I am a big fan of plain English and have no desire to learn the acronym-filled lexicon of the professional educator. Therefore, I am now directing counsel to comply with the following rules in all oral and written communications with the Court in this case: (a) Do not use any educational acronyms unless they are first defined. The pleadings that I have reviewed to date in preparing for the June 14 and 15 hearing are littered with references to \"SAIPs,\" \"DRAs,\" \"DIBELs,\" \"ELLA,\" \"CRT,\" \"SMART,\" \"THRIVE,\" \"ACTAAP,\" \"SREB,\" \"CREP,\" and \"SFA.\" Counsel for LRSD must immediately prepare a glossary which defines all acronyms used in all exhibits attached to LRSD's Compliance Report. A copy of this glossary is to be provided forthwith. 11 speculate that \"your document\" is probably LRSD's \"Compliance Plan,\" which I already have. If my speculation is correct, LRSD's counsel should so advise me and need not provide the Court with a copy of that document. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) (b) During the hearing on June 14 and I 5, please instruct your witnesses to testify usingplain English- not professional educatorese. Based upon the parties' previous written submissions and testimony taken in earlier hearings, I fear this may pose a significant challenge for some of the witnesses (and me). If so, I encourage these witnesses to begin now to practice speaking in plain English, so that they will be ready to testify by the June 14 and 15 hearing. ( 4) On or before June 7, 2004, counsel for Joshua and LRSD must submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under Section VII of the Court's September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. (5) On April 22, 2004, we had a telephone conference during which LRSD's Compliance Hearing was rescheduled from April 26 and 27, 2004, to June 14 and 15, 2004. During that telephone conference, I stated that I would make every effort to render my decision on LRSD's Compliance Report by June 30, 2004. Based upon my current work load, I now believe the earliest I will be able to enter my decision is thirty to sixty days after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this / ~ay of May, 2004. -3- TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Robert Pressman Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley \u0026gt; .-'/Z-v'( Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 781-862-1955 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 - TI1ere are j_ pages, including this Cover Sheet, being s~nt by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2004 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing states: 1. Attached are the following documents requested by the Court in its Order filed May 12, 2004: A. Little Rock School District Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 (Appendix 1 of which is \"IL-RI\"); B. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002; and, C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walker's references to \"your document,\" the Court is correct that Mr. Walker is referring to the Proposed Compliance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 1 of 3 3. As to the educational acronyms, Counsel has requested that the authors of the comprehensive evaluations immediately prepare a glossary of acronyms used in their respective evaluations. These will be consolidated into a single glossary for all exhibits and provided to the Court as soon as possible. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: { P,,, ~ \\-..U ._ Christopher Heller Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 13, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~\\UP-..~ Christopher Heller Page 3 of 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan 2.7.1 ...  EXHIBIT I ft The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") finding that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), with the exception Revised Plan  2. 7 .1. Section 2. 7 .1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed \"Compliance Remedy\" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the \"details\" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan  2. 7 provided, \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" 1 B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g. , all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance  Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent t!1ey may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. *** F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with 2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Court's Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Court's Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Court's Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan; numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Court's use of the term \"assessment\" in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesley's testimony on the difference between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation,\" see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3 It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between \"testing data,\" which . are derived from student assessments, and \"program evaluations,\" which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. See Opinion, p. 152 (''LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the \"program evaluations\" to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 ... \" (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term \"assessment\" in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Compliance Committee to determine the District Court's intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Court's findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African-American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term \"assessment\" to refer to student assessments and the term \"evaluation\" to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Given Paragraph A's reference to ''testing data,\" it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part, student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02. The administration recommended this for three reasons: (1) the loss of instructional time resulting from testing and test preparation; (2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous spring' s results; and (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall administration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD. This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26, 2002. Third, the LRSD will no longer administer the AL Ts. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the AL Ts for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks; (2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4 - testing and test administration; (3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSD's administration of the ALTs redundant; and (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26, 2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") has moved the administration of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade2 Grade4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, IL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5 Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, ~ Robby Champion, \"Map Out Evaluation Goals,\" Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached as Appendix 3. This regulation will be submitted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for review and comment before being :finalized. Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Court's concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 (\"I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters' worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSD's African-American students were actually working.\"). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\". See Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 6 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: ( a) Primary Reading/Language Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15, 2004. Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare new, comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph A's description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD \"must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 . . . \" The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of \"some of the key programs,\" as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (\"In addition to the \"Assessment Plan,\"  2. 7 .1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing \"evaluations\" of some of the key programs designed to improve African-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs.\" (emphasis in original)). In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations \"of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. See Opinion, p. 156 (\"[A]s of March 15, 2001 , the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court: (1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question; (2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board . .. . \" (emphasis in original)). The District Court's statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, \"All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003.\" However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 until March 15, 2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15, 2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of\"the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7.\" See Paragraph A of Compliance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph A's requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31, 2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15, 2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest time and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve African-American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph C's requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert \"to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report\" applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include \"[a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing .... \" Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the external consultant \"may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation.\" Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSD's practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows: 1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . He was asked to Fead a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (''NSF\") program officer who over-sees the LRSD's implementation of the grant-funded 8 3. 4. Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement (\"CPMSA\"). NSF trained a team ofLRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate our :findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage ( computer programmer). Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (\"ESL\") program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education administration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson ( assistant superintendent), Krista Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, technical and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending on the expertise that is required for a credible report. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed: 1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of 2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years: 1999-2000, 2000-01 , and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (\"SEDL'') to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watson's principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 11. Collaborative Action Team (\"CAT\"). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. 12. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, \"LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report.\" The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court ''will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications.\" It is unclear whether an \"expert from outside the LRSD\" must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, or whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with \"similar qualifications.\" The District Court's findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified ''that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations.\" Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be \"completed\" by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (\"CLTs\"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committee's proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Compliance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving African-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to \"complete\" an evaluation. 11 Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CL Ts during 2000-01 . A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CL T training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12 - Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this Week of September 30, Clay Fendley proposed Compliance Plan 2002 Ken James to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, Week of October 7, 2002 Attorneys suggested revisions from Ken James ODM and Joshua. Compliance Team 3. Place Compliance Plan October 10, 2002 Ken James on the agenda for Board Attorneys review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 13 - 8. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 10. Form a screening team Late October 2002 Ken James to determine Compliance Team recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 11. Select and negotiate Mid-November 2002 Bonnie Lesley consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff Mid-November 2002 Ken James to each external expert to Bonnie Lesley provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to Mid-November Bonnie Lesley ensure timely completion. 2002-February 2003 14. As each J)aper is December 2002-February Bonnie Lesley completed and ready for 2003 circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 14 - 15. As each paper is December 2002-F ebruary Ken James completed, place on the 2003 Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim March 15, 2003 Attorneys Compliance Report relating Compliance Committee to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's - Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 15 - 21. Monitor the completion May-October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and - Joshua for information. 25. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. - 16 Appendix 1 Proposed IL-Rl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Boardapproved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994 ). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows:  Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed.  Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance.  Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of cljents and other specified stakeholders.  . Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear.  Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1  Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion.  Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.  Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained.  Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted.  Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.  Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants.  Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it.  Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated  with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed.  Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed.  Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2   evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluator's allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated.           Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively.  Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3   Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for th~ production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team shall include, at a minimum, one or more specialists .in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4 as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, \"Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (See Policy IL, 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must be included. (See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports 'to the Superintendent's Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua lntervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; 5 Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). \"Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches.\" Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks:  to monitor the completion of assignments;  to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data;  to pose any necessary new questions to be answered;  to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer;  to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of AfricanAmerican achievement;  to assist in final proofreading; and  to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board's agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua lntervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 6 11. The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilson's \"Compliance Remedy\"): A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See \"Joellen Killion (2002). \" Evaluate the Evaluation.\" Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7 Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions \"Academic Program\" means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. \"Significantly modify\" means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program; (b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 1 Appendix 3 Robby Champion, \"Map Out Evaluation Goals,\" Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002 78 .CHAMPION ,;Map .out evaluat:i:o.n  goals A master plan can guide yo_u down the rocky path of ~valuatio~  W . hen you launch a inajor professional dev~lop,nent evaluation, regardless of the . project's scope, you may quickly find yourself on a slippery, often rocky road, . . . . with twists and unexpected turns. . .  Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a  master plan. While itTequires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avciid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are ~aunching a major, summative program evaluation. A \"summative\" evaluation is done at major junctures in a  program's life. cy~le and emphasizes . docu~ menting impact Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue,  alter, expan.d, downsize, or eliminate it A \"formative\" evaluation, on the other hand, means  monitoring and collecting.data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Fonnative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would:  Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions;  Create a realistic tirneline and work plan that  Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting. You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbell'Canyon, Mora, NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-.mail: Robbychampion@aol.com. provides .needed momentum for the work; . :  Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions . throughout the process;  Help recruit people to assist with the project ' on.the myriad evaluation.tasks;   Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whetper your evaluation must be   completed within a few months or will extend . for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE  PROCESS  L Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. . 2. Learn moreabout program evaluation together.  3: Write a clear description of each  program to be.evaluated: 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the ,evaluation. . .5. Plan how you will keep. everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically  . with program evaluati_on, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities might push the effort aside. . Provide steering committee members with the tools to ~ucceed. Mem~ers need not be evalu- National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002. : .on:experis, but they do need informa- . . . on, support, and guidance to make infoirued decisions .. They need background material to learn about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on prof~ssional development, measurement, arid the content areas of the training programs. Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the \"New Teacher..Induction Program\" or  the \"Early Literacy Initiative\" since s6 many different initiatives are being under-  ta.ken simultaneously arciund the school or  district.  PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the  evaluation.'  2. Generate potential data sources/ . instruments to address the questions .. a  3. Using a matrix to provide a j. . Wrd's-eye .view, agree on the most important questions .and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to m~e the evaluation manageable.  5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense: quantitative vs. qualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data. collection. .7. Detennine a realistic schedule for . collecting data. . . 8. Create a system for coJiecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase II are critical. They detennine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine  and what to ignore. When you finish with ~ the design phase, your program evaluation Will be shaped to .use a quantitative or a , qualitative model - or a mixture of the two. In the design phase, you make other - jor decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to  do ~ in-depth case study, whether to t a It j .n g m e :a s :u r e ON THE WEB. See. an example of a matnx.'to help guide evaluations at:  www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ champion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of student work instead of official do_cuments such as .student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to . judge adult learners' understanding of the training .content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or student feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate , evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering cornmittee may drift  into the realm of program planning as you  encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve prograrnJeaders in your discussions . Developing or gathering insn:uments and then collecting the data:are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect,  from whom to collect it. or where to find it, and the best time to collect it Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some public records, such as student attendance, may be valuable if, for example, \"20% increase in student attendance at all grade levels\" is one of your program's indica-  tors of impact PHASE  Ill: PREPARE TO REPORT  1 .. Determine which audiences will want to .lrnow the results. 2. Consider several forums and  formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results usefuJ. to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about . the schedule for data collection, five- . JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council minute progress updates in faculty meet- . ings, bulleted statements on your.web site, a digital picture. album of the program's results in classrooms with . photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with exampl~s of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of . five pages or less to belp;readers get the essential information, PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for  the whole eve.luatiori .. 2. Create a realistic timeline. . 3. Assign work . . .4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomplish all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project. Enlist .stee~g committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented .critical friends to get' the work done.  One caution: .For formal or sumrnative evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the. program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to pe:rf orm critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality technical . expertise for the ritical technical  analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation. usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, policies, and. practices of your prof es-' . s1onal development programs - their goals, content, processes, and. contexts. In fact,revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major  changes are needed if. significant results are really expected from professional  development. People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. II 79 JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark . 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LA w 1723 BROADWAY LI'ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITI'LE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net - This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSD's proposed Compliance Plan. The court's remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before today's Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as \"implementation pursuant to Section 2.7 . .. \", which are to be subjected to a \"comprehensive program evaluation . . . \" Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions / \"scaffolding\" -- areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wtlson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate. The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the court's remedy. - 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluat~io111ns------.. \"\" EXHIBIT t5 i mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns, which Joshua ma'y ultimately have about the court's remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the court's views on an appropriate remedy. JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record ----------- - ------------ OCT.24.2002 9:06AM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHNW. WA.LR:ER SID.WN CRILDS Mr. Christopher Heller JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L!'M'LE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: N0 . 963 P.2 Oli'COUNBEL ROBERT McBENR.Y, P.A. DONNAJ. McHENXY 821D Hzm\u0026gt;ERSON ROAD Lmu Rocx, ARKANshS 72210 P'l!ONE: (5-01) 372-3425  PAX (501) 372-8428 :E;MAn.: mchemyd@awb\u0026lt;ill.net _ 1bis letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration. l. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data In the past, LRSD bas used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that \"Conflict of Interest\" must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the ''team\" process for preparin,g evaluations, again in the context of \"conflict of interest.\" In order to insure that \"conflict of interest\" is avoided, the \"external consultant\" needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the \"Program Evaluation Procedures\" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LR.SD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the ~ntent of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory p~rf ormance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board oftbe evaluations which it .;., - . j EXHIBIT I C, 10/ 24 / 2002 THU 09: 03 [TX/ RX NO 8580 l ~ 002 -------- --- ------------- ,,. o. r,-,,T.. . 24. 2002 8: 07AM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.963 P.3  Page Two October 23, 2002 requires the staff to undertake should make clear th.at the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see \"Accuracy Standards,\" para. 2). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of A:fricnn American students for the indefinite future, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/ 2002 THU 09 : 03 [TX/RX NO 8580] la)003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAY 2 n 2004 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Filing states: 1. fu response to the Court's Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of - Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol g~ B~ Page 1 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 w. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 2 of 2 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS - Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan) - Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALT's in September 2002. ANCOV A (Analysis of Covariance) ANO VA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for correct answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) -Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses student's individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areas-reading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking. CAP (Concepts about Print) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses children's knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team)-A process designed to increase stakeholders' involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories) - Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams) - A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a child's progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral r~ading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas) - A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. - EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE - An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help 8th and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program ffiPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of curriculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement Test JR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science) - A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineering. LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ- Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items correctly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) - An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank corresponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science education NSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31, 2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence)-A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) -A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through 3rd Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACT AAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying - formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth. (Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, community members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8th and 9th grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address . pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score :- Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesn't mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional \"raw scores.\"  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvement TAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared. Arkansas RECEIVED J~l~ 1 - 2004 DEPARTMENT OF EDUC4ETE8fiuromNG 4 STATE CAPITOL MAil.  LfITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http:/ / arkedu.kl2.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director May 28, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 BNIHDllNDW NDllVB3HB3S30 :l033l:l:l0 +aoz - r nnr 03/\\l303H RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier --------------- STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock  Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Luke Gordy, Van Buren  Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUH 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION faONITORING 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 the ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2004. Respectfully Submitted, ,g1t ii.db Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith; certify that on May 28, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. 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 RECEIVED JUN 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION ;;i ONITORING 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 INTERVENOR$ 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 May 31, 2004 Based on the information available at April 30, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Endin9 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_706","title":"Reading recovery","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Literacy","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Reading recovery"],"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/706"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["143 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1996  SB Reading teachers hit the books in LR f BY LINDA S. CAILLOUET  Democrat-Gazelte Staff Writer Schools out for students, but for teachers interested in improving elementary reading skills, its back to the classroom for the next two weeks. About 60 Reading Recovery teachers from across the country are at the Little Rock Hilton to learn about a program Anne Allen and Linda Dorn began at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Later this summer, another group will arrive for a second session, Reading Recovery is a program for children with reading problems that was founded in New Zealand during the 1960s and is now used successfully internationally. From it, Allen and Dorn developed their Early Literacy program. Its sort of like a dance, Allen said, summing up the relationship behveen the Reading Recovery and Early Literacy programs. The child leads: the teacher follows. But the teacher is able to take every step the child takes and teach him along the way. Gradually, theyre waltzing out the door. Reading Recovery is a pro-am for first-graders with reading problems. In it, specially trained teachers work one-on-one with pupils for 30 minutes a day. In Arkansas, about 170 teachers work with about 6,500 students in the local Reading Recovery program established six years ago. Early Literacy was created as a way to make the most of the specialized Reading Recovery teachers who were only working with four students a half a day, said Allen, a Reading Recovery trainer at UALR. Early Literacy also reaches out to more children with reading difficulties. When Allen and Dorn created Early Literacy, they included kindergarten, second-and third- graders, as well as first-graders. Instead of working one-on-one, teachers work with a group of four or five.   Early Literacy uses some Reading Recovery techniques  such as teaching children how to solve problems. ' '~ When a child gets stuck with a word, the teacher doesn't tell him the word but instead asks him questions about it, Allen said. Both Reading Recovery and Early Literacy are funded by the state Legislature through the state Department of Education, Allen said. Its an intervention program, not a remedial program, one participant, Grace Sims of Riverside,- Calif,, said of Reading Recov-\" ery.^Ve identify the students who are going to need help in the future and begin interveni^, she said. - Sims, a Reading Recovery teacher, wants to do the same' with Early Literacy techniques, by reaching out to more students,. Sandra Dennison of Hannibal, Mo,, agreed. I came to better the way I represent the first-graders in my district. FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1999  Arkansas Democrat (Gazette District plans B shift gears on reading ii.'.T The group began its work last September but based much of it on goals established in the districts five-year strategic plan and its desegregation plan. Still other resources included the recommenda- LRe^Iy-grades proposal I tions of a district reading and mathematics work group established in 1996 and the results of a district ftKls social promotion .*4^:3Y CYNTHIA HOWELL -f' ARK.ANS.AS DEMOCRAT-G.AZETTE ^a' Ajjroposai to change the way the ypungest children in Uie Little Rock District are taught to read ambrite calls for an end to social fhpmotions, or advancing pupils to thevnext grade before they are reS\u0026amp;y. ^Other pronsions in the draft lit- e\n^ plan presented to the district Sdmbl Board for the first time i Mufsday call for B-9eservuig and treating as sa- eced. 27rhours each day for Ian- I guage arts instruction in prekindergarten through third grade.  Abandoning numerous reading programs currently used in various schools in the district unless proven successful in terms of student achievement  Providing as many as 400 prima- ly-grade teachers with training in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELL.A) program, which is designed to help teachers incorporate the best-known strategies for  teaching reading in their classrooms.  A redesigned elementary school report card to provide more specific . Information to parents about Lhetr-childs academic progress.  The development of after-school anijfjsummer-school clinics and oth- erl^teiventions to prevent pupils from failing reading before the end of^ch school year. \u0026gt;the' literacy pn Jthe' program for pre- ! kinjiergarten through third grade ' wSs-developed by a district commit- tee of teachers, school district administrators and others with expertise in early childhood education. The committee was chaired by Pat Price, the districts director of early childhood education. reading summit held at that time.  The board did not act on the drafLThursday. Superintendent Les Gamine saiathe proposal now will be circu- la^sdjor comment among district facpl^ for comments and reaction. Components of the plan could be pijl-ihto place by next fall. Some tegchers have already undergone literacy training and more than 70 ( are signed up for a summer session.\n'The literacy plans goals are to eliminate the practice of social promotions and to put into place an instructional program and support necessary to ensure that all children can read independently by the time they complete third grade. 'The proposal does not include statistics on how many students are socially promoted each year, but it does include information showing that 70 percent of district fourth- graders scored at or below basic levels on the states new Grade Four Benchmark exam in the spring of 1998. Only 28 percent of , theistudents scored at a proficient level, which is considered passing, and 2 percent scored at an ad- vanced level. The Literacy Committee called the^cores unacceptable. 'Ihe committee also expressed concerns about the proliferation of reading programs throughout the distinct and the lack of understanding-on how the programs can or should fit together. 'Die committee listed more than 20 different literacy-related programs that are in use in the elementary schools. i'\"fS 2 2 1999 OlfICEOF FINAL REPORT LRSD EARLY LITERACY INITIATIVE FEBRUARY 18, 1999COMMITTEE MEMBERS Pat Price, Early Childhood Gene Parker, Jr., Reading Dr. Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Judy Teeter, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Ann Freeman, Smart Start Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation \u0026amp; Monitoring Dr. Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2LRSD EARLY LITERACY INITIATIVE In accordance with the goals and strategies of the Districts Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court- approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades pre-k through two is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish this committee, which has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices within the reading education arena nation-wide,  and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the Districts 1998-99 identified priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above, this committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: Review current District curriculum and assessment and determine current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. Review the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identify possible gaps or discrepancies between the initiative components and the District curricular focus. Identify all supplemental reading programs currently in use in District primary level classrooms and note compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. Also, determine whether supplemental efforts strengthen or hinder continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. Draw conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarize key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Recommend key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. Recommend key resources and necessary collaborations. 3Current District Curriculum In April 1998 the LRSD Board for kindergarten and Assessment of Directors approved through grade 6, which new Distripf ' o. wnich now serve to Standards istnct-wide multicultural reading/language arts crrip i student to refine these guiding standards to ensurelhat tLv a Additional work has been done Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with^the intend Initiative. intent of the new statewide Smart Start mastery of the thXls grade level benchmarks that will serve as process i ce,a,o a riy  aahool due fcTSr'- '.\"Prehensive .eacher .Snhe \u0026gt; pull-out reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing L^esstent T ^district-adopted at achieving continuity of effort from traX? .  of sufficient funding aimed school to school within the District. ^ch school and from training, lack of staff to programs, lack of consistent monitor and assist all use of District-adopted to Additional curriculum transition from literacy education efforts coordination is needed to ensure experiential learning to skill across the District. . . . continuity of effort and acquisition among PreK K appropriate and primary level The Arkansas State-Wide Smart Start Initiative The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas. expected levels will P'-omotePthe'missfon o?Smart^ administrators, all activities matter content, curriculum alignment with fop assessment results, the utihzaln\"o^\"Xfogv topics related to subject gy and distance learning. Student Assessment - Will be clearlv ,i\n j . classroom instruction. Frameworks and _Accu,abili,y _ After standards are clearly con.nnicared --------available\nand reliable, valid activities have been made staff development assessments have been 4developed and administered\nschools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs will be conducted during 1998-99 to include training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2, Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to Frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams will be continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4 during the interim period in which the state will be developing additional assessment components. Various departments within the Districts Instructional Resource Center have been working with state department employees on the development of components of the Smart Start Initiative. Also several District employees assisted the state in the initial Smart Start State Training sessions. This collaboration has helped to ensure that the District is in sync with the overall state focus. As a result no gaps or discrepancies exist between the District and state efforts. Supplemental Reading Programs Currently in Use A variety of supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs: Jostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining programs/methods are: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metra Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. As many as six supplemental programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, and four schools are implementing six programs. The program descriptions are as follows\nJostens, New Century, and (CCC) Computer Curriculum Corporation Programs - are computer-based instructional programs used in elementary schools. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons, practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. 5support. process that Primary features include\nI. Literacy support groups Une-to-one tutoring 3. Individualized instruction 4. Home/school reading connection Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) - i 5. Ongoing assessment is a three-year staff The staff development topics include: support emergent learners. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing Reading process instruction Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding Phonemic awareness Letter discrimination/recognition Letter/sound relationship Recognizing high frequency words 0. Decoding/word attack skills/word 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies analysis 13. Classroom 14. Parent involvement management and organization 15. Authentic assessment/standardized tests Success For All provides specific curricula and i\nteaching reading with teacher scripts. instructional strategies for Primary features include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. School-wide reading curriculum Cooperative learning Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessmenl Tutonng fo, ude,s in need of extra assistance Family support team assistance every 8 weeks) *- is individualized to move at his or her own  Primaiv f' 7 1 i i'' of Sy\"\" Primary features include\n1 Student choice of books from a list of carefully selected books 61. 3. 4. Individualized reading that allows students to move at his or her own pace Computerized testing that measures student comprehension Parental involvement Open Court - a phonics program that centers on student drill using a wall sound card chart. Shurley Method - a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions by jingles. Metra Phonics Program - a phonics program that uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction - presents prescriptive lessons to small groups in the lower grades. Primary features include: 1. Field-tested reading, language arts, and math curricula 1. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training Carbo Reading Styles - is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the students preferred style of reading. Primary features include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work Hosts (Help One Student to Succeed) - is a structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts. Primary features include: 1. Database and software programs aligned with the schools curriculum 2. Students matched with trained parents, businesses, and community 3. volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and high order thinking skills Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate and support individual students 7P '\u0026gt; teachers infuse The content of the staff development includes: I. Instruction focused on four high order thinking skills - analvsis comparison inference, and evaluation that students  2. academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations. can use in all 3. 4. Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based on pre and post writing assignments. Portfolios used techniques with emphasis tn nan systcmatic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth m skill development. Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 - is a two-year staff development designed to train teachers in i become process The intent of the staff development incl udes: 1. 2. A balanced literary program Planned reading/writing instruction based evaluation on assessment and 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading process Phonetic skills and strategi es Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/work attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11 Assessment 12. Parental involvement 8Conclusions and Recommendations A series of interrelated events over the last two years has provided the LRSD with a greater opportunity than, perhaps, at any other single time in its history to impact student learning dramatically and positively. The revised desegregation plan, the strategic plan, the campus leadership initiative, and the Smart Start initiative collectively mandate bold action in setting a singular direction across the District for reading/language arts education to ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of grade three. Many of the ingredients for success are already in place. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all student with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Unfortunately, no matter how appropriate these ingredients are, success remains elusive when they are ignored or superficially treated. This committee believes after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in use - some of which are used in place of the Districts curriculum - that the bold action necessary requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of too much stuff. Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality regardless of which school their children attend. This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4, 1997, which provided direction for writing the revised desegregation plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education (see attached). The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently: 1. Limit the primary teaching focus to reading/language arts and mathematics instruction at grades PreK-3, and direct teachers at these grade levels to teach any other relevant content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences that engage all students in active learning. 92. 3. 4. Design a mandatory two-and-one-half hour uninterrupted language arts block composed of the following key reading experiences:  Teacher reads good literature aloud - 20 minutes per day  Phonics and word study - 20 minutes per day  Shared reading - 20 minutes per day  Independent reading at fluency level - 30 minutes per day  Writing - 20 minutes per day  Guided reading instruction - 40 minutes per day These key experiences are foundational components of any research based approach to successful reading education. They do not, however, represent the sum total of expected reading/language arts activities in PreK-3 classrooms. Additionally, teachers should be expected to integrate reading and writing experiences throughout the entire school day, providing all of their students with ample, content-based, thematically organized opportunities to develop and use their language skills. Furthermore, each grade level, PreK-3, must be expected to strategically adhere to an action plan for providing each of the above experiences in a way that is developmentally and age appropriate, as well as in proper sequence. If reading independence is to occur for all students by the end of grade three, comprehensive effort must be made, beginning with a developmental PreK and a kindergarten program that aims for reading readiness in students and followed by a commitment at grades one, two, and three to use the time necessary to provide students with adequate opportunity to develop as readers. Finally, such commitment does not mean lots of different reading programs or approaches into which select students are placed incrementally in disjointed efforts to meet the overall requirements. The effort must be classroom-based, standards-focused, teacher-managed, and student-centered\nand every effort must be made to ensure the integrity of the human factor - the teacher must be adequately trained and supported to ensure that the student is motivated and engaged. Minimize pullouts from the classroom to ensure that primary learning experiences remain intact for all students. Do not allow necessary pullouts to interrupt reading/ language arts instruction and ensure that reading/language arts instruction occurs at times during the school day when student capacity for learning is at its best. In other words, build the school day schedule around the primary learning experiences and do not allow other experiences to encroach upon or interfere with the designated time blocks. Design and implement a district-wide process to determine and monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials for use in achieving the reading/ language arts standards and for ensuring that all PreK-3 classrooms are equipped with sufficient, appropriate materials to facilitate and enhance learning for all students. Include with the monitoring process a timeline and ongoing budgetary commitment for placing in every PreK-3 classroom an up-to-date age and developmentally appropriate library of sets of books appropriate for individual and small group reading experiences and complementary to the thematic choices that drive and integrate instruction. Tie the materials monitoring process to 10delivery standards and develop classroom profile rubrics to ensure that all classrooms meet or exceed the standards. Consider adding an appropriate indicator to the district accountability index to validate the importance of appropriate materials and classroom environment to learning success. 5. Design/identify and require the use of appropriate assessment inventories and pre/post tests to regularly monitor student progress in reading, including but not limited to quarterly CRTs where appropriate. Design and put into place in every PreK-3 classroom a portfolio management plan that assists teachers in making appropriate instructional decisions and that demonstrates individual student progress toward achieving the benchmarks and standards so that appropriate help can be provided immediately when any students falls behind. Design new report cards/rubric-based progress reports to provide teachers, parents/guardians, and other appropriate individuals with information that makes sense about a students real learning achievements or deficits. 6. Develop, implement, and manage a comprehensive, ongoing professional development program for PreK-3 teachers that focuses on important instructional components, including reading and writing processes, primary cueing systems, integrated phonics instruction, introduction to English grammar, vocabulary development, and spelling instruction. Provide training to all teachers on how to develop and manage thematic units, evaluate and assess student progress, create and maintain a student-centered classroom, and maintain instructional management in a diverse, mainstreamed classroom. Tie the PreK-3 professional development program to appropriate delivery standards to ensure quality and continuity. Develop teacher behavior rubrics to assist teachers and principals in determining specific professional development needs and to be used by central office to manage an appropriate, relevant, and focused menu of professional development opportunities. In addition to recommending the above actions which are linked to the revised desegregation plan via the Work Team Final Report, this committee also recommends the following additional actions to ensure continuity of focus on the standards at grades K-3: 1. Continue, support, and expand Reading Recovery, ELLA, and Effective Literacy, all of which directly support the reading/language arts curriculum and Smart Start. Provide teachers with classroom materials needed to fully implement these efforts. 2. Identify specific criteria for approving all supplemental reading programs acquired by individual schools with Title One funds or other funds. Develop and continually update a master list of such programs that meet the criteria. Base the selection criteria on the following universally accepted characteristics of reading best practices: - Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. - Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. - Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. 11Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of a basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics, keeping in mind that phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. In effective reading programs, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. Reading assessment should match classroom practices. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports reading. Also, ensure that approved programs are used in a supplementary capacity and add safeguards to prevent their use in supplanting district curriculum. Under no circumstances should such programs diminish the focus of the two-and-one- half hour language arts block. The components of and time frame for that block must be considered sacred. 3. 4. 5. Design and establish a minimum of four after school reading clinics and strategically locate them in elementary school buildings throughout the District. Employ trained teachers to oversee tutorial sessions, testing, and record keeping and employ trained tutors to provide prescriptive tutorials. Use a sliding pay scale to accommodate students and their families and provide District scholarships on a most-in-need-of-service basis for students on free or reduced lunch plans. Ensure that students classroom portfolios (see #5, p. 9) are accessible and that clinic assessments become part of them for those students receiving services. Develop a District-wide grades K-2 intensive reading summer program designed to serve no fewer than 800 students patterned after the clinic approach used in the after-school program described above. Provide developmental experiences for students at the K level and skills prescriptive experiences for students in grades 1 and 2. Ensure that students classroom portfolios (see #5, p. 9) are accessible and that summer program assessments become part of them for those students receiving services. Develop a District-wide plan for reducing class size at grades PreK through 3 and ensure the lowest possible student/teacher ratios at grades 1 and 2. Identify a target goal for class size at each grade level and implement an action plan for reducing class sizes until the target goals are achieved. Ensure, as well, that teachers at grades PreK through 3 are sufficiently trained and experienced, and that 126. 7. 8. they demonstrate consistently the qualities most likely to evoke student the early grade levels. success at Fill the specialist vacancy in the Reading/Language Arts Department and do not organizationally violate the integrity of this department which provides cohesive mecbon for the Districts entire reading/language arts program. Provide additional support for the director who must also supervise other curricular Create at least one additional early childhood specialist position and hire a secretary for the director of early childhood. * areas. A Provide appropriate and ample opportunities for each department and for the various central office divisions to work collaboratively to ensure quality focused opportunities for department personnel to ttend literacy focused conferences and provide division time to bring together all epartments to identify specific literacy work priorities, to develop action plans and timelines, and to assess and evaluate effectivenpcc nf all ^-r^ii-.k,,.,,.:___ assess and evaluate effectiveness of all collaborative efforts. * The committee recognizes that a I I- , \" management audit is currently in progress but we believe that results of the audit will support our position that additional personnel are critical to the departments ability to operate successfully. delibtatinn Th ^^''^boration, and thoughtful Id W il f meaningful, and doable framework for action that and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes to commendations made by well-meaning people often become unrealized hopes or drean a'^ rLXT therefore, ask for^immediate  can hopes or dreams. approval to begin their implementation. We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the ~endations. We will meet monthly to review progress and ,0 ensZheco of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a fo?the\"Z believe should be immediately incorporated into the divisions work plan for the remainder ofthe school year. The timeline is attached for  P proposed budget. review, along with a In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will S U I, lu sei as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading t\" \" y yof tbe third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to education that prepares them for productive adult li^: h ffie before nX \"k 7 unwavering support for the clearly focuTed best-  p actice based, district-wide reading curriculum and program we believe our r^ommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all resources to the one ffort, whether the resources are school-based or district-based, or district-Zded or Tkle One supplemental, Campus-based decision making must be based on clear distrta gide7n and resources to the one 1314ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS PRIMARY GRADES 1. Adopt as a District goal that by the completion of third grade all students will be reading independently to make accurate meaning out of words on a page. 2. Limit the primary teaching focus to reading/language arts and mathematics instruction at grades K, 1,2, and 3\nand direct all teachers at these grades to teach science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences that require all students to be active learning participants. 3. Promote thematic instruction (using a specific theme such as bears of North America or rain forests to teach reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies in a planned context) to help students actively apply their learning.  4. Provide teachers with District-written samples of thematic units to model the approach and for teachers to use as examples to follow in creating their own appropriate thematic units. 5. Add to the District reading/language arts curriculum clear objectives that specifically address student mastery of all three reading cueing systems: 1) phonics - using sounds\n2) semantics - making meaning\nand 3) syntax - understanding the structure of language. 6. Add to the District reading/language arts and mathematics curricula clear objectives that specifically address student mastery of knowing-how-to-learn skills (such as research process, building on prior knowledge, or using context clues). 7. Design and put into place a system to monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials for helping to achieve curricular objectives and outcomes and to make sure that all classrooms are equipped with enough appropriate materials for all students to learn. 8. Write specific guidelines for all elementary schools that require principals to schedule uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction. Include in the requirements that all pullouts (computer lab, art, music, etc.) must occur after lunch so that all students benefit from reading/language arts and mathematics teaching and learning without interruption. 9. Design and require the use of appropriate assessment inventories and pre/post tests to regularly monitor student progress in reading and mathematics beginning at grade K. 10. Design and put into place a District-wide portfolio assessment plan to monitor individual student progress toward achieving learning objectives and to make sure that appropriate help is immediately provided when any student falls behind.11. SS'Sikw sZXnh^^T*^ P^rents/guardians with information uidi inaKes sense about the real learning achievements of their children. 12. Organize pre-K, K, and grade 1 programs to provide important learning readiness * \u0026lt;=------- uuMUHfliii icdininu rea w1!hTT''^\\ oral language, etc.) for students who without such experiences so that they can master learning \u0026lt; of third grade^ Include strategies to intervene when students are struggling with mas7ei^of basic reading/language arts and mathematics skills. come to school on grade level by the completion 13. Develop and ope ate a comprehensive, ongoing training program for K, 1, and 2 teachers hat focuses on planning and teaching thematic units, assessing and evaluating student learning, and managing successful learning for all students * classrooms. in diverse, mainstreamed 14. Plan for grade 3 to be a transitional year from a primary focus L... \"  familiar teaching of specific subjects throughout the school day. mathematics to the more on reading/language arts and 15. Gaining program for grade 3 teachers to help them p ovide the appropriate transitional learning experiences for all of their students prepare them for success in grades 4-6. in order to 16. Line up reading/language arts and mathematics curricula teaching strategies and learning activities that make it loi an iimitea tnelish proficient and non-English speaking students to fully participate in mainstreamed classrooms and provide training with appropriate on-site follow-up for all Newcomer Center teachers on how to do this. iNewcomer at grades K-3 with appropriate it possible for all limited EnglishLRSD EARLY LITERACY INITIATIVE SPRING, 1999 TIMELINE ACTION DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE Plan summer school curriculum and instructional focus, and plan teacher training. Also complete student selection process. Identify timeline for delivery of training modules (see #9). Develop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs. Write specific job descriptions for new specialists and secretarv. Advertise for and interview. Identify' the primary learning components for PreK-grade 3.  Describe content/focus  Identify time needed for instruction Write guidelines for schools to follow when scheduling at grades Pre-K-3. (See #3, p. 8.) Write guidelines/teacher manual for I'/i language arts block.  Make grade level specific  Include how to/what to do/why do it/ troubleshooting sections Design classroom profile rubrics.  Make grade level specific  Format status quo to most desirable matri.x Design teacher behavior rubrics. Design materials appropriateness checklist.  Identify required materials  Develop guidelines for additional materials Develop guidelines for thematic instruction. Develop portfolio assessment plan. February February March March/May/June March March March March March March April April Departments/Consultant Departments Departments/T eachers/ Principals/Title One Departments Dcpartments/Teachers/ Principals Departments Departments Departments/T eachers/ Principals Dcpartments/Teachers/ Principals Departments Departments DepartmentsDesign/identify assessment inventories.  Identify pre-post component  Make grade level specific and/or reading level specific Develop training modules for:  Shared reading/writing  Guided reading/writing  Integrated phonics  Intro to English grammar  Vocabulary development  Spelling instruction  Planning for and managing thematic instruction  Studcnt/classroom assessment and student/ classroom evaluation  Components of student-centered classrooms Identifi'/plan for After School Reading Clinics Begin Module-based training Order and distribute ELLA support materials April Departments April * ongoing Departments/Consultants Mav June June\nJuly (order) Departments/Consultants Departments/Consultants Departments1. 2. 3. 4. 5. BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS School-Based Professional Development and Program Support (See Recommendation #1, p. 11.) ELLA Training Stipend $262.75 per teacher/5-day training @ $52.55 per day for 298 teachers Materials and Supplies @ $150.00 per class for guided reading sets to accommodate 298 classrooms Total Stipend Cost Total Classroom Supplies Cost TOTAL District Professional Development and Program Support (See Recommendations #4, p. 10\n#2, p. 10\nand #6, p. 11.) MATERIALS Classroom Books - grades 3 \u0026amp; 4 @ $200 per class for guided reading book sets or classroom collections to accommodate 175 classrooms. Focus on materials for students who are reading below Proficiency levels. Total for Classroom Books Developmentally appropriate print for PreK \u0026amp; K classes @ $100 for 45 classes Total for PreK \u0026amp; K Print THEMATIC INSTRUCTION Commercially prepared thematic units for grades K-2 and 3-5 to serve as a foundation for teachers to develop own units @ $1,000 per school for 35 schools Total for Thematic Instruction Cost MATERIALS/SUPPLIES/STAFF DEVELOPMENT - Materials, supplies, \u0026amp; texts for workshops - Staff Development/supplies for principals TOTAL SUMMER SCHOOL FOR K-2 (See Recommendation #4, p. 12.) - Salaries, Training, Building Expenses, Materials, Transportation (currently funded) TOTAL READING CLINIC (See Recommendation #3, p. 12.) Salaries, Training, Building Expenses, Materials, Transportation The Reading clinic will be free for some/fee of possibly $15 per individual \u0026amp; $25 per family TOTAL $ 78,299.50 44,700.00 $122,999.50 35,000.00 4,500.00 35,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 $ 99,500.00 332,040.00 $332,040.00 175,840.00 $175,840.00 PERSONNEL (See Recommendations #6, p. 113, and #7, p. 13.) 1 Reading Specialist (11-month contract) (not a new position\ncurrently vacant) 1 Early Childhood Specialist (11-month contract) 1 Secretary (Early Childhood - 12 month contract) 47,900.00 TOTAL 47,900.00 27,731.00 $123,531.00\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_326","title":"Compliance court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/326"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["177 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ' APR 19 2m JAM CC' lACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEiVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 1 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Please file a list of your expected witnesses and exhibits by noon, day after tomorrow, April 21, 2004. For each witness you expect to call, please set forth the amount of time you expect to spend on direct examination. If you want a conference call regarding the presentation of evidence at the hearing next week please call Ms. Mary Johnson at 501-604-5144 forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of April, 2004. CT Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. JUDGE 8 5 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 1 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comes now Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, and for its Response to the courts Order dated April 19, 2004, states: ADE does not plan to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits at the hearings currently scheduled before the court on April 27-28, 2004. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General By\nMARK A. HAGEMEIHR, #94127 Assistant Attorney Genewl 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this day of April 2004, addressed to:Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Arm Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3* Little Rock, AR 72201 2u vni 1 WMLKLPl NO.004 P.2 I I I 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT  eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS----- WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:S2CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ETaL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LTST The-Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as witnesses during the hearin! 6 scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring -1 hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D,, Expert -1 1/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring -1 hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. J unions Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District -15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal al Franklin Elementary School, LRSD -10 minutesII 1 pinu.rst.r-. NO.U04 P.3 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School. LRSD -10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent PCSSD - 5 minutes -10 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 W.*' Walker ^'Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R, Jones .... President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21^ by placing a copy of s prepaid. day of April, 2004 apie in the United .States mail postage I / /' nited .States IV J tJU-4 \u0026gt;/C7-COO/^ I I iv. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT^ Eastern district of Arkansas WESTERN division little rock school district PLAibmp? V, Case no. 4\n82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. defendant MRS. LORENE JOSHUA DT AL. Katherine knight, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHTRTT LTST The Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004\n1) LRSD Policy IL (Evaluation of Instructional Programs), CX 575 2) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl (^Program Evaluation Agenda) 3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Year Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. CProvided to Iniervenors by Counsel for e LRSD, October 25,2002) Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education fPrcnaredbv Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley)\nVri - 2) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 , b) Approval of rhe SEDLs Program Evaluation for the CoEaborative Project, November 21, 2002 Action Team Vo \" of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Souwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002 'I-iU. H.5 VtH d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13,2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 ' I Vol. C- f) Onward to ExceUence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Teem Progrem Eveleetidn, Febmeiy 13, 2003 i \"d\" ) Vijt A'!: h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 v/ i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February: j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 n, 2003 k) Extended Year Education CEYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 V\n)l. 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluatioi ii, February 27, 2003 6) (^delines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, S T) from Chris Heller to Ann Marshall and John W. Walker, October 27, 2003 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 9) LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation  I District from 1998 to 2003 c \u0026lt;1   * ^Srams in the We Rct School 11) The LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 / \u0026gt; 1'9' 1 i2) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D, (Professor, Lynch School of Education. Research Associate. Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation - tion. Senior College) and Educational Policy, Boston  2 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race nOh of Educational .Administration and Head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization ini^uanon and Head and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves rhe right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted.JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Lav/ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-375S Fax (501) 574-4187 ------------transmission cover .SRPKT Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: rcZ7SHOULD RLCEIVE [ COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS \"\u0026lt;(1(11) 374.S75S\u0026gt;\" only for the use of the individual Or entity named above. If die reader of this message is not the intended .. , -------------------------- ut uiib inesss recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient v that any dissemination, distribution received this communication in or :, you are hereby notified copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have IO error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message TT C Dz\\z-ta1 _T'l____1___  o US at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service, Thank you.ONiUOilNOW N0liV33HD3S3a 30331330 ^ooz c 2 ydv aaAiHoau tv, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 6ep LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE lOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHIBIT LIST The Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1) LRSD Policy IL (Evaluation of Instructional Programs), CX 575 2) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl (Program Evaluation Agenda) 3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Year Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Provided to Intervenors by Counsel for the LRSD, October 25, 2002) 5) Memoranda from Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education (Prepared by Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley): a) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 b) Approval of the SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21, 2002 c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 f) Onward to Excellence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February 27,2003 j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 k) Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 6) Guidelines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, PhD, (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) 7) Letter from Clrris Heller to Aim Marshall and Jolm W. Walker, October 27, 2003 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 9) LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation 10) An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 11) The LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 12) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D. (Professor, Lynch School of Education, Senior Research Associate, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College) 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race 14) Vita, Richard C. Hunter, Ed. D. (Professor of Educational Administration and Head if the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted.li Robert Pressman i ' Walker Hicks Walker, .''^.hh W V 22 Locust Avenue /-Rickey ] Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 {/ John W. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 99 Hudson Street Inc. New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21*^ day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. a W-b-A RECEIVED ARKANSAS APR 2 G 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2 1200j clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EPCLE^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LIST The Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as witnesses during th kaon to rr scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D., Expert - 1 1/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School, LRSD - 10 minutes11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School, LRSD - 10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD - 10 minutes 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent, PCSSD - 5 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, P /I L F Robert Pressman\nsman Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 A'Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21 St day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of sapae prepaid. ' \\ 1 in the United States mail postage I / V mled IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT^j\n! . . X X , * ---------------- ---------- CT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Arkansas WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 1 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. MCCORMACK, CLERK -ELAINTIFF OtPCLfcRK V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL APR 2, 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST The Little Rock School District expects to call the following witnesses and present the following exhibits at the hearing scheduled to being on April 26, 2004, except Dr. Lesley, whose testimony will be presented by deposition. WITNESS LIST 1. Dr. Steven M. Ross, Director, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n2. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, former LRSD Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n3. Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n4. Dr. Ed Williams, LRSD Research Specialist - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\n5. Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\nPage 1 of 46. Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\n7. Vanessa Cleaver, Director of National Science Foundation Grant - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes. EXHIBIT LIST 1. Program Evaluations and Accompanying Memoranda submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval on October 24, 2002, November 21, 2002, December 19, 2002, February 13, 2003 and February 27, 2003 (These were attached to our Notice of Filing on March 14, 2003 in Volumes I - IV)\n2. September 26, 2002 Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03\n3. October 4, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley transmitting Compliance Plan to counsel and Ms. Marshall\n4. October 10, 2002 memo to Dr. Ken James from Ann Marshall re LRSDs Compliance Plan 5. October 10, 2002 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Bonnie Lesley\n6. October 11, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall regarding Compliance Remedy\n7. October 17,2002 Request for Qualifications of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant\n8. October 25, 2002 letter from Clay Pendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall\n9. November 4, 2002 letter to John Walker and Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley\n10. Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in LRSD prepared by Dr. Ross\n11. December 3, 2002 letter to Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley\n12. December 3, 2002 letter to John Walker from Bonnie Lesley\n13. January 27, 2003 Memo to Dr. Ken James from Dr. Bonnie Lesley regarding contracted Services - Dr.Ross\n14. February 13, 2003 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Lesley regarding Information on Completion of Eight Program Evaluations for Submission to Federal Court Page 2 of 41 15. April 8, 2003 letter from John Walker to Clay Fendley\n16. Response to ODM and Joshua Objections, by Dr. Steven M. Ross\n17. Changes in Science Curriculum, by Dennis Glasgow\nRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-20JJ_______ BXC Christopher Heller Page 3 of 4 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 April 21,2004\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3^\"^ Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He^ Page 4 of 4RECEIVED MAY 1 r 2004 EASTERN RN DISTRICT ARK lUHT KANSAS OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRICTfpOURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I MAY 1 2 2004 ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK DIVISION jameS W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAY 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS { . ORDER In preparing for the June 14 and 15 evidentiary hearing on LRSDs Compliance Report, it is apparent that a number of matters need to be brought to the attention of counsel for LRSD and Joshua: (1) (2) The LRSD Board, in approving the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan, also adopted IL-Rl, which sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. While the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan is attached as Exhibit A to LRSDs March 14, 2003 Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Courts Compliance Remedy (docket entry #3745), IL- Rl \" is not attached to that document or otherwise included in the record. Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with a copy of IL-Rl. Exhibit A to LRSDs Compliance Report is an October 25, 2002 letter from Mr. John Fendley, one of LRSDs attorneys, to all parties, responding to certain written concerns raised by Joshuas counsel, Mr. John Walker, regarding AO 72A (Rev.8/82) 8 6 4LRSDs proposed Compliance Plan. In order for the Court to place Mr. Pendleys October 25,2002 letter in context, I need the following additional documents: (a) Mr. Walkers October 10 and 24, 2002 letters to Mr. Fendley raising his concerns about the Compliance Plan\nand (b) a copy of the document that Mr. Fendley repeatedly quotes Mr. Walker referring to in his October 10 and October 24,2002 letters as ''''your document''^ Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with copies of the foregoing documents. (3) In my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I thought I made it clear that I am a big fan of plain English and have no desire to learn the acronym-filled lexicon of the professional educator. Therefore, I am now directing counsel to comply with the following rules in all oral and written communications with the Court in this case: (a) Do not use any educational acronyms unless they are first defined. The pleadings that I have reviewed to date in preparing for the June 14 and 15 hearing are littered with references to SAIPs,' DRAs, DIBELs, ELLA, CRT, SMART, THRIVE, ACTAAP, SREB, CREP, and SFA. Counsel for LRSD must immediately prepare a glossary which defines all acronyms used in all exhibits attached to LRSDs Compliance Report. A copy of this glossary is to be provided forthwith. 'I speculate that your document is probably LRSDs Compliance Plan, which I already have. If my speculation is correct, LRSDs counsel should so advise me and need not provide the Court with a copy of that document. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)(b) During the hearing on June 14 and 15, please instruct your witnesses to testify using plain English - not professional educatorese. Based upon the parties previous written submissions and testimony taken in earlier hearings, I fear this may pose a significant challenge for some of the witnesses (and me). If so, I encourage these witnesses to begin now to practice speaking in plain English, so that they will be ready to testify by the June 14 and 15 hearing. (4) On or before June 7,2004, counsel for Joshua and LRSD must submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under Section VII of the Courts September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. (5) On April 22, 2004, we had a telephone conference during which LRSDs Compliance Hearing was rescheduled from April 26 and 27,2004, to June 14 and 15, 2004. During that telephone conference, I stated that I would make every effort to render my decision on LRSDs Compliance Report by June 30, 2004. Based upon my current work load, I now believe the earliest I will be able to enter my decision is thirty to sixty days after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED., DATED this J day of May, 2004. AO72A (Rev.e/82) Thi-j uuouivicLi-. I .!\u0026lt; 11_,\\L-i. Oil  JCKST SHEET h- COMEuSmNC,' y_BY Oft c- FRC -3- UNITED STATES DISTRICT T c received IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 4 2004 OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. Attached are the following documents requested by the Court in its Order filed May 12,2004: A. Little Rock School District Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 (Appendix 1 of which is EL-Rl\")\nB. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002\nand, C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walkers references to your document, the Court is correct that Mr. Walker is referring to the Proposed Compliance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 1 of 33. As to the educational acronyms, Counsel has requested that the authors of the comprehensive evaluations immediately prepare a glossary of acronyms used in their respective evaluations. These will be consolidated into a single glossary for all exhibits and provided to the Court as soon as possible. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Heller Page 2 of 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 13, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 3 of 3 Christopher HellerLittle Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 1^ EXHIBITThe District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7' after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afiican-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented imder 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those prograrhs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1B. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all ftxrther supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Courts Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\nDevelop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African- American students\nMaintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Courts Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Courts Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan, numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Courts use of the term assessment in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesleys testimony on the difference between assessment and evaluation, see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between testing data, which are derived from student assessments, and program evaluations, which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. See Opinion, p. 152 (LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 ... (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term assessment in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Compliance Committee to determine the District Courts intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Courts findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African- American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term assessment to refer to student assessments and the term evaluation to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Given Paragraph As reference to testing data, it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part, student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02. The administration recommended this for three reasons: (1) the loss of instructional time resulting from testing and test preparation\n(2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous springs results\nand (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall administration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD. This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26,2002. Third, the LRSD will no longer administer the ALTs. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the ALTs for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks\n(2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4testing and test administration\n(3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSDs administration of the ALTs redundant\nand (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26, 2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) has moved the administration of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, IL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, e.g., Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached as Appendix 3. This regulation will be submitted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n0)) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modiflcations or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Courts concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 (I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSDs African-American students were actually working.). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?. See Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of armual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 64. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Primary Reading/Language Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15, 2004. new, Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph As description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 ... The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of some of the key programs, as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (In addition to the Assessment Plan,  2.7.1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing 'evaluations of some of the key programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs. (emphasis in original)). In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. See Opinion, p. 156 ([A]s of March 15, 2001, the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court\n(1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question\n(2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board .... (emphasis in original)). The District Courts statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1 until March 15,2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15, 2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7. See Paragraph A of Compliance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph As requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31, 2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15, 2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest time and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve African-American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph Cs requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include [a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing ... . Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSDs practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows\n1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01. He was asked to read a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer who over-sees the LRSDs implementation of the grant-funded 8Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). NSF trained a team of LRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate our findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). 3. 4. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (ESL) program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education administration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson (assistant superintendent), Krista Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, technical and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending on the expertise that is required for a credible report. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed\n1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of 2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. 5 HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years: 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. South-west Middle School's SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (SEDL) to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watsons principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 1011. 12. Collaborative Action Team (\"CAT\"). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications. It is unclear whether an expert from outside the LRSD must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, or whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with similar qualifications. The District Courts findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be completed by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committees proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Compliance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving Afiican-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to complete an evaluation. 11Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CLTs during 2000-01. A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CLT training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this proposed Compliance Plan to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, suggested revisions from ODM and Joshua. 3. Place Compliance Plan on the agenda for Board review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. Week of September 30, 2002 Week of October 7, 2002 October 10, 2002 October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 13 Clay Fendley Ken James Attorneys Ken James Compliance Team Ken James Attorneys Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax8. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 10. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 11. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 14. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 14 Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley15. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 March 1,2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 15 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley21. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 25. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15, 2004 16 Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken Janies Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance TeamAppendix 1 Proposed IL-RlLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board- approved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows\nStakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaiuation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Publishers. 5-7.) The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda^with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for thp production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. Each team shall include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction related to any additional assistance that may be required. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\n5Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks. CA: Convin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. 8. 9. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African- American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 611 .The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy): A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See u Joellen Killion (2002). Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions Academic Program means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. Significantly modify means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program\n(b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 1Appendix 3 Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002'l a k i n g ROBBY CHAMPION Map out evaluation goals A master plan can guide you down the rocky path of evaluation when you launch a major professional development evaluation, regardless of the projects scope, you may quickly find yourself on a with twists and unexpected turns. slippery, often rocky road. Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a master plan. While it requires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avoid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are launching a major, summative program evaluation. A summative evaluation is done at major junctures in a programs life cycle and emphasizes documenting impact. Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue, alter, expand, downsize, or eliminate it. A formative evaluation, on the other hand, means monitoring and collecting data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Formative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would:  Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions\n Create a realistic timeline and work plan that  Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting. You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbell Canyon, Mora, NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-mail\nRobbychampion@aol.com. 78 provides needed momentum for the work\n Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions throughout the process\n Help recruit people to assist with the project on the myriad evaluation tasks\n Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or wiU extend for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE PROCESS 1. Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. 2. Learn more about program evaluation together. 3. Write a clear description of each program to be evaluated. 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the evaluation. .5. Plan how you will keep everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically . with program evaluation, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities ntight push the effort aside. Provide steering committee members with the tools to succeed. Members need not be evalu- National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002 t a k I J, g m e a 5 JI re ! i i i I I ! i ation experts, but they do need information, support, and guidance to make informed decisions. They need background material to leam about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on professional development, measurement, and the content areas of the training programs. Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the New TeacherJhduction Program or the Early Literacy Initiative since so many different initiatives are being undertaken simultaneously around the school or district PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the evaluation. 2. Generate potential data sources/ instruments to address the questions. 3. Using a matrix to provide a birds-eye view, agree on the most important questions and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to make the evaluation manageable. 5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense\nquantitative vs. qualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data collection. 7. Determine a realistic schedule for collecting data. 8. Create a system for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase n are critical. They determine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine and what to ignore. When you finish with the design phase, your program evaluation win be shaped to use a quantitative or a , qualitative model  or a mixmre of the two. In the design phase, you make other major decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to do an in-depth case study, whether to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at: www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ chainpion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of smdent work instead of official documents such as student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to judge adult learners understanding of the training content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or smdent feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering committee may drift into the realm of program planning as you encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve program leaders in your discussions. Developing or gathering instruments and then collecting the data are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect, from whom to collect it or where to find it, and the best time to collect it. Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some public records, such as smdent attendance, may be valuable if, for example, 20% increase in smdent attendance at aU grade levels is one of your programs indicators of impact. PHASE 111: PREPARE TO REPORT 1. Determine which audiences will want to know the results. 2. Consider several forums and formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results useful to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about the schedule for data collection, five- minute progress updates in faculty meetings, bulleted statements on your web site, a digital picture album of the programs results in classrooms with photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with examples of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of five pages or less to help,readers get the essential information. PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for the whole evaluation., 2. Create a realistic timeline. 3. Assign work. 4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomphsh all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project Enlist steering committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented critical friends to get the work done. One caution: For formal or summa- tive evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to perform critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality techmeal expertise for the critical technical analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, poheies, and practices of your professional development programs  their goals, content, processes, and contexts. In fact, revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major changes are needed if significant results are really expected from professional development. People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. E JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr, Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: Plan. This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSDs proposed Compliance The courts remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before todays Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementation pursuant to Section 2.7 ..., which are to be subjected to a comprehensive program evaluation. .. Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions / scaffolding ~ areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of Afiican American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate. The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the courts remedy. 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the courts order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns, which Joshua may ultimately have about the courts remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the courts views on an appropriate remedy. irtcerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of RecordOCT.24.2002 8:06fiM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Volker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 or COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PjL EONNAJ.McKE.NEY 8210 HbNDEKSON SQaD Litoe Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Pax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchemyd^awbollnet Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W, Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V, PCSSD Dear Chris: This letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration. 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of interest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Program Evaluation Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performanof: is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it : EXHIBIT 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] 002' OCT. 24.2002 8:07AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.3 Page Two October 23, 2002 requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of Afiican American students for the indefinite future, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. . Walker Sincere^, JWW:Ip All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] @003 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 MAY 2 c 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. In response to the Courts Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376\n^CL14---------- BYk Christopher Hell Page 1 of 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 May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3^ Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller Page 2 of 2 IGLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan)  Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALTs in September 2002, ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) ANOVA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for correct answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) - Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, Sth, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses students individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areasreading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking.CAP (Concepts about Print)  One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses childrens knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team)  A process designed to increase stakeholders involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories)  Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams)  A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a childs progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral reading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)  A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE - An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help Sth and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. EEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of curriculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement TestJR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science) - A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineerinj LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ - Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items correctly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics)  An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank corresponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science educationNSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31,2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence)  A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) - A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through 3^^ Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACTAAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9tb Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth.(Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, community members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8* and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score - Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesnt mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional II. raw scores. It  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvementTAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 7Z//V LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. RECZiVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Jl/N - 9 200^ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS 07 The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning the LRSD's Implementation of the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, this court held that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon desegregation and education plan. [Mem. Opin. at 150-60] Accordingly, the court set forth a Compliance Remedy. II [Id. at n 170-72] This court's September 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms. and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's supervision. This court wrote: . . . . I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs under Sec. 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of Af rican-american students. further find that LRSD's 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment substantial compliance with Sec. to improve the academic I 1achievement of African-American students\nfor, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, emphasis in original] replaced with new programs [at 150\nsupervision and monitoring conclude that the court should continue of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African American students, [at 168] I These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenor's opposition to the LRSD effort to be released from court supervision, heard by the court on June 14-15, 2004. Based upon the record, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 I. Findings of Fact A. The Lack of Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) Based upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 2 through 26, the court finds that the LRSD has failed to TI [demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n. J! [\"Compliance Remedy, TI Mem. Opin. at 170\nsee also id. at 168] [Haney, Hunter, Jones, Marshall testimony] 1 LRSD and Joshua Intervenors' exhibits are cited LRX at and JX at names. --, respectively. Witnesses are cited by their last 2The Lack of Adequate Staff (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, this court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed in-depth and analytic program evaluations.  [Mem. Opin. at 15 6\nsee id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 156-57 (school board)\nat 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]\nat 159 (Dr. Lesley). (3.) The LRSD Compliance Plan was heavily dependent on actions by former Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley. n [LRX 3 (\"Action Plan Timeline at 15-16)] Doctor Lesley left the district for employment out-of-state on March 14, 2003. [JX 11 at 5] The slow pace of filling her position played substantial part in continuing the lack of adequate staffing for the assessment \\ evaluation task. [Id. (ODM notes filling of position on an interim basis on June 26, 2003)] [Jones and Marshall testimony] (4.) Overall, the evidence establishes that subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation\\assessment capacity. [JX 11 at 2 (third paragraph), 5, 6, 16 (second paragraph) (ODM report. March 30, 2004)\nJones and Marshall testimony] The ODM report states in part: ri In the summer of 2001, the associate superintendent who led PRE had resigned and that position had remained empty. As a result, the top positions in both PRE and the instructional division were vacant at the critical time for preparing program evaluations. omitted] IT [JX 11 at 16] PRE II [footnote Planning, Research and Evaluation. refers to the Department of a 2 2 3The Failure to Identify the Programs Subject to the Compliance Remedy____________________________ (5.) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court found that the LRSD had identified many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2.7 [of the agreed upon Plan] . . n [Mem. Opin. at 150] The court's Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African- TXmerican students. . . [Mem. Opin. at 170\nemphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM, the LRSD never identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate. [JX 11 at 23 (ODM report, March 30, 2004)\nJones testimony] Standards for Conducting Evaluations (6.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mem. Opin. at 151- 52\n153\n156-58], the LRSD properly concluded [LRX 3 at 7 (LRSD Compliance Plan)] that it must each year complete some comprehensive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum fl designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- 7\\merican students . If [Plan Section 2.7] (7.) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows: . . [Dr. Ross] also described the program evaluation process, which included classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district a 4[JX 11 at 3\nJones testimony] (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document, dated December n 3, 2002, regarding the completion of of the 14 page 148 8 evaluations (that is evaluations listed on page 148 of the March 2002 interim compliance report). It IS titled Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District. I! [JX 6] The document articulates. among others. the following premise [JX 6 at 1]\n(9.) Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while sufficient lacking implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment.' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled \"Program Evaluation Agenda. The Regulation sets forth standards and procedures for the content of program evaluations in the LRSD. [JX 2] (a) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2 at 3] identifies the need for the evaluation process to satisfy \"accuracy standards. including one concerning tl program documentation. 11 n H Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly........ (b) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl also contains the following The LRSD concluded that 6 of the 14 IT page 148 evaluations \"without additional work could be approved by the school board . [LRX 3 at 5] Dr. Ross' Guidelines addressed the completion of the other 8 \"page 148 evaluations.\" [JX 6 at 12] evaluations. TT 3 5provision: \"Program Evaluation Procedures [JX 2 at 4-5] 6.C. Write a clear description of the curriculum\\instruction program that is to be evaluated, schedule of its implementation. with information about the (c) Regulation IL-Rl provides in part (JX 2 at 5) that the first meetings [of the evaluation team] will be devoted to the following tasks . . D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, this curriculum\\instruction program been ineffective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) Thus, LRSD policy recognized that the court's Compliance remedy required a focus on individual programs (\". . . program (10.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") [JX 1] provides that all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation. TI Policy IL-Rl further identifies these n ' Has . this . standards as The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications). [JX 2 at 1] These standards include the following content in the section on \"accuracy standards TI [at 125, 127-28]: STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately. so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It IS necessary for the evaluator to gain solid understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was a 6implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons of the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to describe orally, and, if possible, in writing  the intended and the actual program with reference to such characteristics as personnel, cost, procedures. location, facilities, setting, activities, objectives, nature of participation, and potential side effects .... C. Engage independent observers to'describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved .... The Literacy Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (11.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the \"Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation.\" The LRSD provided or approved a list of research questions for this study not includincf the question quoted in para. 9(c), identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 4 Where the focus was to be the impact of individual programs on African American achievement and the possible need for program changes. this omission led to an evaluation with an insufficient focus on 4 See Literacy Evaluation at 1\nat 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 7particular programs and their impact on the intervenor class. (12.) The Literacy Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Literacy Evaluation at 10-11\nparagraphs 9-10, supra\nHaney, Hunter, Jones testimony. This IS particularly the case at the middle school and high school levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 11] Interviews of middle and high school teachers revealed a lack of knowledge of any literacy plan at those levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 7, 13, 43] (13.) The Literacy Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any particular program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] There are evaluation models allowing a focus on individual programs. [Haney and Hunter testimony\nLRX 16 at 6] (14.) The Literacy Evaluation provides scant information on the extent of implementation of any particular program. As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how the program is implemented,\" this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (15.) The Literacy Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores. rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-47\nHaney and Hunter testimony] The Literacy Evaluation is marked by several technical problems (absence of data on use of teacher questionnaires\nlack of demographic information on teachers in focus groups\ninadequate data on student whose files were excluded 8from analyses). [Hunter testimony] (16.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-45] There IS no discussion of \"equating successive versions (that IS , considering whether later versions are of comparable rigor). There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately, of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony\nJX 13] (17.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations. a report that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress. such as grade to grade progression data (that is, whether students are being promoted or retained) and drop out data. [Haney and Marshall testimony] (18.) The Literacy Evaluation is deficient when measured against the standards earlier articulated by Dr. Ross . See paragraphs 7-8. The text of the Literacy Evaluation shows that it n focus[es] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data . . n The description of programs is exceedingly terse and, at grade levels 10-12, almost non-existent. [Literacy Evaluation at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess actual program implementation. The latter problem is a consequence of the schedule for the evaluation adopted by the LRSD, as well as the 9inadequacy of funding (not sufficient to pay for classroom observation). This study can not help to answer the question n whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to n impact at-risk learners. LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2] includes as one criterion for identifying evaluation topics the following question [at 4] :  Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? II See also LRX 16 at 6 (memorandum by Dr. Ross dated April, 2004 recognizing the parameters of the Literacy Evaluation). The Math-Science Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (19. ) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation \"An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. The Math-Science Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Math-Science Evaluation at 5-10\nparagraphs 9-10, supra\nHaney, Hunter, Jones testimony] (20.) The Math-Science Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any individual program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] (21. ) The Math-Science Evaluation identifies methods for determining the extent of implementation of educational programs. but does not provide results for the math-science program. [Math- Science-Evaluation at 11] As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how 10the program is implemented, IT this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (22.) The Math-Science Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test s\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_339","title":"Compliance plan","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":["2002/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance plan"],"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/339"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMr. John W. Walker October 4, 2002 Page 2 We respectfully request that any obj ections you may have to the compliance plan be provided in wnting to Ken James before the October 10,2002, Board meeting, so we will have an opportunity to resolve any disagreements before the Board meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley, Jr. / John JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken James (w/enclosures) F:\\H0ME\\BBrowD\\Feodley\\LK5]\u0026gt;desegkouiMel b.wpd1 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. BISEMAN. JR. P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMBS M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR, P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR, P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER P.A. TONIA F. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.cofn 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-685-2011 FAX 478-695-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 6. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON RECEIVED OCT - 4 2002 office OF desegregation monitoring 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2696 FAX 870-762-2918 October 4,2002 OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHNC. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALUSTBR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 PAX 501-244-5341 fndlyOfc.nt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, #146 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find the Little Rock School Districts proposed Compliance Plan for implementing the courts Compliance Remedy set forth in the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion. Included in the Compliance Plan is a timeline for implementation. It contemplates submitting the Compliance Plan to the Board for approval at the October 10, 2002, agenda meeting. All parties are invited to attend the meeting and will be provided an opportunity to address the board. F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\FcDdley\\LRSD\\deseg\\couQsel LwpdLittle Rock School District Compliance Committee I Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 RECEIVED OCT - 4 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGThe District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13,2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1, Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7' after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that program has not and likely will not improve Afiican-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program a The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it\n(a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afincan-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows\nA. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31,2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1B. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved -with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process {e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerl/ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.  * * On or before March 15,2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15,2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially comphed with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Courts Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of2003-04\nDevelop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\nMaintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elirmnation of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved m the evaluation process\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Courts Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Courts Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan, numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Courts use of the term assessment in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesleys testimony on the difference between assessment and evaluation, see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between testing data, which are derived from student assessments, and program evaluations, which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. See Opinion, p, 152 (LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Comphance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the program evaluations to detemune the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to  2,7 ,,, (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term assessment in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Compliance Committee to determine the District Courts intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Courts findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African-American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term assessment to refer to student assessments and the term evaluation to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy, Given Paragraph As reference to testing data, it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part, student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSDs Final Compliance Report, First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02, The administration recommended this for three reasons: (1) the loss of instructional tune resulting from testing and test preparation\n(2) fall results did not provide sigmficantly different information from the previous springs results\nand (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall admimstration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD, This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26,2002, Third, the LRSD will no longer administer the ALTs. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the ALTs for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks\n(2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4testing and test admimstration\n(3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSDs administration of the ALTs redundant\nand (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26,2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) has moved the administration of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Batteiy Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are admimstered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, IL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5as Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, e.g,, Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached _ Appendix 3. This regulation will be subimtted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ( ODM) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) for review and comment before being finalized Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Courts concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 ( I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSDs African-American students were actually working.). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this cuiriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?. S^ Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 64. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify replace the program. or This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Primary ReadingLanguage Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15 2004. Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare new, comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph As description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 . .. The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of some of the key programs, as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (In addition to the Assessment Plan,  2.7.1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing ^\"evaluations\" of some of the key programs designed to improve Afifrcan-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs. (emphasis in original)) In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. See Opinion, p. 156 ( [A]s of March 15,2001, the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court: (1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question\n(2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board .... (emphasis in original)). The District Courts statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15,2003. However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1 until March 15,2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15,2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7. S^ Paragraph A of Comphance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph As requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31,2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15,2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest tune and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph Cs requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include [a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing .. . . Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the  external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSDs practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows: 1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01. He was asked to read a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonme Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer who over-sees the LRSDs implementation of the grant-funded 8Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement ( CPMSA ). NSF trained a team of LRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who our participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). 3. 4. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (ESL) program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education administration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson (assistant superintendent), Krista Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, techmeal and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending the expertise that is required for a credible report. on 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The follovnng program evaluations identified Report have been completed: on page 148 of the Final Compliance 1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99,1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. 5  HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The , report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years\n1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (SEDL) to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watsons principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 1011. 12. Collaborative Action Team (\"CAT). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of \u0026amp;e Final Compliance Report. The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications. It is unclear whether an expert from outside the LRSD' must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with similar qualifications. I l or The District Courts findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be completed by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committees proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Compliance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving African-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to complete an evaluation. 11Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing Hata HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CLTs during 2000-01. A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CLT training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff The Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this proposed Compliance Plan to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, suggested revisions from ODM and Joshua. 3. Place Compliance Plan on the agenda for Board review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. Week of September 30, 2002 Week of October 7, 2002 October 10,2002 October 24,2002 October 24,2002 November 2002 November 2002 13 I Clay Fendley Ken James Attorneys Ken James Compliance Team Ken James Attorneys Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax8. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. _____________ 10. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._________________ 11. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 14. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002^February 2003 December 2002February 2003 14 Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley15. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed fori2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. December 2002February 2003 March 15,2003 March 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 15 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley21. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 25. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15, 2004 16 Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance TeamI Appendix 1 Proposed IL-RlLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board- approved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, 2^^ Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows: Stakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups j so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. so Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated so formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. 2. 3. The Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Publishers. 5-7.) The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda^with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team shall include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. B. C. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction related to any additional assistance that may be required. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\n5Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: ConA/in Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African- American achievement: to assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10.The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 611 .The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy)\nA. B. C. D. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See Joellen Kiliion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7Appendix 2. Proposed IL-R2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE\nIL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions Academic Program means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. Significantly modify means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program\n(b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers etc.). 1Appendix 3 Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002 99I a It i n g m e a s ROBBY CHAMPION Map out evaluation goals A master plan can guide you down the rocky path of evaluation w 'hen you launch a major professional development evaluation, regardless of the projects scope, you may quickly find yourself on a slippery, often rocky road, with twists and unexpected turns. Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a master plan. While it requires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avoid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are launching a major, summative program evaluation. A summative evaluation is done at major junctures in a programs life cycle and emphasizes documenting impact. Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue, alter, expand, downsize, or eliminate it. A formative evaluation, on the other hand, means monitoring and collecting data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Formative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would:  Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions\n Create a realistic timeline and work plan that  Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting. You can contact her at Champion Ranch at TnimbeD Canyon, Mora. NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-mail: RobbychampioD@aol.com. provides needed momentum for the work\n Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions throughout the process\n Help recruit people to assist with the project on the myriad evaluation tasks\n Give the message that the evaluation wUl be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or will extend for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE PROCESS 1. Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. 2. Learn more about program evaluation together. 3. Write a clear description of each program to be evaluated. 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the evaluation. .5. Plan how you will keep everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically with program evaluation, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities might push the effort aside. Provide steering committee members with the tools to succeed. Members need not be evalu- 78 National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002I i I i I m e a s u r e ation-experts, but they do need information, support, and guidance to make informed decisions. They need background material to learn about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on professional development, measurement, and the content areas of the training programs. Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the New TeacherJnduction Program or the Early Literacy Initiative since so many different initiatives are being undertaken simultaneously around the school or district. PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the evaluation. 2. Generate potential data sources/ instruments to address the questions. 3. Using a matrix to provide a birds-eye view, agree on the most important questions and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to make the evaluation manageable. 5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense: quantitative vs. quahtative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data collection. 7. Determine a realistic schedule for collecting data. 8. Create a system for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase n are critical. They determine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine and what to ignore. When you finish with the design phase, your program evaluation will be shaped to use a quantitative or a , qualitative model  or a mixture of the two. In the design phase, you make other major decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to do an in-dep case study, whether to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at: www.nsdc.org/libraryrjsd/ champion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of student work instead of official documents such as student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to judge adult learners understanding of the training content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or student feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering committee may drift into the realm of program planning as you encounter hurdles tike fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve program leaders in your discussions. Developing or gathering instruments and then collecting the data are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect, from whom to collect it or where to find it, and the best time to collect it. Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some pubhc records, such as student attendance, may be valuable if, for example, 20% increase in student attendance at all grade levels is one of your programs indicators of impact PHASE III: PREPARE TO REPORT 1. Determine which audiences will want to know the results. 2. Consider several forums and formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results useful to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about the schedule for data collection, five- minute progress updates in faculty meetings, bulleted statements on your web site, a digital picture- album of the programs results in classrooms with photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with examples of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of five pages or less to help,readers get the essential information. PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for the whole evaluation. 2. Create a realistic timeline. 3. Assign work. 4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomphsh all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project Enlist steering committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented critical friends to get the work done. One caution: For formal or summa- tive evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to perform critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality technical expertise for the critical technical analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, policies, and practices of your professional development programs  their goals, content, processes, and contexts. In fact, revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major changes are needed if significant results' are really expected from professional development. People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. E I I JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 7, 2002 Dr. Ken James, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: I enjoyed our telephone chat today and look forward to meeting for coffee and more conversation on October 31 (all treats, no tricks!) Thanks for understanding our frustration at receiving the districts Proposed Compliance Plan at noon last Friday, October 4, 2002, giving us very few days in which to respond by your deadline of this coming Thursday, October 10'\\ Although youd been kind to notify me September 23' that your proposal would be forthcoming in the near future, Id not known exactly when to expect it. As a result, were trying to squeeze our review into an already crowded schedule. rd As I explained, the tight timeline will preclude as thorough a review of your plan as we might otherwise have been able to do. Nevertheless, as you and I agreed, well write up some of our preliminary observations and questions for you to factor into your deliberations. My associate. Gene Jones, has been monitoring program evaluation in the district and will continue to do so. Unless otherwise notified, we will assume that our primary contacts for information are those named in the Action Plan Timeline. We intend to do our best in continued support of the district, and will always appreciate ample lead time for our input. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 10, 2002 To: Dr. Ken James, LRSD Frorn^^ni in Marshall, ODM Re: LRSDs Evaluation Compliance Plan Thank you for forwarding the LRSDs Proposed Compliance Plan, Revised Plan 2.7.1, which was delivered to us last Friday, October 4, 2002. ODM is happy to provide comments when requested, and we will appreciate being accorded adequate time in which to do so. Our feedback, attached, is limited as a result of the very short lead time. We hope the enclosed observations and questions will be helpful as you fine-tune your compliance plan. We look forward to working with you over the coming months as we monitor implementation of the plan. Please let us know how we may be of assistance. Enc. cc: Judge William R. Wilson Judge J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of RecordOctober 10, 2002 ODMs Observations and Questions LRSD Proposed Compliance Plan, Revised Plan 2.7.1 1. Of the eight program evaluations the district proposes to have re-written by outside experts (page 12), will new data for continuing programs be added to those evaluations, or will the re-writes be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations had been written? 2. Page 7 of the Proposed Compliance Plan identifies Primary Reading/Langiiage Arts as a program to be evaluated as part of the evaluation agenda, while the term Elementary Literacy is used on page 15. The first term connotes PK-3, while the second connotes K-5. Do the different titles actually identify different programs? Which grades are to be included in the evaluation? 3. Another evaluation agenda item is K-12 Mathematics and Science. The list of assessments on page 5 includes nothing for math and science in grades K-3. What data will be used in evaluating the primary grades, considering the lack of assessments in math and science at that level? 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. In the evaluation of primary literacy, what measures will the district institute to off-set potential bias or conflict-of-interest inherent in the process of teachers administering assessments to their own students? The proposed regulation, IL-Rl, requires a clear description of each program that is to be evaluated. To what extent will those descriptions include not only the subject content that students are expected to learn, but also teaching methods, materials, time allotment, and so on? The proposed regulation requires that all relevant student performance data will be used in the evaluations. Will other data, such as interviews with teachers or students, case studies, and classroom observations, supplement the performance data for the evaluation? The degree and quality of program implementation have received little attention in previous evaluations. What procedures will the LRSD develop to measure program implementation (such as its quality, uniformity, and completeness throughout the district) in order to assure that the student performance data reported in the evaluations are actually the result of the programs described? The compliance plan section headed, Continue to administer student assessment through the first semester of 2003-04 (page 4) details how the LRSD has recently altered its assessment plan. The 2002-03 assessment plan, board-approved on September 26, 2002, provides only for spring testing, as it eliminates all fall testing that is reported to or maintained by the LRSD and, of course, incorporates ADEs move of SAT-9 testing to the spring. Page 5 of this section reads that the final student assessment before March 15, 2004 will be administered in the spring of 2003. We note that the spring 2003 tests will not only be the final assessment, but also the only student assessment reported to or maintained by the LRSD between now and March 15, 2004. Will the data from this one testing cycle be complemented by that of previous years?9. We note that the new assessment plan includes administration of student assessments only in English language arts and mathematics. Also, the 3'* grade has no assessments. 10. 11. 12. Given the assignments in the Action Plan Timeline, what is the role of the districts Planning, Research and Evaluation department under the new compliance plan? Under the envisioned Program Evaluation Agenda? The proposed regulation, IL-R2, Informal Program Evaluation, requires that a written record be prepared and maintained to support any decision to modify an academic program. The purpose of this regulation is unclear. Are the program evaluation standards relevant to informal evaluations? Does the regulation mean that LRSD will informally evaluate all programs? Or, will suspect programs be targeted for informal evaluation? Or, is the regulation intended to protect programs from unfair criticism? How is the LRSD planning to alter its budget to purchase the services of outside evaluation experts? Which budget items will be reduced to accommodate the purchases of evaluation services?Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES A BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMBS C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFP NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANS S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAP. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. BRYAN W, DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P,A. ROBERT T. SMITH www.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-805-2011 FAX 479-605-2147 R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IF RAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALANG. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER RECEIVED 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2808 FAX 870-762-2918 OCT 1 1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING October 11,2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-970-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fandltyQf^c.ntt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones JohnW. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hanson 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, #146 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE\nCompliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: At a special meeting last night, the LRSD Board voted to approve the Proposed Comphance Plan provided to you by letter dated October 4,2002, with the exception of proposed regulation IL- R2. It was decided by the administration that IL-R2 was unnecessary and it was withdrawn. The administrations reasoning will be discussed below as a part of the Districts response to questions submitted by Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshalls memorandum to Dr. James dated October 10, 2002, set forth 12 observations/questions related to the Proposed Compliance Plan. The Districts response to each observation/question is set forth below: F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200I\\unitary-all-counsd-10-l 1-02.wpdAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11, 2002 Page 2 1. Of the eight program evaluations the district proposes to have re-written by outside experts (page 12), will new data for continuing programs be added to those evaluations, or will the re-writes be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations had been written? RESPONSE: The re-writes will be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations were written. 2. Page 1 of the Proposed Compliance Plan identifies Primary Reading/Language Arts as a program to be evaluated as part of the evaluation agenda, while the term. Elementary Literacy is used on page 15. The first term connotes PK-3, while the second connotes K-5. Do the different titles actually identify different programs? Which grades are to be included in the evaluation? RESPONSE: There is one program to be evaluated for PK-5, and the title of that evaluation will be Elementary Literacy, rather than Primary Reading/Language Arts. 3. Another evaluation agenda item is K-12 Mathematics and Science. The list of assessments on page 5 includes nothing for math and science in grades K-3. What data will be used in evaluating the primary grades, considering the lack of assessments in math and science at that level. RESPONSE: The data to be used for the K-12 Mathematics and Science evaluation will be the same as that previously used for the NSF Mathematics and Science evaluations with the exception of the ALTs which will no longer be administered. 4. In the evaluation of primary literacy, what measures will the district institute to off-set potential bias or conflict-of-interest inherent in the process of teachers administering assessments to their own students? RESPONSE: The District attempts to off-set potential bias resulting from teachers administering student assessments through its training of teachers in administering the assessments and monitoring the results of assessments. 5. In the evaluation ofprimary literacy, IL-Rl, requires a clear description of each program that is to be evaluated. To what extent will those descriptions include not only the subject content that students are expected to learn, but also teaching methods, materials, time allotment, and so on? F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\unitary-aJl-counsel-10-l 1-02. wpdAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11, 2002 Page 3 RESPONSE: The program description will be prepared by the evaluation committee pursuant to IL-Rl. Teaching methods, materials and time allotment may be included in the program description to the extent the evaluation committee deems it relevant. It is important to note the evaluation will be of the overall program and not individual program components. 6. 7. 8. 9. The proposed regulation requires that all relevant student performance data will be used in the evaluations. Will other data, such as interviews with teachers and students, case studies, and classroom observations, supplement the performance data for the evaluation? RESPONSE: The data necessary to answer the research questions will be determined by the evaluation committee. The degree and quality of program implementation have received little attention in previous evaluations. What procedures will the LRSD develop to measure program implementation (such as its quality, uniformity, and completeness throughout the district) in order to assure that the student performance data reported in the evaluations are actually the result of the programs described. RESPONSE: The evaluation committee will determine the necessity of such data and the manner in which it will be gathered. The compliance plan section headed, Continue to administer student assessment through the first semester of 2003-04\" (page 4) details how the LRSD has recently altered its assessment plan. The 2002-03 assessment plan, board-approved on September 26, 2002, provides only for spring testing, as it eliminates all fall testing that is reported to and maintained by the LRSD and, of course, incorporates ADEs move of SAT-9 testing to the spring. Page 5 of this section reads that the final student assessment before March 15,2004 will be administered in the spring of 2003. We note that the spring 2003 tests will not only be the final assessment, but also the only assessment reported to or maintained by the LRSD between now and March 15, 2004. Will the data from this one testing cycle be complemented by that of previous years. RESPONSE: Yes, for the three new, comprehensive evaluations. As stated above, no new data will be gathered for the evaluations to be completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. We note that the new assessment plan includes administration of student assessments only in English language arts and mathematics. Also, the 3\"* grade has no assessments. F:\\HOMEVFENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\unitary-ail-counsd-10-ll-02.wpdAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11, 2002 Page 4 RESPONSE: The assessment plan outlined was only that for English language arts and mathematics. Even so, it is noted that the SAT9 will be administered and the total battery of that test includes a science and social studies component. It is correct that there will be no assessment of 3\"^ graders this year or next. The State will be developing and administering a test after that to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act. 10. 11. 12. Given the assignments in the Action Plan Timeline, what is the role of the districts Planning, Research and Evaluation department imder the new compliance plan? Under the envisioned Program Evaluation Agenda? RESPONSE: PRE staff may serve on the evaluation committees. Proposed regulation, IL-R2, Informal Program Evaluation, requires that a written record be prepared and maintained to support any decision to modify an academic program. The purpose of this regulation is xmclear. Are the program evaluation standards relevant to information evaluations? Does the regulation mean that LRSD will informally evaluate all programs? Or, will suspect programs be targeted for informal evaluation? Or, is the regulation intended to protect programs from unfair criticism? RESPONSE: The administration withdrew IL-R2 before approval of the Proposed Compliance Plan by the Board. The administration decided that the regulation would be redimdant of information to be included in the new, comprehensive evaluations required by Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in the new, comprehensive evaluations will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. How is the LRSD planning to alter its budget to purchase the services of outside evaluation experts? Which budget items will be reduced to accommodate the purchase of evaluation services? RESPONSE: This decision has not yet been made. The District will make this decision when it has a better idea of the total cost of these services. The Board has instructed the administration and counsel to work with the parties in an effort to achieve a consensus that the LRSDs Compliance Plan meets the requirements of the District Courts Compliance Remedy. The Board contemplates some give and take before a final consensus may be reached. So that this may be done in a timely manner, the LRSD asks all parties to F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\uniury-al!-counsci-10-11-02. wpdAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11, 2002 Page 5 specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21,2002. Please let us know if this deadline presents areal problem for you or your client. We will be happy to answer any questions the parties may have before that date. We ask that the questions be submitted in vmting, and the LRSD will respond in writing so that all parties will have the benefit of the question and response. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, John C. Fendiey, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\unitary-all-counsd-10-l 1-02. wpdec: JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Bank Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile -376-2147 October 9, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rook, Aekans.as 72210 Phone (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmclieiiryd@swbelLnet RECEIVED OCT 11 2102 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: LRSD Compliance Plan Dear Chris: This is to inform you that I received your Compliance Plan on Monday, October 1, 2002. I was in court on Monday and Tuesday. Incidentally, I am again in court today and have not had adequate time to even read what you propose. I understand that you will be presenting this matter to the Board on tomorrow evening. I have called you several times and have been informed that you were not in. Accordingly, when you present this matter to the Board, please let them know that I have not had an opportunity to review what you have proposed nor to have any discussions regarding the matter with you or the ODM. 1 // Sincerely, / 4 jefhn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record e\u0026lt;r: John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY. P.A DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Ro.ad Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 1 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris: Plan. This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSDs proposed Compliance The courts remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before todays Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementation pursuant to Section 2.7 . . . , which are to be subjected to a comprehensive program evaluation. . . Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions / scaffolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate. The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the courts remedy. 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the courts order regarding the evaluationsmentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns which Joshua may ultimately have about the courts remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the courts views on an appropriate remedy. Sitic^ly, / .\u0026gt;John W. Walker JWW.'js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of RecordFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILUAM H. SUTTON. P.A. Byron m. eiseman, jr, p.a JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR B DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFP NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.cofT\u0026gt; 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-695-2011 FAX 479-665-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIPFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN Q. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 RE: 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2868 FAX 870-762-2918 October 14,2002 OPCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILUAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A AD. MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL S01-370-3323 FAX 501-244-S341 fn4lyQfc.nt RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District et al. United States District Court, Eastern District, No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: We note that Ms. Marshall provided you a copy of her October 10,2002, memorandum to Dr. James setting forth observations/questions related to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Plan for complying with the Compliance Remedy set forth in the Courts Memorandum Opinion of September 13,2002. We submitted a response to Ms. Marshall on October 11,2002, but were uncertain whether we should provide a copy of that to the Court. While we would be happy to provide copies to the Court, it would be presumptuous on our part to presume that the Court wants to review all correspondence between counsel in this case. We respectfully request the Court advise the parties what it would like them to do in this regard. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. V F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fa\u0026gt;dley\\LRSD\\deseg\\judge wilsoo k.wpdHonorable William R. Wilson, Jr. October 14,2002 Page 2 cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr^chard Roachell ^Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\FcndJcy\\]J\u0026lt;SEMcscg\\/udge wibon h.wpdI . JOO JOHN W. WALEtER SHAWN CHILDS John W. walker, pa. Attohney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23,2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendesson HoaL Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3426  Pax (501) 372-3428 RUAn,: mchearyd^awLelLxket Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK . 400 W. CapitoU Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2002 Re\nLRSD V, PCSSD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris\nThis letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the I PSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration, 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of interest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Program Evaluation Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing commenTs to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose perform anrA is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which itI, Page Two October 23,2002 ^^0 dertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation ^vittes in distnct schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2).  / 1 the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be paiticul^ly directed to achievement of African American students for the indefinite future, not smply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this IS the case. We would appreciate yourproviding this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. RffW. Walker Sincere^, JWW:lp cc: All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray Dazs: .J- O JOHN W. NHLKER, Aitomsy ar Law 1723 Sroad'.way J2od^ Aakar\u0026lt;aas 72206 Telephons (501) 37a.375S Fea (501) 374-4137 RAH TR.liVSMI3SICiN COVTS S7TTF.F e Ltui L I fk- J 271-d/a-i} [. L Rz: SznRsr: / 70USHOULD HSCDD/E [ (iTiclzuimg caver shssi)} PAC-D(S). OfCLUDlHG THIS COVER SHEET. IF TOUDO HOT RECEIVE ALL THE PACES, r.4r.r \"\u0026lt;(501) 574-375S\u0026gt;\" The iMarmationconiaiaedin diis iiesiniilemessage is sitoiaeypri'/iiegedand coafideatial infSrmgrinn mr.qnripd eniy for the use of the iadivimial ar enrity named above, if ms .^ader of this message is not the intended tecipieat. ot the employes or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissetnination, oistibiinon or copying of mis conmunicahon. is strictly prohibited. If you have received dhs communication in error, please immediate aoui^us by teleptons. and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal SerAce. Thank you. received OCT 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P a DONNA J. McHenry 3210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Ahkans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  P.4X (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd@swbeil.net Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 25, 2002 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: We are in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2002 regarding LRSDs compliance remedy. Instead of these exchanges of paper, it would be advantageous to all concerned for us to have some meetings in order to respond to these issues so that we can better understand each others position. Not everything is black letter and there should be room for discussion in mutual agreement. Si-Hcerely, .hn W. Walker JWW\njs cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record(TC: Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM IIL P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A, J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANES. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 342S NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-665-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2696 FAX 870-762-2918 October 25, 2002 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A, JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A, DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 8. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN 0. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHNF. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. AD. MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fsndlay^fac.nct (By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hanson Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE\nCompliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: In our letter dated October 11,2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21,2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on tlie comments contained in Mr. Walkers October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walkers comments will be addressed in turn.All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementat[ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 .. which are to be subjected to comprehensive program evaluation .. \u0026gt; Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ scaffolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of Afiican-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24,2002, the Board approved the Division of Instructions Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools, a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This imdermines the LRSD argiunent (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Courts remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen. Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was inadequate. Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation completed by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert.All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the courts order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take accoimt of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-Rl. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshuas appeal of the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assigiunent results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their ovra students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE\nParagraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary piupose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discoinage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSDs early literacy program willAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 4 be judged by performance on the States Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 1. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of interest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the context- of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Program Evaluation Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the maimer which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSDs commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSDs best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the States Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted apohcy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE\nAs the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walkers October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto.All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would hke to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Boards approval of IL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshuas concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSDs responses to Joshuas comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSDs Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSDs written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8. Pursuant to Revised Plan  8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ohn C. Jr. John Pendley, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery)received cc 1 2 5 2002 OESEGREGWION MONITORING Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 2002-2003 Background The Little Rock School District obtained approval from the federal court in spring 1998 for its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In submitting its plan to the. judge, the District willingly assumed accountability for its numerous obligations, several of which addressed the issues of student achievement. The following sections were most relevant: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 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. 5.1 Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four-year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four-year-old classes will remain at their present site or in the same general location. 5.2.1 Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the 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\ng. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. 5.2.2 Intermediate Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher-level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for 1making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment\ne. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. 5.2.3 Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens, and life-long learners\nf. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3 Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction. 5.3.2 Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. 5.3.5 Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. On September 13,2002, the federal court ruled that the District was substantially in compliance in all areas of the obligations, except Section 2.7.1, and the judge established a Compliance Remedy for the completion of a number of program evaluations. The work to meet those requirements is in progress. In the Districts Covenant for the Future, the Little Rock School District pledged to the commumty and to all employees, students, and parents to continue its efforts for the improved academic achievement of aU the children: improve the academic achievement of all students, comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and provide equitable educational resources, programs, and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending District schools. In June 1999 the Arkansas Department of Education published its statewide accountability plan, the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), which was subsequently revised in June 2000. The 2'f introduction states that ACTAAP is a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. The four stated purposes are as follows: To improve student learning and classroom instruction\nTo provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\nTo provide program evaluation data\nand To assist policymakers in decision-making. Expected outcomes include the following: It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on then- practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. It will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. At the centerpiece of ACTAAP is the states new assessment program, which in 2002- 2003 includes annual criterion-referenced Benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics at grades 4,6, 8, and high school end-of-course/level tests in Algebra I, Geometry, and Literacy. The states testing program also includes the administration of the SAT9 at grades 5,7, and 10. Accountability indicators for the three tiers of the accountability program are established. Tier I includes the following: Performance on Benchmarks and End-of-Course/Level tests School dropout rates Average daily attendance Classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher 3Professional development (at least 30 hours) School safety. Tier n includes the same indicators, but the assessment is based on growth over multiple years, not absolute scores. Mandated subgroups to examine include the general population, special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility students. Tier HI is a narrative of approximately 500 words, developed by staff of each school. The narrative may include the progress that the school has made in implementing its school improvement plan. Page 19 of the plan includes the following definition of adequate yearly progress to be used until the ACTAAP can be fully implemented.\nIn order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000- 2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. It has been this paragraph upon which the Little Rock School District has based much of its decision-making relating to school improvement since 1999-2000. Clearly, both in the description of Tier I and Tier n indicators and in the page 19 paragraph, it was not the performance on the SAT9 that mattered. SAT9 scores were included only as an optional indicator. A schools entire accountability for Title I depended on its performance on the Benchmarks. In January 2001 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which included the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), became law. The accountability provisions in Title I of this new law included, for the most part, the same language as several of the most recent reauthorizations^requirements that states and districts identify low-performing schools for improvement and requirements that progressively more intense consequences should occur for schools continuing not to improve over time. One difference in the 2001 law is that the first year a school is identified for improvement, the school must, in addition to the usual consequences, offer public school choice to the children and parents of that school so that they may elect to attend another higher performing school in the district. This option will remain in effect until the home school has earned its way out of the school improvement designation. Transportation costs must be paid out of the Title I allocation. The second year that a school is identified for improvement, the school must continue to offer choice, but must also offer, at no cost to the parent, a choice of state-approved supplemental services, or tutoring. Again, the cost of this service must be paid from Title I funds. 4NCLB requires states to establish curriculum standards and to test all students every year in both language arts and mathematics, grades 3-8, and once in grades 10-12. States must also establish an accountability system for all its public schools. The new law was to become effective at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school-year. However, implementation has been guided chiefly at both the state and local levels through Dear Colleague Letters fiom the Secretary of Education, since the formal regulations were still not complete as of late October 2002. Many, many questions regarding definitions of the mandated adequate yearly progress (AYP), what flexibility districts have in implementing the choice options, and other major issues remained unanswered. Arkansas educators assumed that the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) plan described in the ACTAAP document for accountability remained in force, and ADE announced in June 2002 that no Arkansas schools would be identified for improvement under NCLB until the end of the 2002-2003 school year, given the phase-in of the states Benchmarks and high school tests. In September 2002 everyone awoke one morning to a headline in the newspaper that the state had been required by the federal government to change its accountability plan, that schools would be identified based upon SAT9 data, not Benchmark data, and that the public school choice and supplemental services requirements must be implemented no later than the beginning of the 2002-2003 schoolyears second semester. ADE aimounced its list of identified schools on October 16, 2002. The 1998-99 schoolyear was established as the baseline year for making the identification decisions, the percent of students performing at/above the 50* percentile of the SAT9 Basic Battery score was selected as the measurement, and the first screening of schools included all Title I schools with fewer than 25 percent of its students performing at/above the 50* percentile. Schools in that pool could also be identified for improvement if they had failed to decrease the percentage of students performing in the bottom quartile for two consecutive years. From that pool of low-performing schools, schools failing to make AYP for the two subsequent years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001), based on SAT9 data, were identified for improvement. These ongoing commitments in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and in the Covenant for the Future, plus the adoption of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) by the State of Arkansas, the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act by the United States Congress, and ADEs identification of schools for improvement all compel the Little Rock School District to enhance its efforts to provide a higher level of monitoring, support, and intervention for its low-performing schools. Through the activities outlined in this plan, the District adds another strategy to improve the academic achievement not only for Afiican American children, but for all children, whether representing a race/ethnicity, gender, firee/reduced lunch status, disability, or limited English proficiency subgroup. Stq)s have already been taken by the Division of Instruction to assume new roles and responsibilities in supporting school improvement. For the past two years curriculum 5staff and PRE staff have provided principals meeting in small groups a complete set of school performance data, including assistance in analyzing those data and support in implementing their school improvement plans. Division of Instruction staff concentrated many of their efforts on low-performing schools in 2001-2002, including the monitoring of Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs), targeting those schools for grant proposals (Comprehensive School Reform grants and the Reading Exellence Act grants), providing follow-up professional development, consultation, and school visits. Needs Assessment According to the Arkansas Department of Education in its October 16, 2002, communication to the Superintendent, the following Little Rock School District schools have been identified in 2002-2003 for improvement: Bale Elementary (1 year) Baseline Elementary (2** year) Chicot Elementary (2\" year) Dodd Elementary (1* year) Fair Park Elementary (P* year) Mabelvale Elementary (L year) Mitchell Elementary (Pyear) Stephens Elementary (2\" year) Wakefield Elementary (2\" year) Watson Elementary (2\" year) Henderson Middle (1 year) Mabelvale Middle (1 year) Southwest Middle (l year) ADEs letter to the Superintendent included the following information relating to Removal from School Improvement: All schools, except high schools, listed in this notification will be eligible for removal from school improvement based on AYP as measured by the Benchmark exams and described in the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). Specifically, these schools will be eligible for removal following the 2003 administration of these exams based on two consecutive years ofAYP with 2000-2001 designated as the baseline year. Several issues remain unclear\n1. Whether AYP will be defined based on ten years or twelve years to reach 100 percent proficient/advanced\n2. Whether AYP will be defined for one year or over a two-to-three year period\n63. 4. 5. 6. Whether schools identified for school improvement in this first group will be accountable for subgroup performance\nHow AYP for subgroups will be determined\nWhat the minimum number of students will be to be considered a subgroup\nWhether the high priority schools will continue to be defined as those with fewer than 25 percent performing at the proficient/advanced levels. The deadline for states to submit their accountabihty plans, definitions for AYP, and related issues to the U. S. Department of Education for approval is the end of the calendar year. It is likely, therefore, that districts will not know until late spring or early summer what the rules will be for some of these issues related to schools already identified for improvement and for the new identification that will occur when 2002-2003 Benchmark scores are received. The Little Rock School District, however, cannot wait for answers to all these questions in order to begin providing the necessary support, assistance, interventions, and monitoring required to help the identified schools exit the School Improvement designation and to prevent as many additional schools as possible from being identified at the end of 2002-2003. To assess greatest need and to enable the Division of Instruction to determine priorities, a more complete needs assessment was conducted. The following matrix lists the schools that have been formally identifi\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_525","title":"Literacy plan","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":["1999/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Literacy","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Literacy plan"],"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/525"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["128 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJune 2 9, 2 0 0 1 ! Literacy plan Literacy for LR pupils raises scores Reading assessment shows improvement BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE I Two years into a new literacy ' program. Little Rock School District officials said Thursday that student achievement appears to be improving as shown by results from a reading assessment given to pupils in kindergarten through second grades. I About three-fourths of last years kindergartners and second-graders and almost two- thirds of first-graders had the necessary skills and knowledge to succeed at the next grade level, according to the results from the Developmental Reading Assessment Im happy to report that the little children in our district are learning to read, Bonnie Lesley, associate superintendent for cim- riculum, told the School Board on Thursday. More than 80 percent of kindergartners scored at or above a satisfactory level this past spring, up 8.5 percentage points from spring 2000. Similarly, 75.4 percent of sec- ond-graders showed they are ready for the third grade, up from 67.5 percent in ^e preceding  Continued from Page 1B by each teacher in individual observation sessions with pupils, is one component of the districts literacy program. District officials revamped the literacy program in 1999 to better prepare ^1 pupils to read independently by the time they finish third grade. When the program was started, about 30 percent of children were reading at a proficient or better level. The state goal for reading proficiency at the end of fourth grade is 100 percent. The revised literacy program was designed to create more uniformity in the instruction given in the districts 36 elementary schools, A moratorium was placed on any new supplemental reading programs, and other programs were abandoned. Each school set aside a 2 172 hour daily block of time for language arts and reading. In addition, curriculum standards, teacher training, classroom instruction and student testing were more tightly aligned as a result of the new literacy program. Most primary-grade teachers went through at least one week of the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas training program, Lesley said. The district purchased more than $350,000 in readii^ supplies over two years, and Animated Literacy, a phonics awareness program, was expanded to all kindergartens and will be added to the first grades in coming years. Lesley said the reading results are preliminary. The true measure Little Rock School District Developmental Reading Assessment results Developmental Reading Assessment scores are reported as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the readiness\" level. \"Readiness'is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. SPRING SPRING 2000 2001 CHANGE of the reading skills will be when year. A total of 63.8 percent of I children who have gone through first-graders scored at the readi- ness level, up from 53.6 percent in spring 2000. \"file reading assessment, done See UTERACY, Page 4B the new program take the state- mandated Primary Benchmark Exam at the end of fourth grade. When last springs assessment scores are broken down by race, both black and white children showed gains, but the gains made by black pupils were greater, Lesley said. That means there was a reduction in the achievement disparity between black and white pupils. Kindergarten 72.2% 80.7% 8.5% Grade 2 67.5% 75.4% 7.9% SOURCE\nLittle Rock School District Arkansas Democrat-Gazette which is a long-standing goal of the district Black pupils averaged gains of 6 percentage points to 9 percentage points over results from 2000, while whites  who traditionally score higher on standardized exams  averaged gains of 4.1 percentage points to 6.1 percentage points. Stephens, McDermott, Badgett and Baseline elementaries were cited by Lesley and by School Board members for dramatic improvements. At some grades in some schools, results improved by more than 40 percentage points. In some schools, more than 90 percent of children scored at a proficient level The highest performing schools in kindergarten were McDermott, Baseline, Fulbright, Gibbs and Brady schools. The highest performing schools in first grade were Williams, Carver, McDermott, Booker and Forest Park. The highest performing schools in second grade were Carver, Williams, Western Hills, Otter Creek and McDermott 'The district has not prepared parent reports on their childrens assessment results. Lesley said parents can get the school and student results from their childs elementary school. THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2003  LR literacy coach is teacher of year ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE hosted the Teacher of the Year Debbie Sabo, a literacy coach Recognition Banquet for five at Chicot Elementary School, was years. Staff at each of the dis- named Teacher of the Year for tricts SO schools nominate their the Little Rock School District at colleagues for school and dis- a Tuesday evening ceremony at trict awards. This year, 67 teach- Stephens Elementary School. ers were honored\none from each Sabo, who previously taught elementary school, two each kindergarten for 18 years, was from the middle schools and as presented with numerous gift many as certificates and prizes including schools, airline passes, a computer, print- er, tickets to an athletic event and an athletic club membership. The gifts were donated by companies doing business in Little Rock. The Little Rock district has four from the highKtCBBSa Little Rock School District June 2,1999 The main thing is to keep the main thing the main THING! Dear Colleagues: What a yeai! I hope all of you have the sense of accomplishment that I do! The positive opportunities for the school district continue to develop. We have had great individual and collective accomplishments, but the most exciting aspect of the year has been that the instructional indicators are pointing to very positive future results. A parent and a teacher asked me how that could be true. Hadnt I seen the newspaper story showing results of the 4* grade literacy and math exam? Yes, but when we looked at those we noticed the schools that were pilots of the ELLA program K-3 and math, all had strong gains. Staff development has not been universally accepted or appreciated, primarily because of the many failed promises of programs and quick fix elixirs of the past! But this time this very basic and focused approach appears to be just what the doctor ordered. Most educational reformers who have produced results over time have agreed it is a matter of focuSgetting everyone on the same page with a standard or basic program. All the efforts of parents, students and teachers, regardless of the specialty, are focused to produce progress on a limited set of goals. ELLA training and the focused math training will continue to produce results on basic reading and math achievement goals. And let us not forget district graduates really had no peers when it came to top student awards in a number of state and national academic categories. Student activities have been a very pleasant surprise. The numbers of students participating grew impressively, and I know this helped to produce an improved year in student behavior. Many of you remember when state winners were most often decided within the schools of Little Rock, and Im talking about a variety of co-curricular activities. The district again has asserted itself with impressive performances in music, art, drama speech, debate and athletics. With the implementation of the middle schools and neighborhood schools our students and programs will only become stronger. Without question, the academic reasoning for middle schools and 9-12 high schools will provide academic strength, and it will have a positive impact with increased student participation in career/technical programs and co-curricular activities. (continued) 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000A^eh'ti1 I t-ren LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I I June 24. 1999 To\nBoard of Education From\nDr. Bonnie Lesley,, AAss!sociate Superintendent for Instruction Through\nSubject\nAttached Dr. Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan for the Board's information is a copy of the final draft of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The draft presented earlier to the Board of Education has been extensively reviewed over a three-month period. Every elementary principal and PreK-3 teacher received his or her own copy, and there have been multiple opportunities for all to provide input, including during the June 2-3-4 inservice. In addition, the plan has been reviewed by representatives of ODM, UALR, ADE, and other education colleagues, as well as by parent representatives. As a result of all this feedback, we confidently present thi'final draft/ Responses have been nearly unanimously supportive. They applaud a well-designed, coherent District plan that is clearly aligned with the Arkansas literacy curriculum framework. Smart Start, and Title I regulations and that includes professional development and program evaluation components. All are supportive of doing whatever it takes to improve student achievement. Early implementors of the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), the centerpiece of the K-2 design, and Effective Literacy, the program for grades 3-4, were Dodd Elementary and Gibbs Elementary. The results of the spring 1999 Grade 4 Literacy Benchmark Examination for these two schools are extremely encouraging and predict what we as a District can do if we implement well the components of our plan. In 1997-98 only 22 percent of Dodd grade 4 students scored at the Proficient or Advanced levels. This year, 1998-99, 35 percent scored at those levelsan improvement of 13 percentage points! Review of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24, 1999 Page Two Gibbs posted even greater gains. In 1997-98 they had 28 percent scoring at the Proficient or Advanced levels. Their score jumped to 49 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 21 percentage points! The PreK-3 Literacy Plan also allows for the continuation of Success for All, provided that those schools are posting improved performance. Romine Elementary has been a leader in Success for All implementation. Their performance jumped from 13 percent at Proficient or Advanced levels in 1997-98 to 48 percent in 1998-99an improvement of a very impressive 35 percentage points! 1 Notable also is that Dodd decreased the percentage of students performing at the Below Basic level from 50 percent in 1997-98 to 30 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 20 percentage points. Gibbs reduced their percentage of Below Basic\" performers from 52 percent in 1997-98 to 22 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 30 percentage points. And Romine reduced the percentage of students at the Below Basic level from 58 percent in 1997-98 to 32 percent in 1998-99an improvement of 26 percentage points. f I I t These very dramatic gains are indicators of the soundness of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan design. To achieve these kinds of results at the District level will require our commitment, focus, and determination, as well as an alignment of our energy and resources behind the implementation. i This final draft includes only a few changes from the earlier one reviewed by the Board of Education in March. The following are most significant: Update of section on Involvement and Communication to include March, April, May, and June activities (p. 11)\nUpdate of section on Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests to include spring 1999 results (p. 12)\nAddition of paragraph on schools identified for school improvement for Title I (P. 13)\nAddition of suggested performance indicators under Plan Goals (p. 26)\nAddition of section on Technology in PreK-3 in response to questions regarding role of computer labs in current use (p. 37)\nAddition of section on Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4 to show its place in the overall plan (p. 40)\nAddition of section on Role of the Library/Media Center to clarify expectations and involvement (p. 42)\nAddition of more specific information on plans for ELLA training (p. 44)\nAddition of a paragraph clarifying need for waiver to implement Direct Instruction (p. 47). I f j tReview of PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan - Memo June 24,1999 Page Three Remaining changes were those relating to format, editing, and clarifying the original language. Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is already in progress and will continue intensely throughout the summer in preparation for next fall. BAL/adgi ^n Individual Approach to a World of Yjiowledge RECSVEd August 28, 2001 AUG 3 J 20Q1 DKEGflEGAT(0NM0N(T0fl/N6 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed in this package are three draft copies of our PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which is scheduled to go to the Board of Education in October. ( At your convenience I would like to schedule a meeting with you, Gene Jones, and Melissa Guilden to discuss the report and to hear your feedback and suggestions. Thanks so much for assisting us with this work. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ^4 7^ -J October 12, 2001 'iViS^ fb, A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 8 2901 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ms. Marshall: You will find enclosed a copy of our program evaluation for K-2 literacy: Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. The report is on the Boards October 25 agenda. As you will recall, Melissa Guilden participated on the design team for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, so we hope that you will share this study with her so that she can see some of the fruits of her labor. Also, Gene Jones read drafts in 1999-2000 of the early literacy program evaluation, so he will probably be interested in this product as well. Although we know that two years is not nearly enough to draw summative conclusions about the effectiveness of our literacy program in the early grades, we are certainly pleased with these early, very positive results. With the careful review that we have conducted not only of the results of the eight different assessments, but also of our program strengths and weaknesses, we feel that we have more direction now for program improvement in 2001-2002. Please let me or Ms. Pat Price know if you have questions. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Enclosure cc: Patricia Price Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 F John W. Walker, pa. Attorket AiLiW 112Z Bsoadway Rook, akkansas 72206 Tp.T.FtpgnNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W, WALSER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL donna J. MeHENK? 6210 HaffiiaaoN Hoad LMTiE Sock, Tboke: (BOI) rra-was  Fax (SOl) 37^8 October 31,2002 Dr. T. Kenneth James SuperinteodJt of Schods Little Rock School Kstrict 810 West Markham little Rode. AR. 72201 Dear Dr. James: I am renewing my request for the infcnnation in my letter dated October 29, ^02. If I ation that the District has not utilized any understand your response correctly, it is your po^on that the (during each of the past three ye^) \u0026lt; \" documents in existence wherry the Kstnct has co^ad and paid for such. your po^on, it seems contrary to your nqxjits to the Court. are no services. Ifthis is if you are not aware who has this information. of such documents, please forward my request to the proper person iiacerety, Joy C. Springer' JCS/ cc: Ms. Ann MarshallLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 1,2002 Ms. Joy Springer Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: In response to your most recent request, you did not understand our response. It is not our position that we have not utilized consultants. Hovi/ever, our response remains the same. We do not have a document or documents to provide in response to your FOIA request, and we are not required to compile information or create a record in response to a FOIA request. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools TKJ/bjg cc\nChris Heller Clay Fendley Ann Marshall 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 0 : John W. Walker, PA. Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 I I JOHN W. WALkEB SHaWK CH-IlDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HknuEBSON Road LmLe Rxxac, ASKANB-vs 72210 Prone: (SOI) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 T.X(An.-. mehc2ii7d^ewbeU.nt I Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile  447-1159 November 4,2002 I I I I I Dear Dr. James\nlet me know the names, addresses and telephone of all persons (from January 1, 1998 throng October 31,2002) that the District has consulted with respect to literacy training (in-service and staff devdopment). Also please let me have copies of their contracts and the pay invoices that they have submitted along evidence of payment to them. Sincerely, JCS/ cc\nMr. John W, Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. ClayFendley Mr. Chris Heller I I e- JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 November 6, 2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 PHONE\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (SOI) 372-3426 Email: mehcaiyd^vbclLnet Mr. ClayFendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Redons Center 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV -6 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I . XOM Dear Clay: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 5,2002. My request for information relates directly to the LRSDs proposed compliance plan, item 4\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2,7. It is my understanding that literacy programs are being utilized to improve African American academic achievement and that the District commits to evaluating these programs I would like to have a better understanding of the literacy programs being implemented including who provided the training, amount paid by the District and the substance of the training provided. I also intend to inquire regarding the other programs identified in  2.7 in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. mcerely, Joy C. Spring! JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann MarshallI received JAN 1 3 2004 CREP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Center for Research in Educational Policy \u0026gt; Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation Steven M, Ross John Nunnery Lana Smith Aaron McDonald Allan Sterbinsky Center tor Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis 325 Browning Hail Memphis, TN 38152 Toll Free\n1-866-670-6147 November 2003Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.ffidayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE \u0026lt;79-685-2011 FAX 479-685-2147 FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR.. P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON STEVEN L. BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNG. JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KIMBERLY A. DICKERSON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870.762-2918 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 PAX 501-244-S344 hllrOfc.nt January 12, 2004 ONtHOllNO W N0li33a3aS3a dOlOHdO Mr. John Walker *1002 s I Nvr JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 aaABoaa Re: Little Rock School District Dear John: Two recent evaluations which were done in compliance with Judge Wilsons Order are enclosed. They are: Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation, November 2003 and An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to December 2003. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns about these evaluations. Yours very truly, CJH/bk ist6pher Heller cc w/enc.: Ms. Ann Marshal Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Morris Holmes* Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program-Draft Little Rock School District Division of Instruction March 1999 In short, literacy is key to success in school and beyond, for effective participation in the workforce, the community, and the body politic. This was true in the past- ven more true in the future, (p. 1, Building a Knowledge Base in Reading. NREL, 1998) ( t- Table of Contents Introduction 1 Background The Strategic Plan The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The Campus Leadership Plan The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative Title I Other Special Populations Summary 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 6 Methodology Core Committee Members 6 8 Involvement and Communication 8 Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) Implications for Social Promotion Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) Professional Community Support for Students Conclusions 8 8 10 11 16 16 17 Review of Research 17 Plan Goals 20 PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Organizational Changes HIPPY Title I Lower Student-to-Adult Ratios Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts No New Programs Program Abandonment Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers Waiver Application Requirements Curriculum and Instruction Alignment Daily Schedule Limited-English Proficient Students Special Education and 504 Students Gifted/Talented Students 21 22 22 22 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 27 27 28Frequent Assessment and Regrouping Phonemic Awareness Early Literacy Learning (ELLA) Thematic Instruction The Social Nature of Learning Role of the Library/Media Center Supplemental Reading Materials Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment New Elementary Report Card PreK-3 Literacy Program Evaluation Professional Development Effective Literacy Smart Start Professional Development School-Level Professional Development Principal Development Interventions Success for All Reading Recovery English-as-a-Second Language Reading Clinic Summer School Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts Parent Education Conclusions Timelines 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 37Position Paper PreK-3 Literacy ProgramDraft Little Rock School District March 1999 Introduction Beginning of PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff, interested parents, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School District students. This 1996 undertaking became the first of an array of important planning efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 2L century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, is literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue which has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSD is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement, professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. Strategy 2 of that plan is as follows\nIn 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. 1Draft The Action Plan designed to achieve Strategy 2 delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. Strategy 3 speaks to the importance of improved student achievement: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the SO'** percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The Strategy 3 Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3:  a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\n expansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand  promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the Districts attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Sections 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level: LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the 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\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\n2Draft c. d. e. f. g-  h. 1. J- k. 1. Promote thematic instruction\nIdentify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills\nMonitor the appropriateness of teaching/leaming materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nEstablish uninterrupted blocks of time for feading/language arts and mathematics instruction\nMonitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nProvide parents/guardians with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\nProvide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nTrain teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nUse the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. I Other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs ... after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afncan-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican- American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 32.12.2 LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the Districts Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. Staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. Accountabilit)' - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs will be conducted during 1998-99 to include training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the states Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based Management will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. 4Draft Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams will be continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the Districts Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the Districts elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the challenging State performance standards developed for all children. The federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards\nProviding children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nSignificantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\nCoordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources\nAffording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\nImproving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children\nand Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all categories of so-called at-risk students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students of students for special programs and services. 5Draft Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSD Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSD PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with all the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the Districts Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court- approved Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School District has established as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. District personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSD 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the Division of Instruction: 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of 6Draft the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the prekindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. Identified all supplemental reading programs currently in use in the Districts primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. Compared District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of District curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. Drew conclusions about effectiveness of current District efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 7Draft 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. Early Literacy Core Committee Members: Pat Price, Early Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement have already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities will occur to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee shall begin a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Once the review and input process has been completed and the committee has had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal will be presented to the Board of Education for their review and for approval of the proposed budget. Needs Assessment Data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the District are performing at the 8Draft Below Basic level on the Arkansas criterion-referenced tests, and far too few students are performing at the Proficient or Advanced levels. These data are one indication that current practices are not as effective as they must be to achieve District goals relating to student achievement. Arkansas Criterion-Referenced Tests Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy Summary Report, Spring 1998 LRSD District 42% Below Basic 28% Basic 28% Proficient 2% Advanced Region 34% Below Basic 29% Basic 34% Proficient 2% Advanced State 33% Below Basic 30% Basic 35% Proficient 2% Advanced An area of concern is that 48 percent of grade 4 males performed at the Below Basic level, compared to 35 percent of females. Fifty-three percent of Aftican American grade 4 students performed at the Below Basic level, compared to 20 percent of white students. These gaps are, of course, unacceptable and are indicators that current practice is not effective. SAT9, Grade 3 Reading (Stanford Achievement Test) Data from the Fall 1998 administration of the grade 3 SAT9 confirm that too many students are not learning how to read well by grade 3. SAT9 reports student performance in four categories or levels:  Level 1 indicates little or no mastery of fundamental knowledge and skills (roughly equating to the Below Basic level on the state tests).  Level 2 denotes partial mastery of the knowledge and skills that are fundamental for satisfactory work (roughly equating to Basic level on the state tests).  Level 3 represents solid academic performance, indicating that students are prepared for the next grade (roughly equating to Proficient level on the state tests).  Level 4 signifies performance beyond grade level mastery (roughly equating to Advanced level on the state tests). LRSD posted the following percentages at each level of performance on the grade 3 reading subtest of the SAT9 in fall 1998: 9Draft Subtests Total Reading Word Study Skills_____ Reading Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Language Spelling Listening % in Level 1 23 19 20 31 22 15 13 % in Level 2 43 46 38 39 40 39 45 % in Level 3 28 22 31 23 30 28 il % in Level 4 7 13 11 7 8 18 10 The grade 3 Reading Comprehension subtest of SAT9 is most like the Arkansas reading test in terms of difficulty. 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. Implications for Social Promotion The issue of social promotion is a concern throughout the country and in Arkansas. Social promotion is the long-standing practice of administrative placement of overage students at the next grade level even though the student is most likely not academically prepared to be successful at that next grade level. Citizens all over the country are calling for an end to this practice, and LRSD must respond to that call. To do so, however, without changes in programs, practices, and opportunities to learn, the District would simply be punishing the under-prepared, overage student. In the early grades, failure to achieve grade-level expectations in reading is the primary reason for retention, (p. 267, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) This PreK-3 Literacy Plan, therefore, includes provisions for the following:  Changes in curriculum through the newly developed local academic content standards and grade-level benchmarks\n Changes in instruction through the adoption of research-based instructional strategies and professional development programs\n Changes in assessment through the addition of research-based assessment strategies af kindergarten and grade 1 designed to both diagnose reading difficulties and to assess progress at the student, school, and District levels\n Early interventions for students at risk of not learning to read through the HIPPY program changes, pre-kindergarten program, ESL program, and an emphasis on the reading clinic at grade 1, followed by summer school for K-1 students who are not performing at grade level.  Changes in the Districts promotion and retention policy that would end social promotion for LRSD students, starting with grade 1 in 1999-2000. 10Draft Alignment and Coherence (Efficiency) There are several quality management needs that are addressed in this plan. The first relates to what W. Edward Deming called constancy of purpose. For instance, it is difficult to describe or to assess the effectiveness of the current LRSD prek-3 curriculum since what is taught differs not only from school to school, but from teacher to teacher in the same school teaching the same grade level. Such fragmentation and lack of defined curriculum are especially harmful to low-performing, mobile children. Every time the family moves, the young child not only has to adjust to a new enviroiunent, a new school, a new teacher or teachers, and new peers, but also, in many cases, a totally different curriculum and approach to instruction. About the time he/she begins to be comfortable, the family may move again, and the confusion returns to the extent that the child may feel that school and confusion are one and the same. These events tend to de-motivate the student to learn and to lessen his/her sense of efficacy-belief that he/she can learn. The LRSD Board of Directors approved new Reading/Language Arts Standards for grades kindergarten through grade six in April 1998. Additional work has been done on these standards to ensure that they are precisely aligned with the revised Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and with the intent of the new statewide Smart Start Initiative. Also, specific grade-level benchmarks have been developed in reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies so that teachers, students, and parents may be as clear as possible about what it is that students are expected to know and be able to do. These grade level benchmarks will serve as the basis for designing quarterly criterion- referenced tests to be used to check individual student progress in relation to achievement of each grade level standard. Secondly, there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate programs, and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are intended to solve (lack of alignment). The LRSD Title I plan filed with the Arkansas Department of Education, for example, reveals this problem of lack of constancy of purpose with its long list of Title I programs by school. Many different supplemental programs/philosophies are being used in the elementary schools. Three of these are technology programs: Jostens, New Century, and the Computer Curriculum Corporation Program. The remaining reading and/or language arts programs/methods include the following: Reading Recovery, ELLA, Success for All, Accelerated Reader, Open Court, Shurley Method, Metra Phonics Program, Carbo Reading Styles, McRat,, Writing to Read, Companion Reading, Writing to Write, SRA Labs, High Action Reading Program, Discovery Phonics, Junior Great Books, Reading Is Fundamental, DISTAR, and HOSTS. The duration of implementation of these programs varies from one semester to one to four years per school. 11Draft As many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs have been implemented at the same time in some schools. For example, four elementary schools are implementing one program, ten schools are implementing two programs, ten schools are implementing three programs, three schools are implementing four programs, four schools are implementing five programs, three schools are implementing six programs, and one school is implementing eight. The program descriptions for the most popular programs are as follows: Jostens, New Century, and Computer Curriculum Corporation fCCC). These systems are computer-based instruction programs. All three are integrated learning systems that provide lessons, practice, and assessment in reading, language arts, and mathematics. A management system for each one provides individualized instruction for students along with a reporting system on student progress. Jostens and CCC include lessons for grades K-6. New Century is appropriate for grades 3-6. Reading Recovery. This intensive early-intervention literacy program features the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. One to one tutoring program Individualized instruction Specially trained teachers. Literacy support groups Home/school reading connection Ongoing assessment. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA). This is a three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques which support emergent learners. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction Reading process Writing development and instruction Writing/encoding Phonemic awareness Letter discrimination/recognition Letter/sound relationship Recognizing high frequency words 10. Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis 11. Vocabulary development 12. Comprehension strategies 13. Classroom management and organization 14. Parent involvement 15. Authentic assessment/standardized test. 12Draft Success for All. This program restructures elementary schools to make certain every child learns to read in the early grades. It provides specific curricula and instructional strategies for teaching reading. Primary features are as follows\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. School-wide reading curriculum Cooperative learning Grouping by reading level (reviewed by assessment every 8 weeks) Tutoring for students in need of extra assistance Family support team Accelerated Reader. This individualized program allows each student to move at his or her own pace and level of ability. This programs strength is the development of fluency/automaticity and the improvement of comprehension skills. Parental involvement is crucial to the success of this program. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Students choice of books from a list of carefully selected books Individualized reading that allow students to move at his or her own pace Computerized tests that measures student comprehension Parental Involvement. Open Court. This phonics program centers on student drill, using a wall sound card chart. Shurlev Method. This program is a way of teaching grammar that gives students a chance to remember rules and definitions through jingles. Metra Phonics Program. This phonics program uses student drills and worksheets and reading exercises. Direct Instruction. This program includes teacher development and carefully organized reading sequences. Through teacher training and in- class coaching, teachers in the lower grades learn to present highly interactive lessons to small groups. Primary features are as follows: 1. Field-tested reading, language arts, and mathematics curricula 2. Highly scripted instructional strategies 3. Extensive training. 13Draft Carbo Reading Styles. This program is designed to increase literacy by matching reading instruction to the students preferred style of reading. Primary features include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Teachers diagnosing students strengths and accommodating them with a range of effective reading strategies Carbo Recorded - Book method Comfortable, relaxed settings Individual and small group work. HOSTS (Help One Student to Succeed). This structured mentoring program in language arts/reading, mathematics, and Spanish language arts ' is an instructional strategy that is tailored to a states, districts, and schools language arts/reading objectives and philosophies. Primary features are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Database and software programs aligned with the school and districts curriculum Students matched with trained parents, businesses, community volunteer mentors, who work to strengthen students reading, writing, vocabulary development, study skills, and higher- order thinking skills Mentors provide role models of successful people who motivate, support, and provide individual student attention. McRat. This two-year staff development process helps teachers infuse higher-order thinking, multicultural concepts, and performance-based assessment into the existing curriculum. The content of the staff development consists of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Instruction focused on four higher-order thinking skills analysis, comparison, inference, and evaluation that students can use in all academic subjects and transfer to practical life situations, Reading and writing skills and strategies that are taught through real reading and writing experiences. Assessment involving performance-based techniques with emphasis on pre- and post-writing assignments. Portfolios used as systematic organized collections of evidence to monitor student growth in skill development. 14Draft Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4. This program is an additional program/philosophy connected with Smart Start and is being pursued by some elementary schools. This program features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers. The content of the staff development consists of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation Reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing Classroom management and organization Assessment Parental involvement. Thirdly, there is currently a lack of alignment in the design of the general education and Title I programs with each other or with the States curriculum frameworks and its new Smart Start initiative or with what is tested. In a curriculum mapping activity early in 1998-99, the staff found major gaps in what had previously been established as the Districts curriculum standards and what was actually being tested on the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT9) or the States criterion-referenced tests that are aligned with State academic standards. An obvious conclusion is that it is entirely possible that a major reason for some schools low performance is that they are not exposing the children to the curriculum on which tests are based. Past implementation of District curriculum, in summary, has been inconsistent from school to school due to a variety of factors. These include time allotted to reading/language arts instruction, pull-out programs, lack of comprehensive teacher training, lack of staff to monitor and assist all schools, incompatible supplemental programs, lack of consistent use of district-adopted reading program, lack of cohesive ongoing assessment, and lack of sufficient funding aimed at achieving continuity of effort from grade level to grade level within each school and from school to school within the district. Additional curriculum coordination is needed to ensure continuity of effort and appropriate transition from experiential learning to skill acquisition among pre-k, k, and primary level literacy education efforts across the District. 15Draft Professional Community Research on what works in school restructuring finds that successful and effective schools are those with several identifiable characteristics, including strong professional learning communities. Such schools have a staff who, due to their shared beliefs about student learning and their shared commitment to improvement, engage in ongoing professional development. Their learning is embedded in their work and is totally focused on improvement of every childs academic performance. It will take the form of team meetings where teachers collaboratively plan lessons and thematic units, where they learn and practice effective teaching strategies, and where they collaboratively write and administer assessments and then evaluate student work in the team, not privately. If observing a professional community, one would expect to see ongoing action research, data analysis, discussions of individual and group performance of students, inquiry, reflection, and rich dialogue. In speaking with LRSD principals and teachers, one would find inconsistent evidence of these activities. It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that at least some of the staff do not understand why the school has in place the programs that it has. There is in those schools a lack of opportunities for professional development, lack of research on what works, lack of a theory base, lack of data analysis and program evaluation, and lack of structures and organization that facilitate and make the time for teachers to engage in the very activities that would enhance student achievement. Support for Students Quality management principles insist that processes and procedures should be examined on an ongoing basis so that if students are failing to learn at an acceptable level, then adjustments and modifications must be made immediately to prevent as much failure at the end of the year as possible. End-of-year inspectionstest administrationsare too expensive and too late to modify the practices that led to the failure to start with, and so the cycle begins again with another group of children, many of whom will also fail. Although teachers currently assess on an ongoing basis as a part of their day-to-day work, these assessments do not necessarily lead to changes in school or teacher practices at all or in any change in what the student is experiencing. In other words, those frequent assessments are used more frequently to label students than they are to inform teacher practice, and then at the end of the school year, the school declares many students to be failures. The Arkansas criterion-referenced examinations are administered near the end of the year and only to grade 4 at the elementary level. If schools wait until grade 4 to identify a low-performing student, then the problem is almost beyond solution. SAT9 examinations are administered in the fall, but by the time teachers receive the data and have opportunities to conduct analyses, they are well into the school year and routines/ programs are already set. Students may have already failed one or two quarters, and the results at this point are not very helpful in diagnosing individual student needs. 16Draft At the end of the year there are cunently only three options for a failing K-3 student: to be retained in grade\nto attend summer school to earn promotion\nor to be promoted to the next grade without requisite knowledge and skills to be successful at that level. Only a few elementary schools are currently using their funds for extended day programs, and there does not appear even in some of these a well-designed or articulated program. Clearly, then, the District must put into place the structures and practices that predict student success and prevent failure to every extent possible. In addition, there must be processes in every school to identify as early as possible any learning difficulties, to make immediate adjustments and modifications in instruction, and to provide extended time to learn through pre-school programs and during the school year. Conclusions In terms of quality management, then, the District has reviewed its processes and identified several challenging needs:  improve student achievement and end the practice of social promotion  ensure curriculum/instruction alignment and coherence  provide research-based curriculum and instruction  provide professional development for administrators, teachers, and other staff and create professional learning communities in each school  improve assessment practices and the use of data  provide appropriate prevention and intervention programs to support student success  improve communication with and involvement of parents/guardians. Review of Research This plan reflects the very latest research available on early childhood education, emergent literacy, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Academic success, as defined by high school graduation, can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by knowing someones reading skill at the end of grade 3. (p. 31, National Research Council, 1998) The following are common characteristics that make a practice a best practice (from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, 1998, Heinemann). These are the underlying threads that tie together any successful effort in teaching reading and language arts, and the committee endeavored to ensure that each was included in the program design for the PreK-3 Literacy Program. 17Draft 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reading means getting meaning from print. Reading is a process. Hearing books read aloud is the beginning of learning to read. Beginning reading instruction should provide children with many opportunities to interact with print. Reading is the best practice for learning to read. An effective reading program exposes students to a wide and rich array of print and goes beyond the use of the basal. Choice is an integral part of literate behavior. Teachers should model reading. Effective teachers of reading help children actively use reading and writing as tools for learning. 10. Children learn reading best in a low-risk environment. 11. Young children should have well-structured instruction in phonics. However, phonics is not a subject in itself, but rather a tool. 12. Teachers should provide daily opportunities for children to share and discuss what they have been reading and writing. 13. In an effective reading program, students spend less time completing workbooks and skill sheets. 14. Writing experiences are provided at all grade levels. 15. Reading assessment should match classroom practice. 16. Schools that are effective in teaching reading have an ethos that supports readini g- .. .the performance of kindergartners on tests of phonological awareness is a strong predictor of their future reading achievement, (p. 54, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) ... the arguments for including spelling instruction as a major component of the reading program are strong. Learning about spelling reinforces childrens knowledge about common letter sequences. It also reinforces their knowledge about spelling-sound relationships and may help children become aware of word parts. Because of this, spelling practice enhances reading proficiency, (p. 103, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 18Draft According to research and analysis of the 1994 National Assessment of Education Progress results on the grade 4 reading examination (Teaching for High Standards: What Policymakers Need to Know and Be Able To Do by Linda Darling Hammond and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, 1997, in Implementing Academic Standards, p. D-7), there are several teacher characteristics that are highly correlated with student success in reading: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teachers having coursework in literature-based instruction Teachers having coursework in integrated approaches to teaching language arts and reading Teachers having coursework in phonics Teachers having coursework in study strategies Teachers having coursework in motivational strategies. Zemelman, Daniels, and Hyde also have synthesized the research on best practice in teaching writing. The exemplary writing activities are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. All children can and should write. Teachers must help students find real purposes to write. Students need to take ownership and responsibility. Effective writing programs involve the complete writing process. Teachers can help students get started. Teachers help students draft and revise. Grammar and mechanics are best learned in the context of actual writing. Students need real audiences and a classroom context of shared learning. Writing should extend throughout the curriculum. 10. Effective teachers use evaluation constructively and efficiently. ... for young or uncertain readers, the potential contribution of writing to reading runs deeper than any concern of form or style. In particular, as children become authors, as they struggle to express, refine, and reach audiences through their own writing, they actively come to grips with the most important reading insights of all. (p. 104. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 19Plan Goals Draft The Superintendent and the staff of the Little Rock School District propose this PreK-3 Literacy Plan to achieve the following goals: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To end the practice of social promotion (administrative placement of students to the next grade) in the Little Rock School District. To put into place at grades prek-3 (and then to phase in at higher grades) the curriculum, instruction, and assessments, plus necessary supports for students so that increasing percentages of children meet the rigorous academic standards established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. To ensure that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. To improve student achievement in reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking as measured by norm- and criterion-referenced tests determined by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. To prevent, to the extent possible, the need for special education and 504 referrals and services for reading disabilities. To improve communication with and the involvement of parents of PreK-3 children, including those who speak a language other than English. 1. To meet the obligations and commitments made to the community in the Districts Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to align with the States Smart Start Initiative. 8. To improve, over time, the overall academic success and graduation rates of students in the Little Rock School District. Effective early reading instruction is crucial to all children. All children must learn to read so that they can read to learn. Since all future learning is predicated on the ability to read, every child requires the best possible foundation in reading, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 20Draft PreK-3 Literacy Program Design Many of the ingredients for success are already in place at the District level. The new reading/language arts standards and benchmarks are based on the best thinking within the discipline and are aligned with state and national reading education entities. These standards call for rigorous learning experiences for all students that are focused, comprehensive, and designed to result in maximum reader competency by not limiting students to basic skills alone. The multicultural emphasis on learning district-wide affords all students with access to meaningful and relevant learning experiences that lead to learning mastery. Many LRSD schools, as well, have already pieces of a research-based PreK-3 literacy program in place. Others do not, so the pace of full implementation for all schools will differ. Another determiner of pace will be fundinghow quickly a school can align its School Improvement Plan and Title I budgets, for instance. The PreK-3 Literacy Committee believes, after reviewing current practices in the LRSD elementary schools and after identifying the many supplemental reading programs currently in usesome of which are used in place of the District curriculum, that the bold action necessary for improvement requires a thoughtful, deliberate elimination of too much stuff. Teachers and students in PreK-3 classrooms across the District have so much to do that the real focus for learning is in many instances lost entirely or, at best, obscured. The learning goals are clear, but the challenge remains how to clear the learning path of the debris that becomes a daily obstacle for teachers trying to teach and students trying to learn. I Allowing schools to choose how to address district learning goals and district curriculum is difficult. To successfully allow such autonomy requires clear guidelines and thoughtful district/school partnerships, as well as clear understanding and singular vision about desired results. In a district the size of the LRSD, the choice made by one school can and does dramatically impact the entire district. Continuity is essential as students and staff move from school to school. Patrons across the District expect and deserve the same focus and the same quality, regardless of which school their children attend. This committee has studied the final report submitted by the Curriculum Work Group to the District on August 4, 1997, which provided direction for writing the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We concur with the sixteen recommendations made by that group for K-3 reading education. The following summary of key components of those recommendations conveys what we believe is most critical in PreK through grade 3 reading education to achieving the goal that by completion of grade three all students will be reading independently. An outline of program design components, including those reflected in the Curriculum Work Groups report, follows: 21Draft Organizational Changes HIPPY. The HIPPY program shall change its focus of service from four- and five-year olds to three- and four-year olds, given that almost all five- year-olds now attend kindergarten. The HIPPY program staff shall report to the Coordinator of Early Childhood Education under this plan, effective fall 1999. HIPPY is a home-based program in which parents serve as the childs first teacher. The program provides children with school readiness skills and makes reading one of many activities parents and children do together, (p. 144, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Title I. The District shall restructure its Title I program and budgets in conformance with federal and state regulations to support the implementation of the PreK-3 literacy program and all childrens success in achieving the academic standards and benchmarks. Components of the restructuring shall include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Alignment of Title I programs and services with general education and Smart Start in order to support student success in achieving the rigorous academic standards and benchmarks established by the State and LRSD. Decentralization of decision-making relating to Title I plans and budgets to principals and their Campus Leadership Teams. Embedding the Title I accountability requirements in the LRSD Quality Index. Provision for PreK-3 literacy/mathematics program evaluation under the leadership of the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. Establishing the following priorities for school-level Title I funding: a. b. c. d. e. f. Professional development^building the capacity of existing staff to ensure that all students learn to read by grade 3 Technology to support student success Supplemental instructional materials and supplies, especially for those at risk of failure to learn to read Extended-day interventions to support students at risk of failure Parent education and involvement Focus of programs and services on grades PreK-3 at the elementary level. 22Draft Schools are expressly discouraged from continuing to use the vast majority of their Title I funding simply to employ extra staffunless such staff are absolutely necessary for the implementation of this program, e.g., Reading Recovery, Success for All, or Direct Instruction teachers\nteachers for extended day Reading Clinics\netc. Principals wishing to transfer current Title I employees to the regular budget and programs must collaborate with the department of Human Resources to ensure compliance with the PN agreement. Montview Elementary eliminated remedial reading teachers as part of its schoolwide Title I program, directing its resources instead to professional learning.. .. Montviews results are noteworthy.. .. As a result of the schools hard work, its language arts scores exceeded those in the districts more prosperous, stable schools, (from Meeting the Reading Challenge in Low-Income Schools by Dennis Sparks, Education Week, Nov. 11, 1998) Schools are further discouraged from including travel to conferences in their Title I budgets since the District will have already provided awareness-level training in all the components of this design. Travel will be approved only for visits to exemplary schools implementing a similar design or for in-depth training and development not available in Little Rock or somewhere within the State. Lower Adult-to-Student Ratios for Reading/Language Arts Instruction. Each school is encouraged to lower adult-student ratio to a maximum of 1:15 through the use of all certified personnel in the school during reading instruction. Further, each school is encouraged to explore and identify effective ways to strengthen teacher-student and teacher-parent relationships and to ensure instructional continuity through such strategies as looping, multiage classrooms, etc. The abilities and opportunities of teachers to closely observe and facilitate the literacy learning of diverse groups of children are certainly influenced by the numbers of children they deal with, (p, 229. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council, 1998) 23Draft Closeness in the teacher-child relationship was associated with better readiness performance. Closeness is an index of warmth and open communication in the teacher-child relationship, (p. 130, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Research Council. 1998) Minimized/Eliminated Pullouts. Schools must minimize or eliminate entirely pullouts from the classroom during instruction in language arts and mathematics, especially, in PreK-3. No New Programs. The District declares a moratorium on additional new  supplemental reading/language arts programs at the PreK-3 levels for at least three years or until the implementation of these changes can be both formatively and summatively evaluated to determine their effectiveness with the diversity of students in the Little Rock School District. Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abandoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Finally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Flexible Schedules for Some Teachers. Schools are encouraged to schedule supplemental teachers differently from the traditional school day in order to fund some of the extended-day interventions that will be critical to success. For instance, instead of a Title I teacher working during regular school hours, she/he could come in at 10:00 a.m. and then work two hours at the end of the day with identified students who require extra time to learn. Waiver Application Requirements. The District provides the opportunity for schools to apply for a waiver from State and District policies, regulations, and programs, if they can demonstrate that their plan has the potential to be more effective with the students in their school. Waivers will continue as a possibility for prek-3 literacy programs. Schools must, however, address the student mobility factor in their application since a powerful reason for consistency across all the schools in the district is the importance of this consistency for mobile students. 24Draft Supplemental reading/language arts programs initiated at the school level must meet the criteria of universally accepted characteristics of best practice in reading. Curriculum and Instruction Alignment. The prek-3 LRSD language arts curriculum at each school shall be tightly aligned with the Arkansas and LRSD curriculum frameworks and the LRSD grade-level benchmarks. By combining aspects of phonics and whole language instruction, teachers can explicitly teach students the relationship between letters and sounds while increasing their comprehension skills and enthusiasm for reading by exposing them to interesting stories and real literature. In so doing, educators can actively address the major obstacles to effective readingdifficulty with the alphabetic principle, failure to acquire and use comprehension skills, and lack of motivation, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Daily Schedule. All schools shall schedule and keep sacred a minimum of two and one-half hours daily for uninterrupted instruction in reading/ language arts. The following time allocations are not rigid. Rather, they are guidelines for teachers to use in planning how students should spend their timeboth to ensure that all the critical components are included and to ensure adequate time for student engagement in the activities. Twenty minutes - The teacher reads good literature aloud. The single most important activity for building the knowledge and skills eventually required for reading appears to be reading aloud to children regularly and interactively, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary-building, and word study (word sorts, word walls, word families, spelling patterns) Letter recognition skills are strong predictors of reading success, (p. 124. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) 25Draft Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in shared reading (teacher-guided discussions of reading, including language experience stories, big books, other literature) Children learn a great deal about both the nature and function of print through thoughtful interactions with adults, (p. 124, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Thirty minutes - Students are engaged in independent reading at childs fluency level (wordless books, picture books, chapter books) Children should be given as much opportunity and encouragement as possible to practice their reading. Beyond the basics, childrens reading facility, as well as their vocabulary and conceptual growth, depends strongly on the amount of text they read. (p. 127, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Twenty minutes - Students are engaged in writing (journal keeping, stories, responding to literature\nusing age-appropriate developmental spelling and drawing) Independent writing activities are a means of developing childrens deeper appreciation of the nature of text and its comprehension, (p. 126, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Forty minutes - Students are engaged in guided reading instruction (small group in which teacher provides support for development of reading strategies within students zone of proximal development). The instructional level is the highest level at which the child can do satisfactory reading provided that he or she receives preparation and supervision from a teacher: errors in word recognition are not frequent, and comprehension and recall are satisfactory, (p. 213, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) 26Draft To nudge the children toward new understandings about reading, we want to provide assistance so that children can rehearse the text at a level that is just above where they function on their own. (p. 29, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs, in Vygotsky in the Classroom, 1996) Throughout the day, everydayStudents are engaged in activities designed to develop and to provide practice in enhancing their communication and social skills in the classroom, in the cafeteria, in before- and after-school activities, and on the playground. Additional time in language arts is also provided in the other content areas. For example, students should read and write within the context of a thematic unit at other times during the day. ... it is not only the time allocated for reading that is important. How that time is spent is also important. Low achievers generally are given less classroom time to read text than their higher achieving peers. When low achievers are asked to read, the reading tends to be oral, round-robin style, with the consequence that they read far fewer words, stories and books, (p. 118, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams) Limited-English Proficient Students. The District shall restructure its programs and services for limited-English proficient students in grades PreK-3 to align with this program design and to address the recommendations of the Office of Civil Rights as a result of their compliance review in April 1999. Many studies support the notion of a balanced literacy program as appropriate for students whose first language is not English, that is, programs that provide a balance of explicit instruction and student- directed activities that incorporate aspects of both traditional and meaning-based curricula, (p. 25. Building a Knowledge Base in Reading by Jane Braunger and Jan Lewis, 1998) Special Education and 504 Students. The diverse needs of special education and Section 504 children are included in this design, and the successful implementation of this plan is expected to reduce the numbers and percentages of children referred for special education or 504 programs and services relating to reading disabilities. 27Draft Early Literacy Learning (ELLA). The centerpiece of the K-2 literacy program shall be Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), which includes a balanced literacy program, the reading process, writin\nstrategies, assessment, spelling/phonics deyelopment, classroom management strategies, and word building. g The instruction of the most effectiye teachers included attention to explicit teaching of skills, an emphasis on literature, and much reading and writing. The National Research Council synthesis also confirms that the best method for teaching children to read is coherent instruction that combines a yariety of approaches, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Thematic Instruction. Thematic instruction is promoted and encouraged. Schools should proyide for professional deyelopment, materials and supplies, and collaboratiye planning time for teachers to deyelop thematic units and to design assessments. The Social Nature of Learning. Giyen that learning is a social act, each teacher must acquire the skills to facilitate cooperatiye learning and other small group strategies so that student learning is mediated not only by the teacher, but also by peers. Additionally, the school must foster social interactions between and among children and between and among children and adults at eyery reasonable opportunityin classrooms, on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in before- and after-school programs. In this light, the practice of maintaining silent cafeterias is inappropriate. ... the fact that you learn to talk by talking implies that children should simply be allowed to talk far more than they currently do in school. The school norm of silent classrooms must be abolished\nironically, when teachers enforce the standard of silence, they are in a yery real sense making learning illegal, (p. 14, Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steyen Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde) 29Draft Gifted/Talented Students. The needs of gifted/talented students are also included in this design. The ongoing assessment of student performance and the regrouping of students for instruction shall enable advanced students to continue their own growth in all areas of the language arts. Each school is expected not only to decrease the percent of students performing at the lower levels, but also dramatically to increase the percent of students performing at the \"Proficient and Advanced levels. Frequent Assessment and Regrouping for Instruction. Each school is encouraged to create a schedule to facilitate necessary changes and to design a grouping/re-grouping strategy, such as the regrouping strategies employed in Success for All or the modified Joplin plan to customize/ personalize guided reading activities. Tracking of students is unacceptable practice in the Little Rock School District, but short-term, flexible grouping based on individual student needs is a research-based, effective instructional strategy. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups are strongly encouraged in all subject areas. Some research has found that long-term grouping of students by achievement or ability level is less effective than more flexible grouping based on specific, current skills of students. Such flexible grouping arrangements require that problem readers be monitored frequently on critical reading indicators, so that groups and instruction can be adjusted to their current needs, (p. 5, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Phonemic Awareness. All kindergarten teachers shall receive professional development to teach Animated Literacy, an effective, research-based phonemic awareness component that is compatible with the planned overall reading/language arts program. Training for teachers and the necessary instructional materials for this intervention may be funded through the schools Title I budget. As schools acquire technology, there are a number of software systems that would also achieve this goal that the Campus Leadership Team may wish to consider. There are basic skills all students must acquire to read effectively. These skills include phonemic awareness, decoding strategies, vocabulary development, and comprehension strategies, (p. 2, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 28Draft Young children should engage in reading and writing experiences that integrate language and action in a social context. It is in the social context of literacy activity that children are able to interpret their literacy experiences and internalize knowledge about reading and writing, (p. 26, Emerging Readers and Writers by Martha Combs in Vygotskv in the Classroom. 1996) Role of the Librarv/Media Center. Each school shall ensure students easy and frequent access (no fewer than one to two visits weekly) to the library/media center, and all students shall be encouraged through schoolwide strategies to read as many books as possible for pleasure. Summer, winter-break, and spring break reading lists will be distributed to all LRSD children, beginning summer 1999. Supplementary Reading Materials. Each school shall conduct an inventory of its PreK-3 classroom reading materials. Regular budgets and Title I funds may be used to acquire additional support materials, such as classroom literature sets and other sets of books to help teachers help students meet the curriculum standards and benchmarks in ways that address the needs of individual students, particularly those students functioning below the proficiency level. Comprehensive beginning reading programs are supported by adequate resources, (p. 3, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series. 1998) Assessment/Grading/Program Evaluation Frequent, Systematic Assessment. The District, in collaboration with the schools, shall create a systematic assessment system for grades PreK-3 so that student progress can be frequently monitored and aligned with LRSD benchmarks and Arkansas criterion-referenced tests and appropriate modifications made to the instructional program. The assessment components shall include a minimum of the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Running Records, etc., grades K-1 (diagnostic/prescriptive) LRSD Phonemic Awareness Assessment - K- 1 (readiness profile) LRSD CRT - Criterion Reference Test - grades 2-3 Individual Reading Inventory, grades K - 3 (as needed basis) Student portfolios to examine growth over time, grades K-3. 30Draft Adequate progress in learning to read beyond the initial level depends on\nhaving a working understanding of how sounds are represented alphabetically\ngetting sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of text\nhaving sufficient background knowledge and vocabulary to render written texts meaningful and interesting\nacquiring control over strategies for monitoring comprehension and repairing misunderstandings\nand maintaining interest and motivation to read for a variety of purposes, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice. The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) New Elementary Report Card. The District shall form a representative committee of staff and parents no later than June 1999 to redesign the elementary report card so that it reflects the standards-based approach to teaching and learning and so that it provides more accurate and specific information to parents regarding their childs progress in meeting the academic content standards of LRSD. 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. Professional Development I Teachers who teach reading must receive better training and engage in ongoing professional development in reading instruction, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) 31Draft Effective Literacy. Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 features a two-year staff development process designed to train teachers in instructional techniques which help students become fluent readers and writers, building on the skills developed in K-2. The content of the staff development consists of the following components: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. A balanced literacy program Planning appropriate reading/writing instruction based on assessment and evaluation The reading process Phonetic skills and strategies Recognizing high frequency words Decoding/word attack skills/word analysis Vocabulary development Comprehension skills and strategies Independent reading and writing 10. Classroom management and organization 11. Assessment 12. Parent involvement Smart Start Professional Development. The District and each school should leverage as much as possible the professional development opportunities provided by ADE for Smart Start implementation, since the LRSD literacy plan is tightly aligned with Smart Start, which also promotes ELLA and Effective Literacy as recommended language arts programs. School-Level Professional Development. The District and each school shall create a professional development plan that reflects the standards for elementary school professional development (from the National Council for Staff Development) and which reflects the priorities in the School Improvement Plan (including the schools Title I plan), especially the implementation of ELLA. Each schools Campus Leadership Team is charged with the responsibility to create collaborative cultures to support change through activities associated with a professional learning community: (1) collegial plarming/teaming and assessment of student work\n(2) collective responsibility for results\n(3) ongoing, job-embedded learning\n(4) action research and inquiry\n(5) continuous improvement\n(6) empowerment through the activities of the Campus Leadership program. 32Draft A report published by the Consortium on Reading Excellence advocates that inservice professional development should:  include current theory and research  provide training in assessment and instruction for phonemic awareness  convey dynamic methods to teach phonics and make use of connected texts  demonstrate effective ways to teach spelling that will reinforce reading  include a diagnostic tool kit that will enable teachers to teach what children need  include whole language strategies and powerful uses of literature  provide practice with children in a clinical setting with ample opportunity for feedback and support\nand  assist teachers to effectively implement balanced literacy programs, (p. 6, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Principal Development. The District shall design and implement a professional development program for elementary principals and other administrators that is aligned with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan components. Interventions Success for All. Schools currently implementing Success for All may continue, provided that the curriculum includes the Arkansas and LRSD academic standards and benchmarks. Student performance data should be thoroughly analyzed to determine the success of current practices, and then, if necessary, the program should be modified for improved results or abandoned. Reading Recovery. Schools implementing Reading Recovery may continue to do so with their Title I funding. Other schools may choose to redirect their Title I funding to this grade 1 intervention if the Campus Leadership Team makes this decision. 33Draft English-as-a-Second Language (ESL). English-as-a-Second Language programs and services will be provided in the four Newcomer Centers for students who are limited-English proficient. These students need similar instruction as that required for other children to learn reading/language arts, but they will also require some extended time to become proficient in English. Reading Clinic Intervention. Each school shall include in its Title I budget the funding for an after-school Reading Clinic or another researchbased intervention to prevent reading failures before the end of the school year. Although volunteer tutors can provide very valuable practice and motivational support for children learning to read, the research does not show that they are effective in providing primary reading instruction or in helping children with serious learning difficulties, (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Summer School. The District shall prioritize its elementary funding of summer school programs around the needs of grades k-1 students. The District shall design an intensive summer reading program patterned after the Reading Clinic approach. Early identification and intervention are vital. Some children have more difficulty learning to read than others. Therefore, effective methods for preventing and addressing these difficulties must be included in any comprehensive instructional plan. (p. 4, Beginning Reading Instruction: Research and Practice, The ERS Informed Educator Series, 1998) Parent Education/Involvement Parent-School Compacts. Each school is encouraged to identify strategies to embed the Title I mandated parent-school compact in the culture of the school and to use this vehicle as a means of improving school-to-parent communication and parent understanding of the LRSD academic standards and benchmarks and ways they can support their childs success. 34Draft Parent Education. The District shall align its parent education\n' involvement programs, including those involving Title I parents, at the PreK-3 levels with the components of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan and with the PreK-3 provisions for mathematics and science in the National Science Foundation project. Also, this component will include the Strategy 2 Action Plan activities recently approved as amendments to the Strategic Plan. Hess and Holloway (1984) identified five broad areas of family functioning that may influence reading development. They are: 1. Value placed on literacy: by reading themselves and encouraging children to read, parents can demonstrate that they value reading. 2. Press for achievement: by expressing their expectations for achievement by their children, providing reading instruction, and responding to the childrens reading initiations and interest, parents can create a press for achievement. 3. 4. 5. Availability and instrumental use of reading materials: literacy experiences are more likely to occur in homes that contain childrens books and other reading and writing materials. Reading with children: parents can read to preschoolers at bedtime or other times and can listen to schoolchildrens oral reading, providing assistance as needed. Opportunities for verbal interaction: a lower quality of verbal interaction constitutes a risk factor primarily in that it relates closely to lowered child vocabulary scores, (p. 121-122, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, National Research Council, 1998) Conclusions These recommendations are the result of extensive study, collaboration, and thoughtful deliberation over more than two years and intensively during the last seven months. They convey a practical, meaningful, and doable framework for action that can and will, if properly sanctioned, lead to realization of the goal that all LRSD students will read independently by the end of the third grade. The committee recognizes that recommendations made by well-meaning people often become unrealized hopes or dreams. We are committed to acting on these recommendations and, therefore, ask for immediate approval to begin their implementation. 35Draft We have agreed to continue to work together as a committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations. We will meet monthly to review progress and to ensure the cohesiveness of each action component. To help manage the tasks that lie ahead, we have developed a timeline which we believe should be immediately incorporated into the Division of Instructions work plan for the remainder of the school year. The timeline is attached for review, along with the proposed budget. In conclusion, to set as a goal that the District will ensure that all students are reading independently by the end of the third grade is ambitious, at the very least. Such a goal, however, is one that must be achieved, if all students are to have equitable access to an education that prepares them for productive adult lives in the twenty-first century. It is, therefore, imperative that the District provide unwavering support for the clearly focused, best-practice based, district-wide PreK-3 reading/language arts curriculum and program we believe our recommendations will provide. Such support requires dedication of all necessary resources to the effort, whether the resources are school-based or district based, district-fimded or Title I supplemental. Campus-based decision making must be based on clear district guidelines and, if necessary, policy so that all schools in the LRSD exemplify best practice in the delivery of this critically important program. 365 Timelines Activities_________________________________________ 1. Plan summer school curriculum, instructional focus, and professional development for summer 1999\nalso complete student selection process._____ 2. Identify timeline for delivery of training modules\nschedule dates, sites.___________________________ 3. Develop criteria matrix for supplemental reading programs._____________________________________ 4. Conduct awareness sessions with elementary principals and teachers on the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. 5. Write guidelines/regulations for schools to follow when scheduling at grades PreK-3._______________ 6. Write guidelines/teacher manual for two and one- half hour language arts block (make grade specific\ninclude how to/what to do/why do it/troubleshooting sections)._____________________________________ 1. Design classroom profile rubrics (make grade specific\nformat status quo to most desirable matrix). 8. Design teacher practice rubrics.________________ 9. Design criteria for materials selection (identify required materials\ndevelopment guidelines for additional materials). ______________________ 10. Complete PreK-3 standards, benchmarks, curriculum maps\npublish for teachers and parents. 11. Develop guidelines for thematic instruction. 12. Develop assessment plan.____________________ 13. Develop training modules for each component part of plan.___________________________________ 14. Write guidelines for school implementation of After-School Reading Clinics.____________________ 15. Begin module-based teacher training. 16. Order and distribute ELLA materials.________ 17. Reorganize HIPPY programs and services to be appropriate for age three and four students.________ 18. Provide to principals their projected Title I budgets, planning requirements, and other information related to the restructuring of Title I programs. Draft Date February 1999 February April April April April May May May May May May April and ongoing May June and ongoing June and July June April 37! I Draft Activities __________________________________ 19. Establish criteria for approval of Title I plans and communicate to principals and Campus Leadership Teams._______________________________________ 20. Compile lists of recommended reading for PreK- 3 students for summer\npost in businesses and libraries around the community and provide to parents._____________________ 21. Review and approve Title I plans._____________ 22. Plan and implement staff development for principals on the administration of the new plan. 23. Design, produce, and publish for fall distribution a parent brochure on the PreK-3 plan, including all components (such as Title I, Smart Start, etc.).______ 24. Redesign the PreK-3 report cards so that communication with parents is improved.__________ 25. Design the program evaluation study and set up data-collection procedures. Date May May June June June July July 381 Ji LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 7, 1999 TO: Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor FROM: Pat Price, Coordinator of Early Childhood Education SUBJECT: Revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan Enclosed please find a copy of the revised PreK-3 Literacy Plan, being printed at the print shop now for distribution to the schools. if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. PP/adg Enclosure received Jill 1999 OfHCEOf deskresaw,MOM,TOffiXS These arePosition Paper PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Little Rock School District June 1999 Introduction Origins for the PreK-3 Literacy Plan The proposed PreK-3 Literacy Plan outlined in this document is the culmination of extensive discussion and debate among district staff. interested parents, consulting colleagues, and concerned citizens. The discussion began with the launching of a major effort involving more than 500 community volunteers to plan strategically to make a significant difference in the learning lives of all Little Rock School district students. array of important planning This 1996 undertaking became the first of an efforts that, collectively, have charted for the District an exciting and ambitious journey into the 21^^ century. The Strategic Plan outlined a series of thoughtful actions that have already produced major new initiatives, while impacting almost every realm of current District practice, including the Districts desegregation efforts. One major issue confronting the strategic planners, as well as those involved in framing the subsequent initiatives, was literacy. Too many LRSD students enter school at risk of never learning to read and, alarmingly, the number of these students continues to increase. Illiteracy is a societal issue that has become an educational challenge that cannot be ignored or underestimated. The LRSb is committed to meeting this challenge and through research, analysis, hands-on involvement. professional development, and relentless tenacity, the District is developing an aggressive and very specific course of action, beginning with the PreK-3 Literacy Plan offered here. The plan draws on the work and scope of many initiatives, programs, and practices that are outlined below. 1Background The Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Board of Education adopted in 1996 a new Strategic Plan, which was subsequently updated in 1998. Two of the eleven strategies directly address issues relating to student literacy. \"Strategy 2\" of that plan is as follows\nIn 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. The Action Plan designed to achieve \"Strategy 2\" delineates the objectives and processes to define, develop, and adopt content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards and then to develop and implement professional development programs for district staff, along with strategies for parent understanding of the standards and assessments. Strategy 3\" speaks to the importance of improved student achievement: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. The \"Strategy 3\" Action Plans call for implementation of action steps relating to literacy development in grades PreK-3\na policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction\nexpansion of Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills\n2the development of an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3\nand promotion of school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan In April 1998 the federal district court in Little Rock approved the District's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Implementation of this plan is a requisite step toward the District's attainment of Unitary Status, with the hearing on that petition anticipated in spring 2001. The Plan contains a series of commitments or obligations for the District. Section 5.2.1 relates specifically to reading/language arts at the primary level: LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the 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\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\nd. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\n3e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ni. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first-grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. 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\nand I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Other relevant sections of the Revised desegregation and Education Plan to the PreK-3 Literacy Plan are as follows: 2.7 LRSd shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 42.7.1 LRSD shall assess the academic programs . . . 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. 2.8 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 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. The Campus Leadership Plan The Board of Education adopted the District's Campus Leadership Plan in July 1998, providing for decentralized, school-based decision-making in some cases and shared decision-making in others. That plan includes a Quality Index based in part on indicators of academic achievement for each level of school. The Quality Index will be the accountability (collective responsibility) system for the Little Rock School District, and it will include, but go beyond, the academic indicators established by the State of Arkansas. The Arkansas Smart Start Initiative In fall 1998 the Arkansas Department of Education launched a major new reform entitled Smart Start. The aim of the K-4 component of Smart Start is to improve reading and mathematics achievement for all students in grades K-4 so that all students meet or exceed grade level requirements by grade 4. The implementation of Smart Start necessitates the coordination of the following four areas\n51. Standards - At grades K-4, they will serve as the basis for the expected levels of proficiency demanded in reading and mathematics. 2, staff Development - Focused on both teachers and administrators, all activities will promote the mission of Smart Start and emphasize topics related to subject matter content, curriculum alignment with the Frameworks, analysis of assessment results, and the utilization of technology and distance learning. 3. Student Assessment - Will be clearly aligned with the Frameworks and classroom instruction. 4. Accountability - After standards are clearly communicated, staff development activities have been made available and reliable, valid assessments have been developed and administered, schools will be held accountable for student achievement. Specific staff development programs conducted during 1998-99 included training in the use of a balanced literacy approach, utilizing the state's Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA), Effective Literacy for Grades 2-4, and Multicultural Reading and Thinking (McRat). The Arkansas Academy for Leadership Training and School-Based AAanagement will begin a series of training sessions for principals, emphasizing proper techniques for aligning their local curriculum to state frameworks and for analyzing student assessment results. Grade 4 and Grade 8 Benchmark Exams were continued during 1998-99 and all school districts have been advised to implement additional assessment components to check student progress prior to Grade 4. Title I Another source for this K-3 Literacy Plan is the District s Title I program. This federally funded program allocates major resources to the District's elementary and middle schools for the improvement of reading and mathematics achievement so that all students \"acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and meet the 6challenging State performance standards developed for all children, federal Title I regulations include the following related purposes: The Q, Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts of States, local education agencies, and schools to help children served under this title to teach such standards, b. Providing children on enriched end accelerated educational program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through school-wide programs or through additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time so that children c. served under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that other children receive. Promoting school-wide reform and ensuring access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences\nd. Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development\ne, Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other. with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with health and social service programs funded from other sources, f. Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at home and at school\ng- Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by using State assessment systems designed to measure how well children served under this title are achieving challenging State student performance standards expected of all children, and h. Providing greater decision-making authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance. Other Special Populations The needs of students from special populations (special education, 504, limited-English proficient, gifted/talented, and all categories of so-called at-risk\" students) also informed the design of this K-3 Literacy Plan. Quality early literacy programs can do much to prevent the referral and labeling of students for special programs and services. 7Summary Sources, then, for the contents and components of the LRSd PreK-3 Literacy Plan include Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of the LRSd Strategic Plan\nSection 5.2.1 and other relevant sections of the Revised desegregation and Education Plan\nacademic indicators in the Quality Index of the Campus Leadership Plan\nSmart Start standards, assessments, professional development, and accountability\nTitle I regulations, especially those sections addressing the purposes of Title I\nand the needs of students from various special populations. The LRSd PreK-3 Literacy Plan is carefully aligned with and in compliance with all the local, state, and federal mandates, as well as the general philosophy of these planning documents, all of which emphasize the academic success of all children. Methodology In accordance with the goals and strategies of the district s Strategic Plan, the subsequent recommendations of a Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Work Team, and the court-approved Revised desegregation and Education Plan, the Little Rock School district has established as a goal that \"by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page.\" district personnel recognize that to accomplish this goal an aggressive approach to quality and comprehensive early literacy education in grades PreK-3 is essential. This recognition of a need to focus on literacy as a central component of early childhood/primary level education is referenced in the LRSd 1998-99 Priorities within the following subsections of the specific work plan for the division of Instruction: 11. Align school schedules, prek-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/coaching, and parent information/education with Strategic Plan, Revised desegregation and Education Plan, and Smart Start. 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with the CCOE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Revised desegregation and Education Plan. 821, Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22, Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. The apparent logical starting point for accomplishing the ambitious goal of providing, without exception, independent readers in every mainstreamed classroom by the end of the third grade was to establish a committee to study District data and practices and to make specific recommendations for a new comprehensive, systemic reform of the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 language arts program. This committee has been engaged since September 1998 and has undertaken the tasks of reviewing current practices and programs, researching best practices\" within the reading education arena nation-wide, and recommending a broad course of actions that it believes will best facilitate the Division of Instruction Work Plan in the context of the District 1998-99 Priorities. To accomplish the tasks described above\nthe committee first identified and then completed the following action steps\n1. Reviewed current District curriculum and assessment practices and determined current level of implementation and overall appropriateness for achieving goal. 2. Completed the development of the PreK-3 standards and benchmarks for reading/language arts and constructed a curriculum map to ensure alignment with the Arkansas curriculum frameworks and assessments. 3. Reviewed the Arkansas State mandated Smart Start Initiative and identified possible gaps or discrepancies between the Initiative components and the District curricular focus. 94. Identified all \"supplemental\" reading programs currently in use in the district's primary-level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the district curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative\nalso determined whether supplemental efforts strengthened or hindered continuity of effort in relation to achievement of the goal. 5. Compared {District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for district benchmarking. K-3 curriculum maps were reviewed to ensure close alignment of district curriculum and the Arkansas curriculum frameworks. 6. drew conclusions about effectiveness of current district efforts and summarized key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. 7. Identified and mapped literacy components of all related initiatives, programs, and practices to ensure PreK-3 reading/language arts programming congruence and coherence. 8. Recommended key programmatic components essential to timely realization of the initial goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and will show understanding of words on a page. 9. Recommended key resources and necessary collaborations. 10Early Literacy Core Committee Members'. Pat Price, Earl'y Childhood Gene Parker, Reading Judy Milam, Reading Kris Huffman, Reading Judy Teeter, Reading Tish Henslee, Early Childhood - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Melissa Guldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Freeman, Smart Start Patty Kohler, Division of Exceptional Children Involvement and Communication Significant levels of staff, parent, and community involvement had already occurred during the past three years on the issue of PreK-3 literacy before the work of this specific plan. The development of the Strategic Plan, the Reading Summit involving about 150 people two years ago, and the involvement on the Work Team that wrote the initial recommendations for Section 5.2 in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan all informed the design of this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. The public was kept informed of these planning initiatives through public information sessions and the cable television channel. Additional activities occurred during March, April, May, and early June 1999 to update everyone. Following administrative review of the committee recommendations and proposed budget, the committee began a series of information sessions further to inform principals, teachers, other staff, parents, and community about the proposed changes and to solicit their input on the final design. Copies of the draft plan were sent to every elementary principal and every PreK-3 teacher in the Little Rock School District for their review and discussion, and numerous presentations were made to various groups. The June 2-3-4 inservice focused in large part on discussions of the plan. Once the review and input process was completed and the committee had had an opportunity to revise their original draft, then the full proposal was presented to the Board of Education for their review in June 1999. 11Needs Assessment data Analysis (Effectiveness) According to an analysis of data conducted by the department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, unacceptable percentages of students across the district are performing at the \"Below Basic\" level on the Arkansas\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"ffc_crlsa_p15415coll1-1054","title":"Stanley Bullock : Transcribed Interview","collection_id":"ffc_crlsa","collection_title":"Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine","dcterms_contributor":["Samuel Proctor Oral History Program, University of Florida"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, 28.75054, -82.5001"],"dcterms_creator":["Bullock, Stanley"],"dc_date":["1978-01-17"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with Stanley Bullock, who became the Rector of Trinity Episcopal Church in 1964. He begins with his appointment to the congregation of Trinity how he began when St. Augustine was in the midst of the civil rights movement. He details the demographics of the church, how it was mainly upper-class citizens who were generally conservative. He states why the churches were reluctant to get involved in the movement, therefore when Mrs. Peabody attempted to attend services, she was locked out for fear of drawing the demonstrations inside. At the end he gives his opinion on King's involvement in St. Augustine and the impact it had on the city.","CRSTA 4AB Subject: Rev. Stanley Bullock 1-17-78 0 S: (tape in progress)·:.~. I had done it, say Mission, ,4ay St. Francis of 1\u003e· ('.•\\'·\\, .. ,. ,··~~ . Assisi and-.those-previ:ous, for three years. =r-\"''~ (. ~~\\!\"\".( } \"l And r.bec~me rector of Trinity Church in St. Augustine when Charles Seymour called me to be his assistant. Uniquely enough, the date of our arrival to take that job to start work, was the first of April, 1964, which was the same day that Mrs. Peabody arrived at the front door of Trinity Chur.ch 1 which was obviously a big moment. I: How did you, how did he happen to call you? Did he know you? He must have known you. S: Yes. I had grown up in the diocese. I was a product of the diocese. I grew up here in Jacksonville. This is my home. I went to public school here. I worked here for awhile before going into the service 'A and went on to the University of Florida where the ~anee and the Diocese are. My first choice was Pensacola ••. I: How did you ••• S: He had known me since I was a child. I: Really. Well, so there was, my next question was there any turmoil when you arrived but I (laughter)) obviously there was a great deal. S: Well, there was turmoil before I arrived. I, you know, as an aside to the whole thing, on the day, on the first of April, my wife, Kay, -:::, and I were driving from Pensacola to St. Augustine 1making the move, and we were about half way across the state somew~ere ,ar.ound, oh 1 I Dn -h:..c (' ! ·-'-\"\"' guess half way up around Madison, when we heardftwhat was happening in St. Augustine. And so I spoke to Kay and said'you know sounds like J CRSTA 4AB Page 2 CTM v,:c it's getting hot down there. You really don't have to go. We can 11 I go back to where we came from. She said1no, that's the commitment we made and we will go on.I I So, we weren 1 t about to turn around anyway, but the comment was made that maybe we ought not to go there. I: Did Father Seymour, had he said anything about any problems when you were considering the job? J: v·lv-:\u003e r· .. )c-rc. S: That there were tensions there1 but not, I don't think anybody knew f) to what degree they were going -------- I: Do you think that, did he mention any concerns within the church itself? S: Yes, I was aware that they were internal problems. I: Would you care to elaborate on them? S: Not greatly. Every clergymen has those persons in his congregation were some in that congregation that felt that way. I: Would you care to talk about the make-up of the church. I jotted down some points.,....economically, racially, philosophically? S: It's very hard for me to remember it, numbers specifically. But basically l '.}C\"- ~) the congregation rs made up of upper-middle-class to upper class in terms of the city of St. Augustine, socio-economic groups. It was an all-white congregation as it probably still is today. I don't know the breakdown but I suspect that it is. In terms of age, it was pretty ~!_lJ:;p-,1r1)~,;\\,\\ 1:;.f well distributed, representative of the community. yoti ttBGW St. Augustine is more given toward the older or retired age group than it is to the very young. And so representative of the community, I think it was. _J CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 3 Basically conservative. One or two more liberally-oriented lines but primarily conservative in all outlooks. I would not say ultra-conservative because I reserve that particular category for those that are much further to the right. They are basically conservative, politically, economically, religiously. Not terribly interested in change. Not terribly interested in being disturbed. Really, that's one of the facts about St. Augustine, I think in lots of other cities like that, that people gradually move to those area/where there is going to be less disturbance of any aspect of life. And they settle C\"' ~\u003e (~-c ;\\.\\ t :. \"- \\_ :· :· there because that is the case in dfe area. People who are looking for change, I'm speaking of any kind of change, go to the metropolitan '{'{' b \u003cl--' c_,,_ ~ CL \\ , :r\\ i L areas, where there is a great deal activit~ A:=greae dea-~more tension • .;;:,,r.\\- So, it's not unusual that St. Augustine should be that .k4il.d of community. I: Were they old St. Augustinians? Had there been there for several generations? 1r-1\\,-,\u003c;\u003e S: There were those. There were those t;ha.t: had been in St. Augustine probably since the period of the, traced from the age from the period of the British occupation there. Perhaps some who could trace it back as early as the Spanish, came out of a particular congregation. ~· But there were also people who were brand newf, Been there only a few months or a couple or three years}, ~?' If you have only been in a city like St. Augustine for three, four or five years, you are brand new. I: Was there, was the vestry pretty representative of the congregation in terms of economics, philosophy? Here's a list of the names that CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 4 I guess signed that resolution. S: Right. Yes. I would say so. As I look down it, I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, I see seven businesi\"'men. And of those seven -.../ businessmen, one, two, three, four, four of them own their own businesses, business owners. One of those persons is a civil service person working for the county. Another one is an insurance salesman) ~relatively successful one. A third one is a representative of a large clothing line, a very elite clothing line. middle-class economy/ certainly. So, they were representative of the .., ....... I see on here also a newspaper man u of some significance in this community. There is an officer in the National Guard. I'm not sure if he was field-graded at that point f\\-. ;::N ,,..,,~ -.N ( • .- but he was ~g toward that direction. ¥:o.u have also, one or two retired persons, represented here. And we have the man who was inde-pendent in terms of his financial structure. I'd say pretty much so • ..:E-~~ bn terms of age also, it was relatively well distributed. I: Was there any sense why you did arrive at the time things were really beginning to, were beginning to get tense? Did you sense that there was any of these problems would, I guess not you 1 but did you hear of anything from the congregation as a whole that they sensed that St. Augustine was going to be a focus of these demonstrations? S: Yes, this was, this was pretty much understood, all the way along because St. Augustine was in the process of developing a new board to celebrate itls four hundredth anniversary. And they knew at that '-' time that this was a natural focal point. '\\'\"' -\\T\u003e \\_-,c_ (£,.~·Le•.' ... '.., So there was that ~ of the city. There were some other things too that made St. Augustine .._,,~-,,,~\\'(}·! 1 . I in my estimation,-::;tl're foe~~ ~1 this whole thing. It responded as-±n. \\ \\ l (\u003erC..\u003c-ol'.\u003c(•., I the media.1 ;mfey_.,,.. 1\u003c \\·.l c\") • •;ri_ I expect the media here is the kind CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 5 that responds everytime. St. Augustine would do exactly the same thing each time. You could depend on it, the response. So, if you were going to stage a demonstration with the least potential damage to personal property, generally speaking, St. Augustine would be a pretty good place to do it. It was an enclosed city in terms of natural geographic factors. There was the bay on the east which closed off into the ocean itself which closed the natural boundary on the south. And there was a creek that ran up the west side which was a long marshy creek, a natural boundary on the western side of the city. And the access in from the north of the city was bounded by highway which actually split but there was only one basic highway. So, you had a peninsulaCsort of situation with natural geographic boundaries on three sides and a limited access at the top. So, you could keep your area well defined. It didn't spread out into a very large area. So, geographically, it was desirable. As I said/the response of the people and the law en­forcement agencies and everything else was significant, so you might note it. So, from that standpoint, it was the place that would be, certainly if you were selecting various places where they would get the best environment and response, St. Augustine was of that nature. And we anticipated that there would be some ~ifficulties. I: I want¥~ to talk to you about that response in just a minute but wouldn't, before that I'd like to talk to you about Father Sumo, what sort of man did you find him to be? How would you characterize him? -::r:. '\" J::ic .'.· ·:,-·· S: Oh, my. I must tell you first that·f,:fuunti the man1 \\r\u003c-\u003c'-\\k1 ''\"~ • I've known this man for years and years and I respect him f ~e was then and c;.:, .. Q is now, I suspect, a churchman of the older school that in this day j,rr time cannot be totally tn1derstood yet he was completely comnitted. And CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 6 as I suspect, he still is, to that fonn of the church and that ex-pression of worship of the Episcopal church that he had been trained \\,.... s ,.\\ • 0-.,_)C\\'-' '.';•} '~ ,(' \\ in and was his -hi \\...\u003e,,~ \\r~. . He was llllder great tension\\.. both from the congregation, members of the congregation, I should say, who were fC' ('~:T putting pressure on him because of the stand he was taking as a .pe-rsen-of the church. And this was difficult for him to live with because \\\"IC wr-:._5. these were the people~charged to care for. On the other hand, there were those outside of the St. Augustine situation who were viewing it through the eyes of the press and the media generally 1and they too were highly critical of what he was doing in some instances 1and they didn't help tremendously in supporting him. So here is a man who is caught between both of these pressure points , who in each instance was doing the very best he could as he sensed the situation upon the grotmd upon which he stood. So he was a man that was trying very - Q.y-\\J. _, hard\\~ with real sincerity and I think __ ' ___ _ and I did not ,·~·-... , \\ .. -:·/ v-J c... \\I ever feel that he was being,~you know, insincere in the things that ~e stood for and stood for the-wlricte --; ------ And yet, how ..0 much can --------- he was surely going to get Mlack _\\\\.,,..,,., ,,,.,._, - ,0~-J .:'.\\r• And this is a very debilitating kind of position ~\\ ,_-;t \\,\" r-,•';' ~ -~ ' to be in. He was a good and strong man, I think, through1~all of the situations that we encountered. And yet when the time came for him to receive a call from another parish, which he did, he felt that he couldn't take that call and relieve himself of ~;)'ov b-.c,,.J ,Y..-\u003c.._\\...JfQ,_.,,,__'.'.) here. He was not running from it but certainly when you have been through as difficult a situation as he had existed through, there comes a time when you can say1\\I have done my job to the best of my • 1 iJ L~ ( 1-- o~-\\-{,,,:.--r\\' -1 \\\"\"\"-(\"--'\\ ;ii) \"'I, ~ r ability and I believe this ------------· a s0\\, 6 man :::::- I // a good man --------------------~ CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 7 I: Did he have a good rapor with the congregation before this occurred? S: With individuals in the congregation, there had been some difficulty in the past. The details of that, I do not know but I know that there had been some difficulty within the group there. hC- 1: How long had~u been there before? S: I'm not sure exactly when he came. I can find out from •••• I: I can find out from him1 \\~-:ct''·-'C \\ ~-::,:• · S: Right. \\)~{) '.-.1 \\ ,\u003c._.:, { I..__.. OY\"\\ I: When-yott talk about the, one more thing about the church1per se, then we'll stick to the general community for awhile, you said something about the vestry and I wanted to bring it up. I jotted it down at the end here. But there was a characterization made of the vestries in general of the community and the characterization was made by one person that they were extremely conservative, very much active in such groups as Kiwanis, Rotary1 and also either active or behind-the­scene supporters of the citizerls council sort of thing which the f citizerls council really doesn't emerge as a formal group until late/ but philosophically· speaking, they were of this ••• S: I would say that that would be the case. When we are speaking of I: S: vestries in general, you are talking about the board of trustees of any of the churches in the community. Right. Yeah, I would think generally speaking that was the case. And again/ looking over these people in this specific group here, out of the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,eight, nine, ten, eleven, S/.-.'( \\ fv D~I- .': :..I\\ _,.t.,,-.---... \\-\\:-.,u\\••\\ -·,- :- , \\ i• .\\- ~ ~, f A ( · IJ. _c.J\u003e --C\\{') c \\} twelve, out of those twelve menf I would say half of them fall in the I category of being specifically being sympathetic to th$s~ white citizeris council philosophy. The other six would have remained CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 8 . neutral by virtue of being \\IC\\Sl11\\c),,'-'• anyway/ or we have specifically ~Q ;~,,.( said no to that philosophy of the church. 7hat particular group, I su· 1·:-'i would ~f~ that way. I: This gives some understanding at least to why their response may be predictable, or the community's response might be predictable. But :S:-\u003c· , __ , \\ ,(-, there are some~~-t-herqualifications that emerge in my mind looking at the St. Augustine list. residential integration. There was a rather surprising amount of -lu._, There was y:move by the community itself, while not substantial in size, a move to voluntarily integrate ic-'s schools. And there was also the heavy dependence on tourism, something like 85 percent of the wealth in the community was dependent one way or another, on the tourist industry. What makes/in your mind, this ·response predictable, given all of these sort of qualifications? S: It's very hard to say because Atlanta, at about the same time, was undergoing a similar pressure. But the business community in Atlanta.6 recognized the fact that their business was going to be jeopardized/ and so very quickly during that period, Atlanta accommodated one way or another, so that this was quickly leveled off. In St. Augustine, (\\ I ' ·,I/ \u003c L r~u-\"- 1 1 \"'-1 ~'·' '\"'· ...... again we\\de-il~e lion a very small town and we are dealing with persons who are perhaps more independently-minded than those persons in a more metropolital area, who feel like a responsibility to and for the peopl? who are up and down the street. Or they feel like we are part c,:;, c~\"\\Cc0 ~ , of a whole group and we have got to hang together,} Many of the people in St. Augustine who are businessmen, were ~ independently~minded and they were sufficiently committed to what they believed 1 whether it be right or wrong, to jeopardize their businesses 1if necessary1 i\"n -fc.\\~ V··l c. cc, c,.. c ,;«J .. c~'-· order to win what they t-RGu.ght woaldbe ef some significance to them. CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 9 And therefore, rather than giving in to the pressures, they would \\/'} C \\{_ :~. .,,-..~\"\")( ( t\"\" ·\"'\\ °\"~ -J .. c.. . C~O t'i (I • I I oppose on each occasion that they· , c.t. 1'\\- \\'1 t,.._ \"', That s why I say that it's predictable. That is one of the reasons that \\~I'.-!.~ I say it. And the predictability who couhi be right because as the sunnner wore on, and we moved on down into June and July, August months, of course July was a watershed-time because by that time ~f.'1v:: .... I the Supreme court had made a kind of. decision concerning the issues that were at stake in St. Augustine. But there was still an after-wash of the response and the resentment to response.· We had had the first wave of the activities in the spring. By the time we got down into the summer months, it was a slightly different kind of pressure J.-Lt.. by that time. And the pressure was not so much~more·localized people involved as it was the continued resurgence of people flowing through the city. This sounds like an oversimplification 1 and perhaps there was some degree a feeling that this is the year b~il. it may be )-tnat -r\\~ (. ( th1\"l\"t all of us should be involved in some way in this) f-'lld to take our stand and show our position. And the way we could do it, is to come to St. Augustine and do our thing. I: Whatever side you were on. S: Yes, certainly. Exactly right. And that is important to recognize. j ' 'i.) \u003c)r . It was not ,Y'Jf!Sr Dn'~ ';\u003e\\'2,v,i'.f,,\\f';.'~,,,.~(.':) '-~\" And from one side however, t \\ .. -, -\\-.I '\"·'\\ a~d I have no documentation to support this, I have rumor and comment :i~-,·'\u003c from people~who I think knew what they were talking about by virtue of the fact that they were involved to some degree. This was the same c,__S time we were preparing persons to work in the Delta ministry. ,.D6 you I recall 1that activity in the lower Mississippi area. It was a time for r c \\f:\\~~,, ~oter registration and things of that sort, which were highly resisted 1- -- ---- --------------------------- CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 10 -~·~,{'\\ r;·· (_ - ~-,, 1 I,, \\ ' ., ,~ \u003c•-\" ( ..,. ~ ., in the Mississippi area. And then -fr.omf-\"'\u003cl~::\u003e,-c_, :-:/ · and other places in the south east of that nature. I: What, for a second, what was the Delta ministry/ .O'Y'c::- ,.r 1·-1 ~ S: It was primarily a ministry of administering to the black community in the agricultural and, it's very vague1 I must be honest with you. I don't remember the details. I remember the title. It was a thing that was a concern at that time to both LJ,'r('·v~. But young people particularly who were going to be participating in this activity in the Mississippi delta ministry, delta ministry project, somef as I understand it, and this may be rumor, so if you use this, you had better trace it through that I'm giving you fact, not fiction. They 1~\"\\'} \\ \\ \" ;1': (; lt..,.'.( ).'\"\\~\":'' -th I !li!gfi the St. Augustine situation where they could predict what was going to happen in terms of demonstrations. In other words, if we go in .to try to be seated in a white restaurant, a quote\\'white restaurant~ we are going to find this kind of response from the owner1 \\.,...... who would in turn do this andAturn, the police department would respond in this way and we will go through this experience as we go through the booking and through being charged, etc. etc., then we would be c C1~···r~i ... ~ released on bail. And bond is put up by someone else) .that we 1•\"- \u003e-. ~c \\ \\\u003c\" 'C\u003e\" VH-\\,-., to this other situation having already experienced the kind of activity here, that we may well experience out here. So that we will know how to deal with it here. Here, it is,no control. Here and in I . some other \"'\"~i c_;\\,,, ,_,c,, because of various things that I talked about .--\\?earlier •. So, in a sense, it was the ----------------- ---------- somebody has a sub-machine gun and starts shooting at you. ____________________ That was exactly the s~-. kind of thing that some participating in se~er -------- f''.\"\\\\'\\'~ \\• c. So, this was also going on while ------------ CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 11 That may not be so. But the people who came ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ in the black interest. I\"- (Tape is malfunctioning) (Tape side 2) S: ••• regular students there for which might hft\"ll\"e possibly have been other persons coming in)al]tt residing at the college and giving the impression of coming from the college in demonstration routes is totally impossible for me to determine. So, I really can't say. \\-.\\-\u003c-IC.. In terms of the older black community, I think there .w;as a portion of the older black community that were supportive to this;though they may not themselves have been specifically present. Indeed there were some individuals that were there. And they were highly visible and everybody could see them, everybody knew who they were. But .. \\/·v. ·t- I generally speaking, those were the same persons whi~h you saw on each occasion. In terms of the whole community, I could not say how many really were there. Demonstration-wise, when there would be a gathering of the ~ community at one of the black churches, the black conununity, I suspect a great part of the black community was present at a gathering such as this. If for no other reason then, that there was as much pressure put upon an individual in the black community to participate on the side of the black community as there would have been and was on behalf of those in the white community to press for support to those who were opposing the action. So, I imagine that there was some participation by everybody but in terms of being in the front lines, not as much as some think. That's an assumption. I do know that in terms of efforts being made to reduce c,,o r 1 _,,.{_, , ;;·\u003c--- ~ . '--• ';\"-\u003c thefblack clergyAAparticularly noticeable in their effort to bring about some sort of reconriliation within the community/and the ones with whom I had any contact with, were CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 12 very concerned·W1-:fh the community as a community there, not so much in terms of it as a focal point of activity for a national group. But we live here. We have people here. What can we do to, all of us together, I: Was there any effort by King to contact the white churches to try to get them to support the demonstration, protests, or try and bring about a reconciliation? S: Directly by King, I could not tell you. I had no contact with King per se. Some of the other people who worked with the SCLC-? I did ..J.,f/ talk with, and I ha~ difficulty remembering exactly who they were, at this point. Of course, at the moment, I thought I would never forget them. But at this point, they are gone from my mind. I'm sure I would remember them if their names were brought up. I: There was Shuttersworth and Jose Williams and C. T. Vivian and Andy Young. Those were ••••• S: Well, Andy Young, I had known from earlier contact because Andy had also been involved to some degree with some christian education literature which the Episcopal church had used. And I knew people who knew Andy and I knew Andy through that kind of contact. There were some others also. None of whom you have thus far mentioned, that were really significant as they related to the Episcopalchurch. I: I see. S: I cannot remember their names. There was a clergyman. I believe he f- ,'::I l )r;'\\::: was from ~iags:;;::(t:)-tnd his name goes out of my mind /but his color and facial contours were such that he could pass either way. And he did so on several occasions. He was present on the occasion when Mr. Seymour CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 13 saw to it that som~~ demonstrators were seated in the Episcopal church. This particular man was with them. I But, no) Jo my knowledge, to my knowledge, remember that I came late on the scene and there may have been something occuring that I knew nothing, you know, about, I: Why were the, one of the things that strikes me about St. Augustine, and I don't think this is atypical but I would like to hear your ..\\--le ..... \\ , .. I response, ~ churches seemed reluctant to take a stance'? Now whether it was reluctance or it was just no real thought about taking a.~ position!I'm not sure of. But was it reluctance or was it •••• S: Yeah, I think I understand what you are asking. You have to understand the political structure of various denominations of values in order to really grasp this. The Roman Catholic church is made up of members of its congregation who are under the leadership of a priest, who is under the direct guidance of the bishop. And the authority structure .f.{, of the Roman Catholic church is very intense in top. The bishop says,~ Rome says, the bishop says, the priest says and the people will respond, or else. That's one polarity. The Roman Catholic church is changing that kind of structure in present day) fut at that particular. time, that's the way it was. At the other end, you have the free churches most epitomized/I thinklby the Baptist church1generally1in which the authority structure is the congregation. And the congregation has the power to manipulate their clergymen. It's a very strong power to do so. If they don't like what he does, he is out. And they will get another one, or they will raise one from their ranks. So, the Baptist church is one polarity and the Roman Catholic church is the other CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 14 polarity in terms of power structures. Then you have the Methodist church, the Presbyterian churches and other churches of that sort which really are very like the Baptist church in the sense that congregational authority seems to be more intense. So you take the major protestant churches in the community and you see that their group -;esponse is going to be what the group feels. l~he group feeling was resentment or being threatened) ?hen that congregation is going to make their clergymen respond that way. If he responds otherwise, they are going to get rid of them. So, he's tied in a sense. I think .. ~\"-~ that you can easily seet,as a community, the white community was being greatly threatened by the~f blacks in the church. It has nothing to do with theology or ethics in that sense. But it.has everything to do with power of authority of the body. In the Episcopal church, we have the congregation and we have the y'estry which is made up of ''(')It !JIP\";_t persons who .are ' t ,...:),,J but there is also sort of an ~ - . , I • I \\~ v·\\ r~·.t:.t'\"--. overlay of the Roman Catholic structure wher.e we have the bishop and the priest and the authority from on high as well as authority coming 'I\u003c.\\\u003c; from below. So, the clergymen)generally, .i;;s. caught in the middle in that sort of situation. But most clergy in the Episcopal church operate with the general authority coming from the top not from the bottom. So as I was saying/ the Episcopal clergy ~~\u003c.~.I ~of~: responsive to the authority of the diocese, the bishop, than he-was generally to the congregation or to the }lestry • I: Can I get you to describe what happened, the turn of events within the Episcopal church, within the Episcopals? S: Within Trinity, at what point? How do you want me to pick it up? CRSTA 4AB CTM J\u003eage.15 I: Picking it up from when Mrs. Peabody entered and I think it was on the 31st, or the first of April and then on the 13th, the 12thAof April, e~, five blacks attended Trinity Episcopa1 5 Father Seymour says that the only thing that bothered people were all the cameramen out front, ;he blacks came and just like everybody else, took their seats, nobody paid any attention. Bishop Rusk ordered -- all churches in the north Florida dioceses to admit anyone who wishes to attend services. S: This is so difficult for me to reconstruct and I've just been very sure that I do what I do generally and~hat is embellished fact is fiction. So if you find that/please recogni~e i~ t~~~ ~~~-- 1 ~d incidentally, I want to take an opportunitY~,~~r·sa; somethingfwhich f\",\u003c:\u003ef-C '/Dv 1 '\\ I w-Wh you wot:t!i:d pick up before you leave, and that is I have been quoted in several articles, it was originally in Redhook article, which \\~h\\'l-h was later picked up in cl(e writings)you have here, in which I made a statement concerning the '' ~\\\\'i\\!C,Q black f'r'-t\\ h 11 in St. Augustine and the image of that. And that I was giving that particular ~v-(~-Nf..) interview to this young lady~from Redbook1and I don't remember her name, I don't even remember the article1but in the conversation, she asked me about it and I said the image of the ~~eloved :Black man'1 (~[) etc., when it was printed, the quotation marks were not there. I: I see. S: And it makes all the difference in the world\";' how one understands it. If you read it straight or if you see it with the quotation marks because I was speaking on an imagery and no1using this as a specific title for a group of people or an individual. And each time that -- ________________________________________________________ _J CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 16 1.S: has been picked up, it~~ been picked up since~ out of context. D~'-~/, I: JJJ{?, was that in '64 that article was published? S: It was '64, J65, it'~ carried in several of these and I will indicate I: S: it to you later on. ic.\"-1 O~, I'll go through it with you. \".1dt10.\") But,· hm.::y:iug back to what you are saying, let's go back first to the p,,\"'-·\\\",\"~{)' I':;. day of Mrs. ~eeples arrival. I will tell the story to you as I under-stand it, not necessarily as a fact that occured. I was not there on the scene 1 so I do not know. But as I understand it, on that particular day 1 which was the first of April, 1964, Mrs. Peabody had been in town for a day or two or three with other persons. And her presence was quite notable. The national press was aware of it. She was a signi­cant person and therefore kept alot of A\\Jsi. ,·,., _J~~ o.'.J: And on that day/ which was a Wednesday, t-~~:e :~; .~~~mally scheduled .J.~ n.fYf!fft service at, I believe it was, about~ or ~1 o'clock, I'll say lO o'clock in the morning. That was a normal service. It was in the chapel. Generally, there might have been four, five, six people attending1not a big thing1 (Vv\",Q I · but a regular week:=day service. }l'arly on that day 1 when CharleJSeymour came to his office, he received a telephone call, I'm now out of sequence, but you will get the elements. He received a telephone call from if v p ~t-...was'\"\". New York, I think it was New York, wanting to know what he was going to do when Mrs. Peabody integrated the church that morning. He had no knowledge that anything was going to occur. He really didn't know what he was going to do)if you will, at that particular instance. This came totally out of the blue. At the same time 1 roughlY; that he was receiving that kind of phone call, the national news broadcasti!ra on t.'b:e\"'radio, was announcing the fact that that day at a proposed hour CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 17 ~· -\u003cJo·C·,~ of ~-0 or 1i o'clock, Mrs. Peabody was going to integrate Trinity Parish Church of St. Augustine. Lots can be said about that whole ,;.., k\u003c\"'' ,,-f ---­activity and the statement and everything else}because prior to that time there had been good communication or communication, good or bad, there had been some movement back and forth between the black commun­rJ \\ ity and Trinity Parish ----------------~--~ So the people of the community had had comfortable interaction) but now she was going to do this and it was going be blown into a biracial thing. This was heard in the city by certain members of the parish and the community who all rose up in resentment to Mrs. Peabody's coming down and she is going to do this. So tension began to mount and telephone calls began to be received by Charles Seymour. And ''what are you going to db 1 sort of thing. I don't know what his responses were to these phone calls -t0) and that's really not material. But it is my understanding\"at some t '! \\a ~. ~.~.'.('( ·-~-\\--'(__., point, -becarrs~trf regular hour of service, there was a group of black young people moving east on King Street/coming from the direction of the college; whether their intention was to go to the church or to go shopping in the drug store, whatever the case, totally immaterial, it's my understanding that there was a group moving east on King Street. There was a group of white young people, youths, whatever you want to call them, who had gathered in the park across the street from Trinity Paris~ and there were some individuals who had heard the radio broadcast and were concerned was sort of around the front of the church to sort of protect the church from anything that might occur. It is my under­~,... 1-d cJ so fr' .. 1. ;, '·~ standing~before the hour of service, either the sheriff or the chief of police land now I have forgotten which individual was involved, but some­one representing the civil authority of the city, came around and said CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 18 :-,,\\ to Mr. Seymour that we have this group coming down King Street, we have this group in the park and this situation seems to be drawing toward a confrontation. Do you absolutely have to have the service -(II today at that particular hour, given these elements. It was my under-standing that Charlie said'-\no, under these circumstances, we don't have to have one~ If there was going to be some sort of confrontation, it would be wiser not to.11 That was the decision he made. The member of the;{estry at that time locked the doors of the church to keep people out so that they would not come in. I: Were you able to do anything else? S: No, no. Not at this particular moment. Honestly, I don't know that. 1 It was not done by the direction of the ------- It was done sort of spontaneously by this person thinking that this was the better way to handle that situation. When Mrs. Peabody arrived to attend the weekly service, the church was locked. The ~~immediately pick. ed \\ \\ \\ ~! ,-..~\"t: (.\\ 1.' \\, this up and it was broadcast around that Mrs. Peabody had been FOf'61~Y locked out of church. So, this is the way things built around that ~l:\\_..1c.).,,,_( paF~tHri±a\"t event, which became quite a significant event as I look at it from the inside as being part of the staff that was there and later ~'\\L'\\) there, I can more easily understand~ given all the elements1that the man who made the decision had made what he felt was the best decision in that particular situation. From the outside, it would seem as a capitulation and going along with and not standing up, etc., etc •• And it was as a result of that that '1, ----------------~ ------- just floods of them. And women went back there and speaking of him as less than a priest of the church, and just really biting Only one or two or three in support of him to the degree ' 5xJ•0'-- ,/; '\"\" \u0026.:!,--::,~-\\ I of saying'Charlie, we don't know really what is going on'but we are I J L CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 19 concerned for you and are praying for you and we hope that you will be able to handle what ever is going on. Those were helpful letters. Most of them were just very bad. Now after that time, for a period l.u .r of time) and again my memory does not serve me well, for a period of time, perhaps days or weeks, Sunday's particularly, we would have groups come, I say groups, I mean more than two or three, usually less than, the groups of specifically black persons coming seeking br' entrance to Trinity Church. They would 3-e-i~ each instance be turned o-S away by the persons who at the door 'We\u003c!.'e ushers. Those persons were almost invaribly members of the~stry. Because they had determined that they were not going to receive into the church persons that were specifically there for the purpose of demonstration. Then at some point, again I,,~ I: Was the clergy aware of that, that was going on? That the vestry was S: trying .•• ('t) .N'.6..~. ;. . not always,- because, :::.... to ~J.~/ to other people this is something that is very hard for us L-. '( ~ ~- .. ,,'·-:·-·,I that we were not always, we wer:a-not-always at the door, we were in other o-c\u003c•:;.-cO I seeking admission:'! we weren' t places. And when the persons)to,coming) there. And so recognizing this, we decided ) . ' wer\u003c '10 \"''\\ ··:·-a and determined that at a given time we .w£li:ti:d be there. So that when people did come in, we would know. At about the same time that this ~~ decision was made, this priest ~ whom I spoke ~e earliel~~ who was a black priest, I: I think I know who you mean. I have forgotten his name as well. I've seen that priest. 0~) S: Well, he came to the parish a day or so early, in fact on Friday CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 20 perhaps, and he said:I am being requested to lead a group here:' And so, we tried to negotiate 1 and the negotiation was orally to bring a group and you will be leading it and you are a priest of the Episcopal church. The second thing is to make sure that the persons whom you bring,,Jiftwit~ you are Episcopalians. Don't bring people of other persuasions but make sure they are Episcopalians. Thirdly, don't bring so large a group that the church feels integrated) but a group( yes 1 but not so big a group that we can't feel that we can control the situation. And bring them to the early celebration of \\-k_ 'C..vJ,,c-r~~~ \"'~ not to the later service. We ~ three services. And I think the hours were 7, 9: 15 and 11•, it may have been 8, 9: 15 and 11. They were roughly spaced like that. In the earlier service, there would be fewer people present. But the request was that they bring them \\\\ 0-JI ( ,~μ-' to that service. So 1 at that time, he said1~, I'll work it that way. 11 So, he said,110K, you'll be at the door to see that you get in~ And ~~-(.___'l(_t-.}~cd that Sunday morning we were at the door and everybody kne~ A:hat +Q..e__ ~e:\u003ec, something was going to happen and they help us at all. Later in the morning, \\ 1 \\I ......... didn't show up. This didn't O\\.)(\u003c,-d\\K \";-, we got}a call from the same man, who said:::he •·ms really sorry that I did you that .) V---l- s~1 way but;\\ \"the ) people down herex won't go along :Wit~ your control of the situation. ·we' 1 c.- \\....\\€.-' ('.\u003c \u003c\\\u003c'\u003e• •\"1 _ .. '\"\" ¥ea ar-e. in control and 4t we elerr'\"--t do it the way we want to do it and you don't tell us how to do it. We are going to be there at 11 o' pitA.S.orcJ ''/ clock JI Well, I wasn't terribly pleased(\\ because I thought that we had stuck our necks on th..,.e line and we didn't feel that we had gotten a decent responsex By the eleven o'clock service time, I think it was the eleven o'clock service, it may have been 9:15, it was very obvious that something was about to happen because not only were we ~cJ':,,!;. at the front door but so were the television coverage ~ which were L CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 21 parked right across the street from the front door,' of the church and that's not much distance. ~\"'-~ And the cameras were out and the news people were all ab:m:rt\" and there was much todo. l.ja,.) k\\. 1c.J t 'C'\\ I;.., \u003c;;;-l~Jl.,.. The Xestry were.-the:r~in front of the church to protect it. And at about service time, just +lt,, ~#- ~ -~·~A.· as we lfere s~s•t te service, this man and his persons, followers, did arrive. They were stopped at the sidewalk door under the steps, I should say, the sidewalk door, by members of the J\"estry. Mr. Seymour •I 1_ ~\\.-,1\u003c.I.'\"' \\L.-rv and I were standing in the lobb)j ;ft the right of the entrance way of the church and back, set back somewhat, so we could see what was going on. But as soon as we saw them arrive, we went out to see what could be done. Father Seymour went over to the gate to speak to the)festry and asked me to go to speak to the television people. So I did that; \\\\ I went over and spoke to one or two of the cameramen and said1 gentle-men, we have a very difficult situation here and you are exposing this \\C.'S and making a big thing out of it and it really compounds the difficult1 ~.\"'~(.c ..l;ha:t:-we have and we would appreciate it if you would move off of the situation so we can handle it and do what we can with it.Y But I rem-ember specifically that one of the cameramen turned l to me and help up '..-'t·'l\"....r his camera and said/ 1:hftt \\\\ we -~ you to know that S\\\"\"'\\::lot· I 'h~ the most important, valuable footage I have ever taken in St. Augustine in this thing right now and I'm not about to put this camera away~1 which didn't help a thing. That was ,;V'f'..t...\\\u003c.{1 ~- \\ ~~-'--~~~~~~- So at this point, I walked back over and joined Mr. Seymour who was at the gate and he was still trying to persuade and he finally decided ~~~~~~~~~~~~- simply push through and move the blacks into the church, which was what was done. When we did this, some of thefastrymen who were there as j,ic;t ushers, threw their bulletins on the ground and walked off. And the CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 22 blacks were taken into the church and seated themselves at a back pew, the first one they came to when they got inside of the church 1 and they continued to be present there through the service with no difficulty. I say no difficult)/ and I'm not sure if they had difficulty at that ~c.... t...\"'\"\"- _, r.···.c~._ .. ~_?··\"',.._c\"? .. ,.,..\"\".u·;\"._(\"'t .. 1· ,.t;· ... _, o ... ' J \\..(;.._,.., f ·•· ... -~ ~ ~ \\ • ' i r \\.'.) l ......... ,. \\ I ~ time) \u0026fi:=ti\u003cQS-..' 'fire, mayi hue because at some •••• (end of tape side 2) (Tape B side 1) I recall that at some point, some black persons who came to Trinity Church to worship during that period were egged as they left the church and walked the rest of the way down 10th Street. Whether they were egged as a result of having been at Trinity Church or whether they were egged simply because they were black walking down the street, is something that I'm not knowledgable of but I know that that incident occured(so that I'm reluctant to tie it in but in some way my memory says that there was something to that. I: Did the festry start meeting then privately or did they •••• S: No, the ;/estry did not meet per se privately. Right after that, Mr. Seymour came to Jacksonville and stayed for a few days with the bishop. '.l,- I stayed in St. Augustine. The.,,v'estry met but I was present at the time \"1_ ---- I: Did the bishop, was he totally supportive of Father Seymour? S: Yes he was, totally. And there is a letter which I think you have access to which was from the bishop to the /es try. The,»'estry finally \"'00). called upon the bishop'sAoffice which is a term from canlfon law which / '-.J says that if there is a difference of opinion between a;/estry and a congregation anror the ;festry, it seems to be unable to be solved, then the ,festry or thej{ector may call upon the bishop's good offices i 1-C' to work it out. So, they choose to~:~~i1 upon the bishop's good office\"1 CRSTA 4AB Page 23 unquote. And Bishop West crune to St • .Augustine and brought with him that letter, which he had intended to mail. But he brought it with him to the~stry meeting and personally read it to the;vestry as they were gathered there at the ;festry meeting. It was a stunning letter because it contained certain phraseology that had not been heard in quite some ,u.s-CA time, certainly none of these men had ~xpected to hear it and that was the statement that in the event things did not change there was a very good chance of,·exc{\u003ennmmication;' · That was something that they had not figured. So, there was IIU1Ch discussion at that point conceTiling what had occured, why they were distressed, all of the things that surrounded it. And Bishop West still held his ground. And finally, at a later point of the;V'estry meeting, some people suggested that perhaps it would be best if they simply resigned from the Xestry. And Bishop indicated y..LS1 oJ. ic.. that ~cu I~ \\.;..\u003c.. accept~ ~' that he would accept anyone's resignation who wished to make it. 1here upon, three men immediately resigned. And since it seemed to be snowballing •..•. I: Do you remember who resigned? S: No, I don't remember exactly. (tape cut out for some time) 0 ....... I: Basically what I want to ask is you took over and you had participated tt S: the side of Father Seymour and you had pushed or physically pushed past the Yestry to open the gates so that Styles, I believe it was, and the people with him could enter the church and partake in the service. What happened? What was the situation like to you? ,\u003e.,J....t{.\"\" ·~\" ,_.;;.,, Well, again that's hard for me to remember. I remember considerable hostility and yet between myself and Charles Seymour1 because I was new and he had been there for a long while/ ~e had accumulated a certain runount of hostility on the part of some people. I guess I was the least a.S ' 4' \\ .. .,.\\0 CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 24 ;/ bad things. And so I was able to continue and administer the affairs of the parish when he was not present, at least when he continued to be rector and obviously I continued to minister my -\"' -------- to support him. I: When was that approximately? When did he leave? S: It seems to me that he left to go tb New Orleans either in October or November. We had a terrific hurricane come through New Orleans and did great damage to the city, a-.\".'. . \\ Nu\\\\ I think it was in November --------- But he had just gone to New Orleans when that occuted. So I remember that distinctly. So it was rather early in the fall. But he definitely called in the late sunnner _c:Nv-_.._ . Q--4-._. __. .... .\"\".,._) 'o I knew b 'I .£,rY D 0 c .) L-\u003c~ :iJ£' the ttte sUHIIIler that he was going to go. The question then was how ('. ........ was Trinity Parish to be administered. The best thing always was for ,.tll'~ --: assistant to also leave when the rector \\_cpvc;, in order ----------~ n that the ---- may be changed for the next time ,..., , ----------~ This particular case, though, I was there and they were '(Y\"V' tl;i.cl.. accepting me. ~ they were accepting me for the reason that was sent to me by a clergyman in the diocese who is still here. And I trust he said it in jest but yet at the same time I knew enough about the situation to believe that maybe he was right. They were considering calling me later on to be rector. And this clergyman said, \"Stanley, those people really don't want a priest and you are the closest thing to nothing they could find\". And he may have been right. (laughter) But what ever the case, \\...,/ during the period from Charles Seymoursgoing to New Orleans until the following March or April, during that interim period, the director of the church was the foshop of the .Diocese. I was simply there as the priest-in - charge. And Bishop West asked me to stay there in that capacity. His specific words( as I recall the best I can rere, \"Stanley, they have CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 25 allowed you to live with them this long. See if they will let you live with them a little longer.\" And so I continued to take services and shared the ,..iestry but only as priest-in -charge and not as rector. And t'bkgan picking up pieces. In the spring, they called me to be rector. To be very honest with you 1 and I am being honest, I did not want the job. I had come from G0\\f ~.t,7;\u003c- to be an assistant because I really didn't want to be the '1- I wanted somebody else to make the decisions and to take care of angers that would come out of it. I really didn't want it. And wi\\l when they offered me the job, I still didn't. I was insecure and I continue~ to be insecure even until this day. I really just didn't want that kind of responsibility. And so Bishop West came down to-St. Augustine and said, \"Stanley, they let you live for a year here and you are of the people1 they kno~1\"\"you lived here in south Jacksonville and you are just as cracker as they are;\"'''\"6-.)\u003eJ~~-;.!: !'-c:. rv~r-.tck.o.s-t~v_ 1, c;,,-c. and you are for the same kind of prejudices that they haveJwhich I will speak to you in a few minutes, I think may be helpful.* But they lmew this. I 'S\u003etr-,dltD \\l So, if they ~ (-.::. wanted me to be rector, Bishop West thought it Wffi:lld~·be- a good idea. And so I accepted -------- My full tenure there was seven years. During the early days, when I was still, before I was, no 1 it was after I was rector, no,r beg your pardon, during the early days, when I was still priest-in-charge ~l-\"l;\\.\u003c.- and ~Seymour was still there and we were having all the difficulties~ we were having, the tensions were very high. And on more than one occasion, both Oiarles Seymour and I received verbal threats by telephone to our households or to ourselves personally. And as I look back on it now, \\ I' ) we~ r~ Sr;,.~~c- .J\\:) ~-~v~\\...,. I really didn't think of it as anything because of in the instances that I recall, I knew the people who were calling . .And on one occasion, I received a call that said, this was right after the .-------------------------------------------------- CRSTA 4AB CIM Page 26 \\....r~t-~-· blacks had been let into the church that on the occasion that you all let ~Q ~.;-v r•.Y 0 '.co the blacks into the church, it was so and so and so and so and his b-o,1 ~;;. I Next Sunday, it's going to be so and so and so and so and his boys and it's not going to be the same. And that telephone call came to me in the evening. I was rash in thinking ~ what I was doing; s\\-.ov \\c~ ~.,., . ic kc. f1 ~. 1-r • \\ ke .• \\\\\\:.c l\\,.\\D0\\.\\'N \".? ,l:':'\\v-it'-S't~vr\u003c1(\\, And so I told the caller that he had better bring his boys with him because up until that time, he had been dealing with clergy who were connnitted to non-violence) but I was not connnitted to non-violence. He had better have someone with him if he came on this particular occasion. And I thought that was f?~U\" Srt--r\u003e·::,~k ~~~~+\\ ........... ~.:,._;_~~~~~~~ But as a matter of fact, on that particular Sunday, they did arrive. They were standing in front of the church and the Ji'shop was aware of this, aware that this was the kind of tension that we were faced with and so he had instructed us not to go in the front door of the church. We had our nonnal procession in the front door. But to enter the sanctuary from the side door to avoid a confrontation at the front door of the church, in case there was physical violence. \"? I: Were these black demonstrators or white'~? S: These were white. They were reacting to what happened the Sunday before. 0.\\-{.... But as the hour for service grew near, Father Seymour and ~knew that we weren't about to go in the side door. This was just not going to be our way of doing things. So, we went in the front door. We walked through -.t-tv-~ the group and ~ was people The only grateful thing, the only gracious thing, good thing was that on that particular Sunday, no black demonstrators were at the front door. Had they done so, CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 27 we would have had a problem because we weren't going to be intimidated by that kind of (\"', t ! ,1' -\\1-r ·i , .. ·r \"·'\"''\\ 1; \\1\" ··'. ~\"··But there were instances like that ----------------- they passed_. _____ _ Th at went on generally through the sunnner'()'-:\\-_U v...-?-\u003c- 0\".:. .I,(-t\u003c - s;..,, \"'.,...c( .\\,,'_,;;_\"-----· What I wanted to say to you about things learned 1and being of the people, perhaps their friends, is that I think I discovered some­thing that apparently lots of other people already know and that is that when you have someone who is confronted with an issue such as demanding your relationship with the person with whom you o-~ .bs-1- \"\"'\" \"'\\ ______ ___;; ____ ~ it's very hard for you to make that kind of transition immediately. So, what I did was to not force anybody and if I knew anybody who had strong ,, lol)\\C.1ypv !,:,.,..~\",:.,) feelings, anti-black, I didn't go out and say, you are not a giristian ,, '( and danmed to hell, that sort of stuff. and I love you and I do. I have a great wann feeling for a great many of those people who even today are obstinate, they are absolutely holding their position that is1 not to l;rc,....Q But by approaching them with that position, they didn't have to defend themselves. I was not someone who was constantly W VIC .( /j., thought of as a danming figure but rather someone accepting them even as they were. 'I ' ...R,w,,\u003e._:r (_ {\\ \\ .. ! ~ ... ' ..--.. \\ They knew my position and they knew that I didn't agree with -them but I didn't destroy them if I had a disagreement with their position. This allowed some of the people, the opportunity in later years to move from one position to another without having me say ha ha, I told you you would eventually or feeling anything at all except that they were able to make that on their own. When they made it, it didn't change their relationship with me noti~bly. They were still the same friend that I had before. And I was there. But they could now take a new posture without any kind of external agitation, would you say. And that happened on a great CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 28 many occasions and it was tremendously gratifying to me to see this occur. I remember one specific day when)I don't think I will ever forget, one of the men whose name is not mentioned in any of these papers but he was • p :.- extremely racist, just absolutely, my God, no blacks \\-.. ~;!\\\\..' o-r-t...c~. ' But he was also equally, irrationally Episcopal~an. .And if you are an I Episcopal~an, it didn't make any difference if you came from Mars , you are Episcopal~an. .And one Easter, some of the members of the black '1-, --- Mission, came to Easter services at Trinity, two, three, four years after all this in '64. And suddenly here was this man kn.e~ing at the alter of the Trinity Church along side one of the most notable leaders of the black '-J conmrunity who would have been most l.llldesirable as far as he was concerned. And the ~read was given to everybody and the chalise came by and I watched this guy receive the connnon chalise and pass it on to this black person next to him and he never moved and didn't get up and I'm sure he must have been feeling all kinds of thing7 but he made it. He survived it. He made it. And to me, that was a tremendous experience. I could see this happen'· to people. But this is not the kind of thiag that you can very well .And it's not the kind of thing that happens l.lllder the pressure, it may happen as a reaction to the pressure. But only after you have let down your wall, stppped fighting, stopped all of your defense mechanisms and let yourself be open to a new position which is part of ./\\ ¢-S I: Was there any time when you could reach out to the black commllllity; you said there was some sort of overtures being made prior to the racial crisis. Was there any, could you ptck up those threads later on and reestablish ••• I L CRSTA 4.AB CTM Page 29 S: Yeah, during the entire summer of '64, there were meetings periodically/ sometimes weekly, sometimes more often, between some white clergy and some black clergy. And gradually we included some lay persons in these UJ\u003e.1(\u003c,..L( y-vc,..) ~ conversations. The goal,of~ beinv~o···~ 111.,..we in the commllllity,- h~ _\\.PV'\\,5, ~ in this situation. The white ~ +-k ~V- ,'/. clergy that participated, ~ Episcopal cler~ 'If? Pres!J}!!tarian clergymen who was open and easy to deal with this and one OT two of the ( Methodist cler,gy~ the Baptist were practically non-existent; I: (the interviewer asked something) 1-\\ei.-..J d .. ~'.)-..)4 (::,~ •. ,,,.., -+C (c .. IQ~\\·r·.'.;;? S: Not at ti$ time. I think it needs to be noted powever 1that John Burns; who /1~~~) in ASia was the monsenior of the cathedral at that particular time. And Archbishop Hurley was the archbishop of the diocese of St. Augustine. Archbishop Hurley specifically directed John Burns to make connnunication with the clergy of Trinity Parish and offer them support. I: Michael Gannon \\-...)C-S. t~kro ~~--'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~- S: I knew Mike extremely well. I: Did ym?. S: I am very fond of Mike. I: You were friends? S: I am extremely fond of him. Do you see him regularly? I: Yes. S : Tell him hello for me. I: I will. S: I am extremely fond of him. Mike's a great person. I'm sorry that the . church isn't using him right now, the way I think they ought to be able .(.?.. .,, '', I', . J to but he has an awful lot ~0 \tr,.·-·~ • ~. there were these persons who were in commllllication at that point. Out of that kind of commllllication also grew a learning that I think is significant. And that was that we -- -- - --------------- CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 30 were all very sensitive to each other and we had new concerns that we had not necessarily had before. .And it was hard to connnunicate because \u003c.. of these Hightened sensitivities. You didn't dare do anything or say anything for fear of offending somebody else. So finally, one of the black clergy, I'll never foTget this, finally just put his hands on top .1 ..$ ;._;;. I\\ !?\"°:~I,•; ~\"\"' ~: ... [ '\"' ) C)t.,_.I ~. . I I ' ,~-v· ., ... ::\\ $...-. of the table and said1 we ain't going 1;» done,~ you can call me a nigger if you want to because that's what you usually call me 1 and I can call you a powder face because that's what I usually call youf'and he said1 ''neither one of us is going to get upset by this. .And once we get around this, we can start talking to each other and getting down to the things that we need to get to!1 And that was to me very refreshing because 1,.;:, '-' r we were being so careful with each other, not to offend1-ttmt we weren't '-' \\\u00261' .,,Ir~ l \\{O really dealing. So once we all said OK, don't worry about what I say, try to hear what I intend you to hear, we began to make some movement forward. I was ref~\\red by that. Later, and I don't know how long this continued, but later, .we were able to involve some of the major leadership persons of the connnunity in by and large with black and white persons '12 LC r .. .,.-~,--,J 1 \u003e- .' · ~ i r ...,,-:\\ , and other51 basically they were involved for ~ And they were manipulated to bring about those things that they thought were going \") ·, to be in their favor ~~---~----~ But at least, it was communication. I: Who were some of those representatives from other churches? Do you remember the names of the people from the black churches or the white churches? S: I do not remember their names, I'm sorry. There was a Dr. Lee who was _f?_ic.:_c_J_ ,_ ~l~_c_c_:r_·· -c\"_c;_._r·_(_J __ the Methodist church representative was quickly transferred out because they didn't reflect the wishes of the people CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 31 in the congregation. They were very committed men when I got there in 1964. The two Methodist clergymen in the city of St. Augustine in the spring of 1964 were very connnitted to helping deal with the racial issue f ,_,,,(. • \\ cμ,.-Q L v \\ ~ic , 1 '\\;v , c U .. 1 df' 11\u003c.~~ \\) ',.\\ • I: Were you able to bring in blacks to the Episcopal church in St. Augustine during your tenure? S: No, there were no black communities brought into Trinity Church. We have now1still, and had then, a black mission not too far away from Trinity Church that had been there for many,·many, many years. I: Where was this? S: On Citrus. And at this particular time, the Episcopal church also had a mission, a black mission, in Fernadino which was on the opposite end of the block at St. Peters A~. And the NAACP and ~----------- others put pressure on the diocese of Florida to close that church and to bring the black congregation into.thewhite congregation in our neighborhood which was white. Successfully or not so successfully, I'm not so sure. If you went down 4 · ~-~----------------~ And the same suggestion was made to st0f;f~p?). ~ --------------~~ people at St. ~~said that they did~ want it. And this is not ~---~-,,,... The t._.,,_,., , ..... , a racist vie' I don r t think_·_~_c_~--~\\ -· ' I I •.I ' 1\" ,.1 ]!{ i_c_0 _1~ _·~_'_,_._,_,_.1 _·_·~ rut they knew that the people of Trinity didn't want i~ ---- The second thing they knew was that if they went to Trinity ,Yarish, not only would they feel not welcome but they would loose any political powers they had within their own structure in the community. The church would have killed the congre-gational structure. And they really didn't want that. So they·_/'/.:...· __ _ the Bishop not to close them. And he did not close them. And they CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 32 continued on and still continue until this day. I: Who serves in the missionary? Is there a priest? S: There is a priest that goes there. Now when they had a black priest, they operated autonom(ously. Whff'¢ I was in St. Augustine and they did not I: have a black priest and I showed up in St. Augustine, I took the services there regularly, Eucharist and regular prayers, every other Sunday, I think 1I had used this building, confirmation classes, church school teaching and different things. So, I carried them both in interim periods when we didn't have black ministry. We now have a black priest who works there. After '64, I can't remember whether it was '65, '66, but at the same time, somewhere down the line, the people of St/·s·i.~;~:~ began again to come to services at Trinity when they felt like it. When we had speakers of significance who they wished to be present for, they .J.c felt comfortable in coming. On some occasions, some would come to weekly service:in chapel for Eucharist. And we had two or three or four who were ~ quite accustomed to receiving Eucharist weekly and they had not been there weekly for awhile simply because ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ because again you reach the point where people from the town knew I each other. (End of tape 2 side A) •••• I can't remember. I guess I have used up alot of your time but let me just ask one last I question. From your perspective, what impact did the racial crisis have on the community? What sort of shape did it leave the community in after King left? After Reverend Codding Lynch and Stoner left? CAI 1 0~\\-.t, S: That's the same question that my friend got me with. The community was ~-1 a unity of persons who found it difficult to trust one another whether I it be in the white community or the black or between whites and whites 1 L __ CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 33 whites and blacks, there had been so many things opened that you weren't ~tp:!t' rcrJJ , \\ sure you couldAtrust the guy down the street because he may have been involved in the white citizens council sort of thing or he may not have been. He didn't know whether you were or whether you were more liberally-oriented and therefore, so there was, in terms of interpersonal relations/ ct-- such as racial concerns, a destruction of~ trust. You really couldn't s. 4-n~ d , tell where anybody~. In terms of what was going on between the white ....,. connnunity and the black connnunity per se, the white connnunity ------ to the pressures. Restaurants were opened; public facilities were opened, access~y}opened, hiring and firing was done more ~1: \\.,..) ('·,: ·~\\l\"'-,.:;­in a manner, people were taking on token blacks because ~-e-wer~ chTn:gs-that they had to do. But nobody was doing what was really good, open, ().Na., /f rejoicing, feeling good. Generally for the entire_· _________ _ it was that kind of thing. You did what you gotta do but it was not what you wanted. I suspect maybe some changes had taken place but I doubt that they had really changed. The reason I say that is because of the congregation I have here /1 Their attitudes have not changed that much, at this point. The reason I don't begin the intense pressure of St. Augustine. I: Did you feel the intense pressure left than ----- I guess it did leave more in St. Augustine? Do you think, I keep asking questions after I said that would be the last one, do you think St. Augustine could have moved as far as it did without the crisis of '63 and '64? Would it have moved further? ( .., ,.) S: Very hard. It's very hard to say. That is such an \u003c;:_.\\X~C'-.(!'Q. question. 11-'S Honestly, I could not tell you. I would like to say, I 1thought it would because they did an exceptional job at the very outset of dealing CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 34 with the school situation. They really did. They ran into problems some years after I left with their seventh grade centers and that sort of thing that really became problematical because they had to/ had to put a certain number of whites in the black community school. But when they first started out dealing with the quote''integration ~. . \\ \\ r ,.. .{ \\ t. l, ) problem;' what they did was to open the schools and say that 1'~nybody, can go to any school that they want to. And a goodly number of black children innnediately came into the white structures. And that worked relatively well. Many of the black children stayed in the black schools. There was one school over on the island that was predominately white, ~.J-some black children/but predominately white. But 1 then the schools that were in the area between the two, where there could be freedom of movement to and from, worked relatively well. And everybody seemed to be pulling it up. It was only when further restrictions or guide-lines by the Federal government said that you have to do this, that they really began to get into problems. They might have done af-ight left on their own, given things that had been going on in the whole national structure. It might have been a]fight because it was still a small town fs it is no~ and everybody knew everybody. And maybe certain whites would want to suppress certain blacks '1. . ·ft4c-V'I t-.P'1' -2- l.t. JL (;::-;;;..( ! v.\\'r:-:::-. • \\ L.(,. 1:\u003e ( not much different really than whites~ suppress whites,~ the black people who suppress blacks. I think we have that same 'S'.- l\"~\"'c.. whether it becomes more heightened an image or becomes more undesirable for those who are making any kind of evaluation on white behavior or black. But I think that probably, as any other city of that size in the south east, given the mentality, the psychology, the attitudes CRSTA 4AB CTM Page 35 • • \"\"? of the people that didn't have that kind of situation~'~~~~~~~~~ I: OK, thank you very much. (end of tape)","Trinity Episcopal Church -- Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) -- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) -- Trinity Episcopal Church -- Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- Sit-in -- Attempted Integration of Church -- Civil Rights March"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights--United States--Florida"],"dcterms_title":["Stanley Bullock : Transcribed Interview"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Proctor Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://civilrights.flagler.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15415coll1/id/1054"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Flagler College is not the copyright owner for this item, nor can the College provide a copy of this item. Please contact the contributing organization to obtain a copy and permission to reproduce this item."],"dcterms_medium":["transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["35 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Bullock, Stanley","Seymour, Charles","Peabody, Mary E. (Mary Elizabeth), 1891-1981","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","Vivian, C. T.","Young, Andrew, 1932-","Gannon, Michael, 1945-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":6,"next_page":7,"prev_page":5,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":60,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}