{"response":{"docs":[{"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":"bcas_bcmss0837_292","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits: ''High Schools''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2001"],"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","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits: ''High Schools''"],"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/292"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["348 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\nHIGH SCHOOLSO_| ZCD mm z 0) on High Schools 1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to high school principals and others, Sept. 2, 1998, with information on a Ninth Grade Transition program. 2. Memorandum to high school principals from Bonnie Lesley in Dec. 16, 1998, Learning Links with a copy of a new book. Small Schools. Big Imaginations: A Creative Look at Urban Public Schools. 3. Memorandum to high school principals from Bormie Lesley, Mar. 20, 1999, on a High Schools that Work conference. 4. Memorandum to high school principals from Bonnie Lesley, July 19, 1999, with four models for creating small learning communities. -^1^1 5. Memorandum to middle and high school principals from Bonnie Lesley in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links with another model for grade 9 transition. ^/\u0026lt;S 6. Memorandum to high school principals and others from Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 6, 2000, on high school reform\nattached copy of a new research report, High Schools of the Millennium. -/\u0026lt;^ 1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to high school principals. Mar. 6, 2001, attaching 25 copies of a book. Rethinking High School for use by teachers serving on the action research teams. 8. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 26, 2001, on high school systemic issues\nattached article, The Lost Opportunity of Senior Year: Finding a Better Way. 9. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to high school principals, Apr. 6, 2001, with copies of a book by Mike Schmoker, Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement. 1 TO\nFROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S. PULASKI LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 September 2,1998 High School Principals Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent - Secondary Education Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent - Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Dr. Bonnie Lesley .Waas os( ociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Ninth Grade Transition I am attaching some information about a ninth grade transition model developed by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation in New York. You may find these ideas helpful as you develop your plan for moving freshmen to the high school. If I can help in other ways, please let me know. Attachments BAL/adg PROJECT TRANSITION: CORE ELEMENTS These elements were developed based on discussions with education policy experts, a review of past studies of related programs, and discussions with school administrators, teachers and students. Teacher-student teams Teams of approximately 30 grade 9 students, grouped heterogeneously, will take their principal academic courses together. Four teams of students will be taught by a single teacher team, probably consisting of an English, math, science, and social studies teacher. Each teacher team will share a planning period to discuss collaborative efforts to improve instruction and to respond to the needs of their shared first-year students. There will be a one-course reduction in the number of classes taught by participating teachers to provide time for the additional shared planning period and for the extra work they will be required to do. Innovative professional development through teacher learning communities and coaches The teachers in each team will observe each others classes, plan jointly, and work together to develop and implement responses to the problems that they confront in their classrooms and to implement improvements in their instructional methods. The goal is for each team to build a \"teacher learning community\" that will provide concrete, sustained support for upgrading instruction. A facilitator or coach will support the teacher teams, \"holding up the mirror,\" to keep the teachers focused on the goals of improved instruction and student achievement. Coaching will begin during the summer before the teachers begin their work together. In addition, the coaches will provide direct assistance to teachers in using effective instructional tools, including cooperative learning strategies, applications-based and project assignments, proactive classroom management methods, and clarified expectations for students work. Discipline-specific professional development will be provided through links to teachers departmental colleagues. Use of warning signals and action plans for failing students Professional development will prepare the teacher teams to recognize the early warning signals of student failure and to implement specific action plans for students in need of extra assistance to prevent failure. Action plans will include tutoring by peers and by members of the teacher team\nextra instructional time\nand student-teacher-parent contracts. 1BENEFITS FOR PROJECT TRANSITION SITES There are eight main benefits for sites participating in Project Transition.  State-of-the-art study of Project Transition. Sites selected to participate will receive a rigorous evaluation of their high school transition project at virtually no cost to the school or district. The study will provide an in-depth examination of the implementation, impacts and cost of Project Transition.  Funding supplement to cover coaches, professional development activities, and research-related costs. MDRC expects to secure funding for Project Transition to compensate participating school districts for research and data collection costs and the costs of the coaches and summer institutes. The amount of the site payments will depend on the programmatic and research-related activities currently being developed.  National and local exposure to help solidify support from the school board, conununity and state. Sites can use their participation in the study as tangible evidence of their involvement in systemic reform. This may be useful in solidifying state and local support in order to preserve the reforms during the test period and justify an expansion if research findings are positive. MDRC will work with the district to try and obtain any sute waivers necessary for the project to be implemented.  Opportunities for idea-sharing and information exchange. Participating sites will be selected from several regions of the country. As part of a national network, these sites will have the opportunity to compare experiences, leant about innovative approaches, and share operational lessons and \"best practices.\" Toward this end, there will be two conferences for participating sites. MDRC will cover travel costs for these conferences.  Customized technical assistance and training. Site staff will receive training and technical assistance on professional development, coaching, action plans and research and dau collection procedures. The training and technical assistance will be provided at no cost to the site. Teachers will participate in state-of-the art professional development and coaching activities.  Lx)cal program and policy development. At the local level, sites wiU have access to specific findings that can be used by administrators and teachers to develop policies for improving student success in the school. MDRC wiU provide periodic interim briefings on the project for district leadership, school staff, local resource partners, and others and work to help districts expand the reforms to other schools if they prove to be effective. (continued) 2BENEFITS FOR PROJECT TRANSITION SITES (continued)  State and national policy development. At the state and national levels, advocates of systemic reform are calling for smaller learning environments for students and teachers and better professional development for teachers. Participating sites will be part of a project that promises to provide credible evidence on the effectiveness of these reforms, and will help shape future policy directions.  Technology transfer. Through their participation in the project, district research and evaluation staff can learn more about how to design and implement random assignment evaluations and implementation studies so that these research methods can be applied to internal evaluations conducted by the district. 3 PROJECT TRANSITION: RESPONSIBILITIES AND SITE SELECTION CRITERIA High school:  Broad support. The participating high school has broad support for the project from the principal, teachers, students and parents\nwe will proceed with the project in a school only if a sizable majority of the faculty votes to participate.  Project phase-in plan. The participating high school seeks to \"phase in\" the project initially for about half of the ninth grade class with full implementation occurring in subsequent years.  Eligibility factors. The schools environment is appropriate for a longitudinal impact study of Project Transition: low to moderate mobility of students, a large ninth grade population, high dropout rates, relatively high percentage of students qualifying for the school lunch program, limited use of ability grouping in the ninth grade (or a plan or willingness to shift from ability groupings), and little use of separate, self-contained programs for ninth grade students.  Data collection. The high school staff are willing to cooperate with the projects research and data collection requirements, including making school records available to the research team. Costs are defrayed by MDRC site grants. District:  Commitment to systemic reform. The district has implemented teacher-student clusters in the ninth grade in at least one high school and plans and encourages the expansion of clustering to other high schools.  Broad Support. There is broad support in the district from the school board, superintendent, teacher union, parent groups, community groups, and other education st^eholders.  Large comprehensive high schools. The district has large, comprehensive high schools suitable for the demonstration, serving students from numerous feeder schools, with a substantial number of low-achieving students qualifying for the school lunch program, and high dropout rates.  Resource capability. The district will allocate resources for the additional preparation period for participating teachers or provide the equivalent amount for other project-related costs (such as the coaches). (continued) 4PROJECT TRANSITION: RESPONSIBILITIES AND SITE SELECTION CRITERIA (continued) District (continued):  Data collection. The district is also willing to cooperate with research and data collection requirements. This will include getting parent and student signatures on consent materials, completing a baseline form on all incoming ninth graders, completing random selection of teachers and students (if a random assignment design is used), and arranging for students and teachers to cooperate with MDRC researchers during field research visits. Conununitv:  Availability of a local resource partner (LRP). The community has a local institution or agency either within or outside the school district which will facilitate the professional development and coaching components. This organization has the staff, skills, and cnowledge of the local schools and community needed to support the project. 5 RESEARCH DESIGN: THE USE OF RANDOM SELECTION During the planning year, MDRC plans to explore the feasibility of using random assignment to carry out the research. If random assignment proves not to be feasible, we will consider other research designs.  Random selection has been used successfully in hundreds of studies. MDRC has 20 years of experience using random selection, with over 200,000 people randomly assigned.  The reason to use random selection in a major evaluation is to be able to compare two groups that are essentially identical (on both measurable and unmeasurable characteristics, such as motivation)\none group receives the project being evaluated, the other receives the regular school program\nsubsequent differences between the two groups can be attributed with confidence to the reform being tested.  Random selection provides a fair and totally objective method of deciding who receives services when resources are limited. Random selection provides an equal opportunity for access to services. It is often considered fairer than discretionary admissions. Many school districts currently use a lottery to select students for magnet programs and other programs that have limited slots. Random selection is identical to this type of lottery.  Random selection is generally accepted by students, parents, and the public when it is fuUy explained in advance and is understood by aU parties. MDRC assures ethical protection and confidentiality for aU participants.  MDRC provides training to school staff involved with the random selection process, including scripts, Q and A materials and suggested responses to questions.  Other evaluation methods are subject to great uncertainty and dispute. Random selection has been endorsed by numerous national panels of experts, including the National Academy of Sciences. \"Although the [educational] reform sentiment is strong, most of these proposed alternatives are not fully articulated and are of unknown merit. . . [identifying appropriate control groups can be dijficult, and following a mobile student population for several years is never easy. But without high-quality and credible evaluations, school districts will never be able to choose wisely among available innovations. . . The committee is convinced that widespread school reform will require partnerships between researchers and practitioners. Each has much to contribute to the quest. Researchers can provide breadth and depth of inquiry and rigor of investigation\nelaborate new theories, conduct carefully controlled experiments, study programs and practices in multiple sites, and prepare national indicators of educational progress.\" - National Academy of Sciences, 1992 6ETHICAL PROTECTIONS: PROJECT TRANSmON  Meeting all students basic needs All ninth grade students, regardless of whether they are randomly selected for the project group or the regular high school group, are eligible for all public school entitlements.  Provision of full information on the evaluation All ninth grade students and their parents receive a fuU explanation of the random selection process and of their status regarding the project. Parents must give consent to their children being in the study.  Provision of a fair and equitable way to allocate scarce resources Random selection, a lottery process, is used to allocate slots. This can be fairer than discretionary decision-making.  Protection of privacy and data confidentiality Information on participants in the evaluation is carefully collected and securely maintained, with fuU confidentiality as required by law.  Institutional Review Board The research protocol will be reviewed by an independent institutional review board (TRB) to assure that student protection is adequate and students are not put at undue risk because of the research. 7PROJECT TRANSITION: Tentative Project Timeline Key activities: Fall 1994 - Spring 1995 Planning Year Site selection Consensus building Vote by teachers Local resource partner identification Further development of four core elements Finalization of research design Key Activities: Summer 1995- Spring 1996 Demonstration/ Evaluation Year Summer institutes for teachers with followup activity during the school term Random assignment of incoming 9th grade students and teachers Data collection and research on impacts and costs Report preparation and dissemination Research on implementation Key Activities: Summer 1996- Summer 1997 Expansion Year Summer institutes for teachers with followup during the school year Implementation of Project Transition for all 9th grade students and teachers 8 MAJOR OPEN ISSUES Resolution of the following open issues will be based on discussions with potential sites: -  Tuning and nature of extending the intervention to the upper grades Validation of the feasibility of using a random assignment design The length of the followup period beyond the tenth grade Selection of teachers for Project Transition Content of professional development and the link to subject area department Selection process for coaches and local resource partners Non-educational outcomes to be measured Possible special activities for students at the beginning of the ninth grade Division of labor between the school district and the local resource partner Amount of the site grant 9BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON MDRC The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) is a nonprofit social policy research organization with offices in New York City and San Francisco. For 20 years it has developed and tested interventions aimed at improving the economic and life prospects of disadvantaged Americans. MDRC has been widely recognized as providing highly credible, practical, and policy- and program-relevant information on education, job training, welfare-to- work, and adolescent parenting programs. MDRC was formed to respond to the need for more definitive information in the employment and training field and it has pioneered the use of longitudinal, field-based studies involving 300 counties or communities in 40 states. Distinguishing features\n diverse staff with backgrounds in social science research and program operations\nallows for combining research expertise with operational know-how  successful in balancing research requirements with program operation needs to minimize the burden and intrusion of research  the successful implementation of random assignment evaluations in diverse institutional settings which provides the most reliable information on program effectiveness  effectively and broadly disseminating results to improve policy and practice Examples of education and youth projects: Career Academies Evaluation MDRC is conducting a longitudinal evaluation of Career Academies which are schools within schools organized around a career theme. Ten schools are participating in the evaluation which will be measuring the effects of the Academies on educational and labor market outcomes and reductions on risk-taking behaviors. School-to-Work Transition MDRC conducted a major implementation study of 16 school-to-work programs incorporating the range of options (Career Academies, Tech prep, youth apprenticeship, etc.). The results of the study helped shape the recently enacted School-to-Work Opportunities Act and is guiding educators and employers in their development of school- to-work plans under the new legislation. (continued) 10BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON MDRC (continued) Youth Entitlement MDRC managed and evaluated the largest, federally sponsored youth employment program called Youth Entitlement which guaranteed jobs to all 16-19 year olds disadvantaged students in 17 communities on the condition that they stay in or return to school. Over 76,000 youth participated. LEAP MDRC is conducting an evaluation of Ohios Learning, Earning, and Parenting (LEAP) Program, an unusual statewide initiative that uses financial incentives, case management, and support services to induce teen parents on welfare to stay in or return to school. JOBSTART MDRC developed and evaluated JOBSTART, an alternative education and trainin\nprogram for school dropouts which operated at 13 sites throughout the country. ig New Chance MDRC conducted a 16-site demonstration of New Chance, a comprehensive program for young women on welfare and their children featuring education, parenting, life skills, work readiness and job training for participating mothers and on-site child care for their children. I 11MANPOWER DEMONSTRATION RESEARCH CORPORATION MDRC Three Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-5936 Tel: (212) 532-3200 Fax: (212) 684-0832 Regional Office: 88 Kearny Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel: (415) 781-3800 Fax: (415) 781-3820 --.I I NOV 1 4 (994 i Board of Directors: I-November 11, 1994 Dr. James Hensley Superintendent Kansas City School District 625 Minnesota Ave. Kansas City, KS 66101 Richard P. Natbaa. CJtairman Paul H. O'Neill, rrearitncr Eli Giiuberg. Chainnan Ejnentus Rebecca M. Blank Antooia Hernandez Alan Kistler Richard J. Mumane Rudolph G. Penner Franklin D. Raines Robert Solow Gilbert Steiner Mitchell Sviridoff William Julius WQsoa Waiiam S. Woodside Judith M. Gueron, Presidons I  J I I Dear Dr. Hensley I am writing to you at the suggestion of Susan Wally at The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation to introduce you to the Manpower Demonstration Research Coiporation and the work we are doing on education reform. In October, I met with staff at The Kauffman Foundation to discuss MDRCs work in the school-to-work field and our emerging portfolio of education projects. MDRC is launching a new education demonstration called Project Transition which will attempt to reform large, comprehensive high schools starting in the ninth grade, by creating a more supportive and personalized learning environment for students during their first year of high school. After discussing Project Transition with the Kauffman staff, I discovered that The Kauffman Foundation has been involved with a similar project at Harmon High School. I learned that the Interdisciplinary Team Teaching Project at Harmon High was an outgrowth of an earlier project called. Project Choice, which Kauffman supported at Westport High in Kansas City, Missouri and five high schools in Kansas City, Kansas. Susan WaUy was kind enough to share a copy of the video on the Harmon Interdisciplinary Team Teaching Project with me and after watching it I could not believe how much the approach had in common with our proposed plans for Project Transition. We are in preliminary discussions with The Kauffman Foundation to determine if they would be interested in supporting Project Transition. This wiU depend, in part, on fmding strong candidate high schools in Kansas City, Kansas or Kansas City, Missouri. This letter begins with background information on MDRC and then provides a more detailed description of Project Transition including the benefits and responsibilities of participating in the demonstration and our selection criteria for choosing potential high schools. We would greatly appreciate it if you could have a member of your staff provide us with a preliminary indication of your interest in Project Transition by filling out the enclosed form and faxing it back by November 23th. Background Information on MDRC Before providing a more complete description of Project Transition, let me first give you some background information on our organization. MDRC is a nationally known nonprofit research organization with offices in New York City and San Francisco. For the past 20 years, MDRC has been conducting rigorous multi-site evaluations of promising social policy initiatives designed to improve the life circumstances and economic weU-being of people from low-income families. We have worked in the fields of education, job training, youth employment, teen parenting, and welfare-to-work programs. Our work has three distinctive features. First, we are very selective about the programs we take on by focusing on projects that are on the cutting edge of policy. Second, we place a high priority on aggressive and sustained dissemination of research findings as a vehicle to both inform the public, improve policy, and institutionalize programs which work. Third, we use research techniques which provide the most reliable measures of whether programs work and are cost-effective. Over the years, we have developed a reputation as one of the most trusted and reliable organizations in studying program effectiveness. g Our work in education during the past five years includes a study of 16 school-to- work programs which helped shape the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (signed into law in May), analyses of the effectiveness of adult education programs for welfare recipients, and the evaluation of Ohios LEAP program which uses a combination of financial incentives and penalties to induce teen parents on welfare to stay in or return to school. Our largest education project is a comprehensive evaluation of a promising school restructuring initiative called High School Career Academies which are schools-within- schools organized around a career theme. We have successfully launched this study in eight schools and we will be adding several more this year. Recently, MDRC received a challenge grant from The Ford Foundation to provide seed funding for a series of evaluations and demonstrations of promising school-based interventions and reforms in high schools and middle schools. Funds for Project Transition are budgeted in our challenge grant from Ford and through our affiliation with the new Department of Education Center for Research on the Education of Youth Placed At-Risk (CRESPAR). Project Transition Project Transition focuses on the first year of high school - a particularly vulnerable time in the schooling career of many students often characterized by poor attendance, sliding grades, and disengagement with school which can result in dropping ig out. A large part of the problem is attributable to the characteristics of large, comprehensive high schools which can be formidable, intimidating environments for ninth graders who may take a conveyor belt of disconnected 50 minute classes and have limited opportunities to buUd relationships with teachers. The project has three key elements:  Teacher-student teams: Teams of approximately 30 grade 9 students, grouped heterogeneously, wiU take their principal academic courses together. Four teams of students wUl be taught by a single teacher team, probably consisting of an English, math, science, and social studies teacher. Each teacher team wUl share a planning period, to work on improving instruction and to respond to the needs of their shared first-year students. There wiU be a one-course reduction in the number of classes taught by participating teachers, to provide time for the additional shared planning period and for the extra work they wiU be required to do.  Innovative professional development through teacher learning communities and coaching: The teachers in each team wUl observe each others classes, plan jointly, and will work together to develop and implement responses to the problems that they confront in their classrooms in order to improve their instructional methods. The goil is for each team to build a \"teacher learning community\" that wUl provide concrete, sustained support for upgrading instruction. A facilitator or coach wUl support the teacher teams, \"holding up the mirror\" to keep the teachers focused on the goals of improved instruction and smdent achievement. Coaching will begin during the summer before the teachers begin their work together. In addition, the coach will provide direct assistance to teachers in using effective instructional tools with an emphasis on strategies which promote active learning, including cooperative learning strategies, applications- based and project assignments, proactive classroom management methods, and clarified expectations for students work. If appropriate, support for multicultural education may also be involved. Discipline-specific professional development wUl be provided through links to teachers departmental colleagues. We plan to work with a local resource partner (LRP) to carry out the projects professional development and coaching components.  Use of warning signals and action plans for failing students: Professional development wUl prepare the teacher teams to recognize the early warning signals of student failure, and to implement specific action plans for students in need of extra assistance to prevent failure. Action plans wUl include tutoring by peers and by members of the teacher team, extra instructional time, and student-teacher-parent contracts. We plan to start Project Transition in two districts (and up to two schools in each district) and expand through a staged growth process. The eligibility factors that we wUl be looking for in choosing high schools include a strong commitment to high school restructuring, high need indicators as detennined by low test scores, low graduation rates, and high drop out rates, and a willingness to cooperate with research and data requirements. Milwaukee is likely to be one of the districts and we are interested in exploring both Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri in connection with possible support from The Kauffman Foundation. 3There are a number of potential benefits for schools that participate in the study. These benefits include: receiving free technical assistance to implement an important educational innovation\nreceiving a cost-free, state-of-the art evaluation of the effectiveness of the innovation, thereby responding to accountability and performance goals\nbecoming part of a network of innovating schools across the country, and participating in conferences with those schools\ninfluencing state and national education policy\nand the suture and prestige attached to being part of an important national innovation. I should also point out that we plan to award grants to schools to compensate them for the coaches, the professional development activities for teachers, and research related costs associated with the study. School districts or schools are expected to^absorb the staffing costs associated with creating additional preparation periods. Schools in MDRCs evaluations can also expect to receive considerable exposure and visibility because of MDRCs suture and repuUtion among the policy community, practitioners, and press. To further acquaint you with our work, I am enclosing a discussion paper on Project Transition as well as our annual report. Once we receive your nominations, we would like to schedule a conference call to answer any questions that you might have and explain Project Transition in more detail. This could lead to a future site visit in December to meet with principals from prospective high schools. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns. Again, we would appreciate it if someone from your staff would complete the attached form and fax it back to us by Thanksgiving. I look forward to learning more about school reform in Kansas City and hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Ma Rob Ivry / Senior Vice President cc. Susan Wally 4PROJECT TRANSITION Please fax this information to: Mary Andes Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 3 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016 FAX: 212-684-0832 Please return this information no later than Wednesday, November 23rd. District name: District contact person: Is your district interested in being considered to participate in Project Transition? ___ YES (Please complete the remainder of this questionnaire.) ___ NO (Thank you for responding to our inquiry.) High schools can only be considered if they have more than 400 students in grade 9, low graduation rates, high poverty rates, and they have not already instituted the Project Transition reforms. This questionnaire provides space for you to nominate up to three high schools\nyou may add more if you wish. 1) HIGH SCHOOL: CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE: GRADE 9 ENROLLMENT: % OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS WHO DO NOT GRADUATE (approx.): % OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE OR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH: % OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS WHO FAIL ONE OR MORE COURSES (approx.): ABSENTEE RATE FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS: % OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS ACCEPTED BY A COLLEGE (approx.): PLEASE BRIEFLY LIST AND DESCRIBE CURRENT SPECIAL PROGRAMS OR INITIATIVES FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS THEY INCLUDE:2) HIGH SCHOOL: CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE: GRADE 9 ENROLLMENT: % OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS WHO DO NOT GRADUATE (approx.): % OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE OR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH: % OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS WHO FAIL ONE OR MORE COURSES (approx.): ABSENTEE RATE FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS: % OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS ACCEPTED BY A COLLEGE (approx.): PLEASE BRIEFLY UST AND DESCRIBE CURRENT SPECIAL PROGRAMS OR INTIIATrVES FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS THEY INCLUDE: 3) HIGH SCHOOL: CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE: GRADE 9 ENROLLMENT: % OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS WHO DO NOT GRADUATE (approx.): % OF STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE OR REDUCED-PRICE LUNCH: % OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS WHO FAIL ONE OR MORE COURSES (approx.): ABSENTEE RATE FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS: % OF GRADE 12 STUDENTS ACCEPTED BY A COLLEGE (approx.): PLEASE BRIEFLY LIST AND DESCRIBE SPECIAL PROGRAMS OR INTTIAHVES FOR GRADE 9 STUDENTS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF GRADE 9 STUDENTS THEY INCLUDE: MDRC is very grateful for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Robert Ivry or Mary Andes at 212-532-3200. PROJECT TRANSITION\nBLkLDING HIGH SCHOOL REFORM STARTING IN GRADE PNE A Discxission Paper Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation August 1994 Project Transition: Achieving a Successful Transition to High School Overview High dropout rates, low achievement, and a lack of hope for the future are part of most students daily lives in many large, comprehensive high schools across the United States, particularly in urban areas. Responses to this problem encounter many barriers: entrenched school practices that resist change\nteachers and administrators uncertainty about the feasibility 3.id effectiveness of reforms\nlimited local access to the kinds of support and expertise needed to intrc luce and implement high school reform\nand limited local capacity to support and institutionalize reform. MDRCs Project Transition seeks to build a parmership with selected local school districts that are committed to reform, in order to test the effectiveness of promising reforms focusing initially on the first year of high school. The goals of Project Transition are to build the local capacity to implement and institutionalize reform in high schools\nto provide valuable expertise in designing, planning, and executing a major high school reform\nand to demonstrate the feasibility of reforming large, comprehensive high schools that serve concentrations of students who are placed at risk of educational, failure by the existing public school system. School reform efforts have concentrated on the elementary and middle schools, while changes in high schools lag behind. Many policymakers want to support high school reforms that are seen as \"winners,\" but there are few promising reform efforts underway, particularly in large urban high schools. MDRC seeks to build policymakers interest in large-scale support for high school reforms by conducting a state-of-the-art evaluation and - if the results are positive - using this evidence to leverage a major expansion of state and federal support for high school reform. MDRCs planned role in Project Transition is to identify several partner school districts that are committed to high school reform\nto build a consensus enabling major reforms to be implemented effectively\nto suppon the initiation of the reform process in selected high schools\nand to build the districts capacity to implement and sustain key reforms. In addition, MDRC will document and evaluate the reform process through three studies: a major impact and implementation evaluation, an implementation study examining the lessons from local high schools that started their reforms before the impact-evaluation schools, and a study of issues affecting the institutionalization of the reforms in the partner districts. Project Transitions high school reforms will start in grade 9 and will have four components: 1 organizational changes aimed at creating smaller, more supportive learning experiences for students (using ideas developed by the middle school reform movement)\ninnovative professional development for teachers based on learning communities and collaboration (reflecting recent research on the school as a workplace)\ncoaching for teachers\nand the use of early warning signals to identify students who need extra help, and Action Plans for teachers to use in helping these students catch up. A detailed description of these components, and of the implementation-institutionalization perspective that is the basis for Project Transition, are presented in this discussion paper. The Problem Young peoples life chances depend directly on their performance in high school. A high school diploma is a requirement for college entrance and for many high-wage Jobs, and jobs with good earnings potential increasingly require the communication skills, math, and science knowledge taught in high school and post-secondary programs. Yet many young people either perform poorly in high school or drop out. High school achievement levels are substantially lower for young people of color and those from families in poverty than for other young people, greatly reducing their economic prospects. The National Center for Education Statistics (1991) reports that there is a \"tenfold difference between the dropout rates of students from families with low as compared to high incomes.\" Sadly, studies of dropout prevention and dropout recovery programs have found mostly discouraging results. Consequently, there is a pressing need for school reforms thatprevezir students failure while they are still in high school. For many students, the traditional structure and practices of large, comprehensive high schools appear to be major sources of low achievement and dropping out. The research of Milbrey McLaughlin and Joan Talbert (co-directors of the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching [1993]), Robert Felner, and others highlights the lack of fit between the structure and norms of many large, comprehensive high schools and the needs of their students. Moreover, recent research strongly suggests that the first year of high school (typically grade 9) creates particularly difficult problems for many students, particularly those in large urban Their experiences during the first year of high school appear to push many who had areas. previously done well in school down the path toward school failure and dropping out. There are several reasons for this: A threatening environment. 1. The high school environment is very different from the elementary' and middle school settings. From the perspective of first-year students, the high school is full of hundreds of strangers, most of them older, more confident, and more aggressive than first-year students\nolder students often harass younger students\nsexual harassment of both girls and boys is commonplace (AAUW Educational Foundation, 1993)\nstudents may have well-founded fears of violence and crime in school and while traveling between home and school\nand drug use and drug sales may occur in and around many large high schools. 2Many students feel anonymous and isolated because they know and are known by only a small proportion of their classmates, reducing the support they receive (Felner et al., 1981). Many African American and Hispanic students perceive a lack of understanding of and respect for their ethnic and racial background among some teachers and classmates, further undermining their engagement in school. 2. Impersonal treatment. The large high school is a far more impersonal place than middle and elementary schools. Because students have a different teacher and, in many cases, different classmates in each class, and because each teacher has 150 or more students, teacher-student and student-student relationships are often aloof and detached. In these circumstances, many students respond to school problems or anxieties with truancy. When a student is absent from school, it is typically a school clerk who calls the students home, rather than an adult the student and parent knows. 3. Attendance problems. Students absences increase dramatically in their first year of high school. Professor Roger Weissberg is an expert on school settings who has extensively studied the schools in a northeastern city with a large proportion of African American and Hispanic students. His data show that in this district, students in the first year of high school have far more absences than students in any other grade. He found that in 1990-91, the average student in the first year of high school was absent more than 32 days  fifty percent more days than in the preceding grade, and more an one-sixth of the school year. A study by Felner et al. (1981) found that in the first year of high school, 45 percent of the students studied were absent more than 20 days (four school weeks), while in the year before high school only 23 percent had that level of absences. Frequent absences undermine students ability to keep up with their course work, and classes with high rates of student absence disrupt teachers ability to provide interesting, high expectations, high content instruction. Students absences during the first year of high school appear to predict dropping out, low achievement, and other problems, according to recent research by Roderick (1990). 4. Changes in students school pejformance. Evidence is emerging that many students school performance declines markedly in their first year of high school  even students who had previously been doing well in school. One study of a district with a high concentration of African American and Hispanic students found that students grade averages fell by more than one half of a letter grade in the first year of high school\nthe proportion of students achieving less than a C average was 40 percent in the first year of high school, compared to 22 percent in the year before high school, and these problems were concentrated among African American and Hispanic students (Felner et al., 1981). In 1990-91, only 35.5 percent of ninth graders in the Chicago Public Schools passed all of 3 5. 6. their courses\nmore than half failed two or more courses\nand in some schools, only 15 percent passed all of their courses (Roderick and Novotny, n.d.). Ineffective instruction. Many high school teachers make little use of the newer instructional practices that can be highly beneficial in teaching a wide range of students, including project assignments, cooperative learning, hands-on activities, applications-based lessons, and other active learning methods. McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) found that perhaps because many teachers are under great pressure to cover the curriculum and have not received the support they need to try new approaches, \"many of the teachers who continue traditional practices see the behavioral and achievement problems in todays classrooms primarily as students problems... and justify their practices in terms of traditional subject area standards and orthodoxies.\" The teachers of low-achieving students typically have less access to professional development than other teachers. Most high school teachers have no one to turn to for sustained and personal assistance in upgrading their teaching practices and subjectmatter knowledge, so it is not surprising that many simply accept students high course failure rates and continue to use ineffective instructional practices. The high schools limited ability to link students v/ith supportive adults and peers. At a time in their development when students need close attention and support as they test their growing independence, most high school norms and practices result in many students having little close contact with teachers. This lack of engagement of students with their teachers takes away an important opportunity for students to receive needed adult support. In addition, many students receive little school-related support from their classmates, because of the difficulty of forming friendships when students share only one or two courses in common. Students who have few classmates as friends experience difficulty countering the anti-school peer culture with peer relationships and support that are based on shared courses and daily classroom experiences. High schools typically do little to connect students growth as adolescents - including their new interest in the relevance of their education to adult life and their changing affective and psycho-social connections to classmates, schoolwork, and extracurricular projects  with in-school learning. According to this evidence, the organization, norms, and standard operating procedures of the large high school appear to be highly problematic for students (and particularly for students of color) in their first year of high school. Events during this year can undermine students success throughout high school, and can eventually cause them to drop out (Roderick, 1990). In contrast, students who do well in their first year of high school have a much better chance to graduate from high school and to succeed in the labor market. 4 These findings on the transition year from middle school or junior high school to high school are consistent with the large body of research showing that significant transition experiences are occasions of stress, morbidity, mortality, family disruption and divorce, job failure, and other major problems (literature reviewed by Wapner, 1981). These problematic transitions include the first year of retirement, the first months in a new job, the first year of marriage, the occasion of a divorce, and  it is now increasingly clear - the first year of high school. Even when high schools consistently fail many of their students - as evidenced by high dropout rates and a pattern of low achievement - they often resist change. Large, comprehensive high schools are locked into a structure that keeps the failed approaches going, limits teachers opportunities to change, and ignores the untapped resources that lie within teachers and students. The lack of significant change in failing high schools can be attributed to several deep-seated characteristics of most large, comprehensive high schools\nHeavy teacher workloads. Most high school teachers have five 50- - minute classes to teach each day, with 30 students or more per class. Adding more work or new .kinds of tasks for teachers is therefore seen as infeasible. A subject matter emphasis. High school teachers traditionally view their work as being focused on the subject matter of the courses they teach, and high schools organization and practices place great emphasis on moving students through a prescribed sequence of courses\nmost high schools and many teachers place much less emphasis on teacher-student relationships and adolescent development issues. Rigid course requirements. Prescribed course sequences, graduation requirements, and college entrance requirements make it difficult for school administrators and teachers to alter many current practices and divisions of labor. Limited capacity to deal with developmental and behavior issues. High school teachers have little training and few resources enabling them to respond to the developmental issues and behavior problems of their students\nconsequently, many teachers are reluctant to deal with these issues more than they do now. Guidance counselors and other specialized school staff have little impact on many students. Weak support for teachers. Professional development activities for high school teachers have often been ineffective and of poor quality, further limiting their capacity to improve existing practices. In order to succeed, efforts to bring about major reforms in high schools need to recognize and respond to these sources of high schools resistance to change, both in their design and in the way they are implemented. Project Transitions concrete responses to this problem are discussed later in this paper. 5The problems of the large high schools educational ineffectiveness, its resistance to change, and students needs during the transition to high school are interrelated. Students special vulnerability during their first year of high school underscores the need to provide extra support during this important transition, and strongly suggests that creating a successful transition to high school may yield large and sustained benefits for many students\nyet most large high schools do not provide effective support for students and the rigidity of many large comprehensive high schools is likely to block most efforts to improve students first year of high school. Thus, resolving any of these problems is likely to require an approach that responds to all of them. A Response to the Problem The available evidence strongly suggests that there is an important opportunity to increase the educational success of students who are currently placed at risk of failure by their high school, if reformers can change students experiences during the critical period of their transition to high school. By targeting a particularly important time in students development, a carefully-designed effort might produce results that substantially exceed those of innovations at other points in school, and there is some reason to believe that these results may be sustained over time (Felner et al., 1993) and can serve as the basis for reforms in the upper grades in high school. However, it is well known that changing a schools established practices is very challenging and requires extensive work with the affected teachers, administrators, and students (Pauly, 1991). For this reason, MDRG plans to base Project Transition on an implementation-institutionalization approach (Fullan, 1990). This approach focuses on the process of building a local capacity to support and institutionalize high school reforms so that they become firmly embedded in local policy and practice long after MDRCs project has been completed. To do this, MDRC plans to build partnerships with selected local school districts that are committed to reforming their high schools and that meet additional criteria reflecting their ability to collaborate with MDRC on supporting the reform process. (Site selection criteria are discussed later in this paper.) Project Transitions reforms  which are built on research and experience in both middle schools and high schools - concentrate initially on improving the school structures and practices that are directly related to the core classes taken by first-year students. This focus will avoid many of the problems and difficulties that are encountered by efforts to restructure the whole high school at once. There are several reasons that the structures and practices in grade 9 are likely to be more amenable to change than those in other grades, at least initially. In grade 9, most of a schools students take similar courses and have few electives, reducing the complexity of restructuring their schedules. The teachers of 9th grade students already bear the brunt of the educational, behavioral, and absenteeism problems of students just making the transition to high school, and they are therefore likely to be more willing to try new practices and organizational approaches than uppergrade teachers. Ability grouping issues are less complicated in grade 9, and changes in grouping practices are more practical, than in upper grades. Finally, most students entering grade 9 are still relatively engaged in the world of the school\nwith each passing year, the problems of student disengagement become more severe. An implementation-institunonalizanon approach. To succeed and to be sustained, any school reform effort must be carefully implemented in ways that are sensitive to the particular 6context of each school, and that build strong local involvement in and ownership of the reforms. The first step toward effective implementation is careful site selection. MDRC will use the site selection process to identify districts and schools with the capacity for implementing the projects reforms effectively. Site selection criteria will include: Selecting partner school districts that have already started the kinds of reforms contained in Project Transition in some of their high schools, demonstrating their commitment to this reform approach and enabling teachers in the evaluation sites to observe peers in neighboring schools\nSelecting partner school districts that are seeking to pursue Project Transition reforms district-wide and are committed to providing financial support for the reforming schools\nSelecting high schools in which at least 85 per cent of the staff vote to collaborate with Project Transition, after consensus-building discussions\nSelecting high schools whose principal is committed to supporting the reforms, and who agrees to participate fully in all of Project Transitions summer institutes and other professional development activities\nand In each site, a local agency or institution (the projects \"local resource partner,\" or LRP) will collaborate with MDRC to conduct Project Transitions main reform activities\nthis agency will be selected based on its capacity to develop and provide the support, technical assistance, coaching, assistance in professional development activities for teachers, and other roles needed to implement and sustain the reforms and to spread them to additional high schools after MDRCs role in the project is complete. By forming partnerships based on these criteria, MDRC will be able to work with school districts, high schools, and LRPs that can implement, sustain, and build on key reforms (with assistance and expertise provided by MDRC). This is a local capacity-building strategy that reflects the lessons of the extensive research on the implementation and institutionalization of reforms in schools (Fullan, 1990\nPauly, 1991). The proposed approach will be based on major structural reform components, described below, which can be widely used by large, comprehensive high schools, with opportunities for schools to make their own adjustments and adaptations in the over-arching approach. By combining these core structural components with the flexibility derived from adaptations to the local school context. Project Transition can avoid the resistance that undermines prescriptive, top-down models. Four components. Project Transition has four key reform components: organizational changes affecting the classes and homeroom of first year students\na new approach to professional development for teachers\nthe use of a facilitator or coach to support teachers efforts to improve their instructional practice\nand the use of early warning signals and action plans for failing students. Currently, MDRC is working with teams of experts and practitioners to refine and develop Project 7 Transitions central elements\nthis work will continue the adaptation and strengthening of the reform approach. 1. Organizational changes: teacher-student clusters The proposed organizational changes in Project Transition are intended to create a small, family-like \"school within a school\" for students in the first year of high school. Students and teachers will be grouped together in clusters. A cluster of approximately 30 students will take all of their principal academic courses together. Several clusters of students will be taught by a specific group of teachers\nfor example, four clusters of first-year students could be taught by a single teacher cluster consisting of an English, math, science, and social studies teacher. The teachers in a cluster will also serve as the homeroom teachers for their four student clusters. Each cluster of four teachers will share a common planning period to discuss their shared first-year students and their problems, enabling them to make sure that cluster students do not \"fall between the cracks\" in a large, anonymous high school. Classroom assignments will be adjusted so that all clusters of first-year students will have their classes in a single part of the school building, thus reducing their contact with older students and keeping them with a stable group of peers. In addition, the homeroom period will be lengthened slightly (perhaps to 20 minutes) so that homeroom teachers can meet regularly with individual students to check up on their progress and problems. (These organizational changes follow the ideas developed and disseminated by Felner et al., 1982, and Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). The goal of the organizational changes is to break with the traditional organization of the high school, which provides little interpersonal support for entering students and treats them in impersonal ways. Instead, this reform approach aims to increase the engagement of students with their teachers and classmates, and similarly to increase the engagement of teachers with their students. For students, these organizational changes are aimed at creating small, stable groups of classmates who take their principal classes together and who know their classmates and their teachers well. For teachers, the changes seek to create small teacher clusters whose members work with the same students and come to know them well, learn from each other, solve educational problems together, and identify and resolve students problems before they become overwhelming. By fostering closer, more supportive relationships between students and their teachers (as well as between classmates within each cluster), this reform is expected to increase the support for students psycho-social development in school. MDRC believes that the additional work that will be required for teachers using the approach described in this paper will necessitate a one-course reduction in participating teachers course load, and the addition of a shared planning period for joint work by the teachers in each cluster. For example, in a school in which teachers normally are responsible for five courses, the teachers who participate in Project Transition would teach four courses\nthese teachers would also have added responsibilities for shared work with the other teachers in their cluster and for responding to students absences and other student problems. Some of this additional work would be done during the additional planning period for participating teachers. Overall, their workload would equal or exceed the normal five-course workload. District financial support for reducing the course load of participating teachers will be negotiated as part of the site selection process. (Districts Chapter 1 funds for secondary schools, which are likely to increase under the proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, are a potential funding source.) MDRC will work with 8 school staff (including teachers, union representatives, department chairs, principals, and district staff), LRPs, and education experts to develop and refine the proposed approach. 2. Professional development: teacher learning communities The goal of Project Transitions innovative professional development activities is to help teachers use the cluster organizational approach to improve the quality of their instructional practices and to strengthen student-teacher relationships. Each cluster of teachers will become responsible for working together to identify and implement needed responses to the problems that they confront in their classrooms, and for improving their classroom practices. own The key to this approach is for each cluster of teachers to become active participants in their own professional development: observing each others classrooms, working together to solve the problems they confront in their classrooms, and providing concrete and sustained support for each others efforts over time to make needed changes in their classrooms. Currently, most professional development techniques for teachers are lectures and workshops that try to transmit canned, prescriptive information on teaching methods to teachers, with little benefit. In contrast, the proposed approach will use the teacher clusters to conduct their own ongoing, shared professional development activities that respond to teachers classroom problems, adapt to the particular issues in their student clusters, and are directly relevant to the needs that teachers perceive for improvement in their instruction and other practices. Compared to traditional professional development methods, this cluster-based approach is much more intensive and much more tailored to teachers need for specific and concrete assistance in adapting new instructional methods to the circumstances in their classrooms. For example, a cluster of teachers can use their shared planning period to work on improving instruction in their classes\nthey can observe each others classes during their (regular) preparation period\nand they can work with their coach on ways to use new instructional methods in their cluster (coaching is discussed under the next heading). Because their work on improving instruction and support for students in their cluster will be conducted continuously over time, they will be able to reinforce, review, and revise their improvement efforts through a continuing give-and- take process. A major goal of this professional development approach will be to provide teachers with the training, assistance, and support they need to use their clusters for these kinds of professional development activities. McLaughlin (1993) has described the valuable professional development experiences that are created by the \"learning communities\" of teachers that were found in recent studies by the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. These teachers used their collaborative relationships with colleagues to identify aspects of their practice that were not working, to find changes that held the promise of improving students achievement, and to implement the changes effectively. As the teachers tried these changes in their classrooms, they were able to get ideas from their teacher learning community about how to respond to unanticipated problems, enabling them to keep making progress rather than giving up when things went badly. I These teacher learning communities were created by the teachers emselves, and were not art of a planned intervention or mandate. Consequently, it is not yet known whether a reform such * .  ______k/i kAriAfitC anH as this one can consistently produce teacher learning communities. However, the many benefits and 9satisfactions that the teachers in McLaughlin's research received from their learning communities shows that many teachers are likely to value the assistance that they can receive from learning communities. Consequently, it seems likely that the proposed approach can create and sustain teacher learning communities. Among the key unanswered questions for Project Transition is how teachers should be grouped together for these activities. One possibility is to support and encourage each cluster of teachers to work together as a learning community\nanother is for the teachers in several clusters to work together\na third possibility is for participating teachers to form their own self-selected groups. Other variants are possible, as are combinations of these approaches. There may even be substantial benefits if some, but not all, of the teachers in a cluster participate in the groups professional development activities. Professional development in the teacher clusters will be based on concrete and specific activities designed to improve teachers instructional methods, increase teachers subject-specific knowledge and pedagogy, and strengthen the connections between teachers and students. These goals will require a range of techniques. These may include, for example, instruction in and shared development of cooperative learning lessons, and observation and practice in subject-specific teaching methods. Community-building activities for teachers and diversity training may be needed if teachers expectations for students are low, or in schools where there is stereotyping of students based on their race or ethnicity. MDRC will work with its local parmers, and particularly with the LRP, on the design and management of the professional development activities. These activities will be implemented and supported by the LRP and the participating teachers, with active and continuing involvement by each schools principal. The following professional development activities are proposed: The clusters of teachers will start working together before the beginning of the school year (probably in a summer institute), participating in activities aimed at developing collaborative relationships and substantive problem-solving skills that they can apply to the problems that they confront in their cluster of classrooms. To build strong connections between teachers and students and among students, team-building and diversity training will be used as appropriate, both during the summer institute and subsequently. Teachers will receive training in using their shared planning period to work with the other teachers in their cluster to solve students problems, and in effective methods of establishing strong bonds with students early in the school year. While it seems likely that each teacher will have at least 120 students (making it difficult for a teacher to form close contacts rapidly with every student), a cluster of teachers can divide the responsibility for making early contact with each student so that each teacher in the cluster can focus on a manageable number of students - 30 or so. Teachers will receive brief training in adapting a lengthened homeroom period into a teacher-based advisory period, and in techniques for 10 identifying students academic and other problems, making referrals, providing support by listening to students concerns, and other basic problem-solving and advisory practices. Depending on the situation in each participating school, it may be useful to involve the schools guidance counselors in providing these training activities and working with teachers\nhowever, this is unlikely to be practical in all schools, since the skills and effectiveness of guidance counselors vary among schools. However, the proposed approach is not intended to convert teachers into guidance counselors. When a student is absent, one of the teachers of the students cluster will contact the parent and student, and will initiate any actions required to get the student back into school and engaged in learning. Parents will also meet with teachers to discuss students accomplishments and needs. Professional development activities for each cluster of teachers may include activities designed to strengthen their instructional methods (including their use of cooperative learning and other high-student-engagement methods) and strengthen the links between teachers and students (for example, diversity training and team building). These activities will be adapted to meet the particular needs of teachers and students in each school. Some professional development activities will focus on improving teachers subject-specific instructional methods and subject matter knowledge. Support for these activities will be sought from the schools departments, and department-based activities will be used to strengthen teachers practice. These changes will be initiated through pre-school-year summer training lasting approximately 1-2 weeks\nit will be developed and maintained during the school year through the continuing work of each cluster of teachers, with coordination across the clusters in each participating school. The LRP will conduct the professional development activities (with assistance from MDRC), and will build its capacity to support innovative professional development processes in local high schools after the projects completion. A potentially valuable activity for improving teachers effectiveness may be engaging the teacher clusters in developing thematic curricular activities. Current research by Judith Warren Little, Joan Talben, and others suggests that when groups of teachers from different disciplines work together to create new cuniculum units on a common theme (such as the health professions, the concept of discovery in science and in the exploration of the New World, or the documentation of the local communitys history), they not only produce substantively valuable and challenging new lessons for students - they also give teachers the basis for shared work to improve their teaching practice. These researchers suggest that many teachers may need to have a substantive project, such as developing a new curriculum unit, as the initial basis for their discussions with peers on the sensitive subject of improving classroom practices. Before this approach is implemented, MDRC staff will work with practitioners and experts to determine whether students are likely to benefit from 11 cluster teachers joint work developing new curricular units and from related collaboration among the teachers in their cluster. This curriculum development activity will only be used if it is highly likely to benefit both students and teachers. If thematic curriculum development activities are used, they will supplement, rather than replace, the other professional development activities. There is still considerable work to be done to flesh out the projects professional development activities, and particularly to determine the best ways to help the teacher clusters become active and effective in conducting much of their own professional development. MDRC is working with experts and practitioners to design professional development activities that will build teacher learning communities\nimprove the instruction, support, and daily classroom experiences of grade 9 students\nhelp the teacher clusters to increase students engagement with teachers and school\nand help teachers improve the quality and content of instruction. 3. Coaching: instructional support and feedback for dusters of teachers The goal of this component is to help the teacher clusters reflect on their current practice, identify effective strategies for engaging students in schoolwork, use innovative instructional methods, and develop the curriculum being used in their cluster. A facilitator or coach will work with the teacher teams, \"holding up the mirror\" to keep the teachers focused on the goals of improved instruction and student achievement. Coaches provide an intensive, one-on-one source of assistance and prodding that is typically missing from the low-intensity help that is typically available to teachers\nit represents a sharp break with traditional school organization and with many other reform approaches. Coaching will begin during the summer before the teachers begin their work together. In addition, the coach (and possibly other, more specialized resource staff) will provide instruction on the use of effective instructional tools, including cooperative learning strategies, applications-based and project assignments, other active learning methods, proactive classroom management methods, and clarified expectations for students work. When needed, discipline-specific professional development (such as improved methods of teaching algebra) will be provided, with support from the schools subject-matter departments. Cooperating experts, LRPs, and MDRC will develop the coaching approach and will provide ongoing support to the coaches. The training and support for coaches will include preparing them to work with teacher learning communities\nmaking sure that they understand the issues that teachers face when they implement new pedagogical methods such as cooperative learning\nand building their expertise in helping teachers work effectively with students of color and confronting diversity issues. Coaching activities will be conducted by the LRP, with assistance from MDRC. No decision has been reached on whether or not the coaches will be teachers in the participating high schools\nthis and other aspects of the coaching plan will reflect the projects implementationinstitutionalization perspective. 4. Warning signals and action plans: extra support for failing students The goal of this component is to help students who are failing a course to catch up with o their classmates, while avoiding the typically ineffective strategy in which students are \"referred out\" of their home classes for remediation. It acknowledges that teachers typically encounter entering 12students who quickly fall behind their peers, and breaks with the usual lack of response to this common predicament by providing teachers with useful, classroom-based ways to respond to this situation. Students who fall behind their classmates in grade 9 courses are likely to fail those courses and to be placed at high risk for dropping out, and their teachers often have little in the way of extra support or assistance to respond to their needs. Professional development will be used to help teacher teams recognize the early warning signals that a student is failing a course, and to implement specific action plans for students in need of extra assistance to pass their courses. Action plans will build on students talents, and will include tutoring by peers and by members of the teacher team\nextra instructional time\nand student-teacher-parent contracts. With assistance from staff members of the Center for the Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University, MDRCs team will develop sample action plans for use by the teacher clusters. As part of the teacher clusters preparation for implementing the project, they will use part of the summer professional development period to work together to adapt, revise, and add to these sample action plans, readying them for use with their students in September. Action plans differ in three ways from the individualized education programs (lEPs) typically used for students who need extra assistanc a variety of action plans designed to respond to a range of student educational needs will be prepared in advance so that they are ready for immediate use when failing students are identified\nthe resources for the action plans will be readily available, so there are no delays in getting students into needed services\nand the action plans will maintain students in their home classes and under the responsibility of their original teachers, rather than referring them out so that they become the responsibility of non-classroom specialists. Discussion of the Proposed Reforms Will Project Transitions reforms make enough of a difference in students schooling to produce dramatic improvements in their achievement and graduation from high school? To answer that question, it is useful to summarize the ways that the reforms are intended to change students daily experiences in high school: Students will remain with a small group of classmates for most of the school day in grade 9, thereby dramatically reducing the flux in their environment and stabilizing the membership of and linkages within their school peer group. Teachers will be able to form strong bonds with their students early in the school year, before students school problems become overwhelming. Students attendance, behavior, homework, course work, and personal issues will be identified and addressed by adults who know em well, before these problems are likely to cause school failure. Teachers will use their meetings with the other teachers in their cluster to identify and solve students problems, to identify the early warning signals that a student may be failing, and to implement action plans to help those students catch up with their classmates. 13 A strong feeling of support, welcome, and family-like acceptance will be created and maintained throughout the first year of high school. Groups of teachers will receive sustained support from knowledgeable colleagues aimed at improving their instructional practice. Teachers will identify ineffective instructional methods and will receive sustained assistance from their peers in adapting new methods to improve their practice. Students who are at risk of failing will receive extra support and instruction to prevent failure. By the time students enter grade 10, they will have established a strong support network of high school peers\nthey will have strong bonds with several teachers in the school\nthey will have learned how to manage the relati^'ely independent work requirements of high school (including homework and long-term assignments)\nand they will be less vulnerable to harassment fri.m older students in the school. Broad coverage. These reforms possess a significant advantage that is missing from many other efforts to improve students achievement and to reduce dropping out: they affect virtually all of the first-year students in a high school, thus eliminating the need to identify and target students who are thought to be at risk of dropping out or failing in school. Project Transition is intended to prevent school failure for students who have previously succeeded in school (Felner et al., 1982), and to reverse a downward pattern in the school performance of students - enabling them to break out of negative peer networks and negative behaviors and to begin new and positive kinds of school experiences. Target group. Project Transition is designed to benefit students in large high schools that have a history of high dropout rates and weak student engagement. In these settings, it can be implemented for all students who take mainstream classes in their first year of high school. This will presumably exclude those special education students who are not mainstreamed, and those students who are assigned to special advanced placement or honors classes, since these students already participate in a cluster-like educational setting. Because this project is designed to meet the particular student needs described earlier in this paper, it is not appropriate for high schools that do not have those needs. High schools that are relatively small, have high graduation rates, and have entering ninth graders who already know most of their classmates well (because they come from a single feeder school, for example) are not appropriate sites for this project. Intended effects and outcome measures. If Project Transition is effective, its combination of changes in the schools instruction and social supports will improve students outcomes in their first year of high school. Key student outcomes to be measured will include: achievement, as measured with state-of-the-art assessments 14attendance homework completion grades course credits earned discipline referrals survey measures of students sense of efficacy, locus of control, and other measures of empowerment and social skills\nreports of peers support for school achievement\nstudents expectations for post-high-school education and employment, and the steps they have taken to prepare for these planned activities  survey measures of students risk-taking behaviors A key measure of Project Transitions effectiveness will be its long-term impacts on students. Consequently, MDRC plans to gather data on student outcomes after the first year of high school, including\ngraduation rate cumulative high school outcomes (same as those measured at the end of grade 9: achievement, attendance, grades, course credits earned, discipline referrals, attitude measures, expectations and steps taken to achieve plans for the future, and risk-taking behaviors) post-secondary enrollment and completion  employment Data on students graduation and other school-reported outcomes can be collected from school records. The other long-term outcomes would require a survey, for which MDRC will seek funding if other outcome data are sufficiently positive to make a survey worthwhile. Adaptation to local circumstances. Implementation research has consistently shown that new educational approaches must be adapted to the circumstances in each school if they are to gain long-term acceptance. MDRC will use two approaches to adapt Project Transition flexibly to the needs and circumstances of participating schools, while maintaining the learning opportunities of a unified project. First, the LRPs will identify and respond to local concerns and circumstances\nbecause they have extensive knowledge of their community and its schools, they can determine the best ways to fit the projects components into each school. Second, the projects four components were designed to be strong, clearly described, yet adaptable approaches that can be implemented in ways that are relevant to the particular circumstances of each school. The four components form a concrete approach to school reform, without forcing schools into a narrowly prescriptive set of activities. 15MDRCs research on the implementation of Project Transition represents a major learning opportunity, equal in importance to the impact evaluation measuring the projects effectiveness. The implementation research wilt tell the story of \"what the schools did, how they did it, and what they learned in the process.\" These lessons will be an essential resource for educators and LRPs working to change the basic structure of the large comprehensive high school, and for policymakers seeking effective ways to support effective school reforms. Tracking. Previous efforts to create small instructional units within high schools have sometimes led to increases in the use of tracking, which often results in lowered expectations and watered-down instruction for low-achieving students (Oxley, 1994). For example, in schools whose\nrade 9 math classes are grouped by ability level, the introduction of student clusters could result g in the tracking of students - by math ability level - in all of their courses. Consequently, a critical challenge for Project Transition is to make sure that the creation of teacher-student clusters does not inadvertently increase the use of tracking. One possible way to avoid this pernicious and stigmatizing result would be for MDRC to select high schools in which most grade 9 students already take the same courses and can be heterogeneously grouped. Another approach would be to teach two levels of math in each cluster. In addition, the projects implementation plan will specify agreed- upon levels of diversity in student grouping\nthese will be confirmed by MDRC when students class schedules are examined before the beginning of the school year. These or similar measures will be combined with consensus-building to reach agreement on avoiding increases in the use of tracking. (As noted previously, those special education students and honors students who are not mainstreamed will not be included in the project, so heterogeneous grouping will not affect them.) Grades 10-12. If Project Transition produces large and positive impacts on students achievement, it can be used as the basis for restructuring some or all of the upper grade levels in high schools. MDRC staff will work with school staff and experts to consider expanding this project to include grades 10, 11, and 12. The upper-grade restructuring effort could include assigning students who were in grade 9 student clusters together to similarly-clustered classes in grade 10\nusing teacher learning communities for professional development in grades 10-12\nexpanding the use of coaching to the upper grades\nexpanding the use of action plans for failing students\nand other changes. It appears to be highly advantageous to begin the process of restructuring high schools by introducing changes in grade 9. Grade 9 instruction is less specialized than instruction in the upper grades\nconsequently, it easier to group students into heterogeneous clusters in grade 9 than in the upper grades. Grade 9 teachers may be more willing than upper-grade teachers to participate in major restructuring efforts, since they currently face particularly difficult teaching problems and often recognize that major changes are needed if they are to succeed. Students take more elective courses in grades 10-12 than in grade 9, and consequently it is easier to implement the teacher-student clusters in grade 9 than in the upper grades. If Project Transition is successfully implemented in grade 9, and if it produces positive impacts on students engagement in school, attendance, credits earned, and achievement, the expected resistance of upper-grade teachers to school reform may be easier to overcome. For these reasons, the goal of school-wide restructuring may be easiest to achieve by starting in grade 9 and expanding into the upper grades. Many experts believe that all change efforts are inevitably incremental\nfor them, the key question is, how big should the increments be in order to achieve the best results? The design of 16grade 9 and (if the results are positive) would later expand to effective, incremental, step-by-step implementation Project Transition  which starts in the upper grades - is an attempt to foster an process for major school reforms. MDRC and our advisors will continue to work on the issues surrounding the res^cturing of erades 10-12 and the best ways to connect Project Transitions grade 9 restructuring with school- Xge. iTe goal is to idLtify the most effective and practical reforms to enable previously low-achieving students to succeed in all four years of high school. Outcomes of similar interventions. Careful studies of efforts to improve the first y^ of are svaxvc, b^au^e until relatively recently, few researchers have recogmzed^^e of this transitional period. A study of the School Transitional Environment Project high school are scarce, because importance (STEP), an intervention based on teacher-student clusters and teacher-based advisories, was niervenuun ua^cu uu iwvuvi ---------- conducted by Robert Felner and colleagues in the early 1980s in a nor^eastern urban high school serving mostly African American and Hispanic students. By the end of grade 9, th^e 59 group ^students had significantly better attendance and grades than the 113 matched students. Data collected five years after the demonstration showed.that fce droui. showed , the dropout rate for the .............. - for the comparison group was 43 percent ^Tim'pr^siv^fmding (Felner et al., 1993). Felner and his team have t. - _J____crhnnk in Tllinnis and other states to extend and refine STEP, dau irom treatment group was 24 percent, while the dropout rate schools and many middle schools in Illinois and other states to these schools also point to the benefits of this approach (ibid.). These promising studies are important because they set the stage for independent evaluations that can stimulate policymakers to support large-scale implementation of proven^ STEP ^d Velated mforins have not yet been subjected to a multi-site field test using a high-reli^ility rXXign, the logical next step is to test the effectiveness of these reforms by conductmg_a S- -liable research design. By defnidvely deiemdning X'ettS^eZ of this reform approach in high schools, such a smd, lev^e a major expansion in its use by educators and policymakers m a wide variety of school districts. lack of consistency of STEP and related high Little is now known about the consistency or Little IS now mown duuui uit ------------ . ___ school reforms impacts in diverse settings, and this knowledge gap could be remedied by the implementation research linked to a multi-site field test. MDRC has taken steps to investigate whether Project Transition s reforms could feasibly be of low-achieving students. MDRC imnlemented in a wide range of schools serving concentrations staff visited several high schools that are implementing innovative programs for firj-year students\nSSX. X.U- approaches vary, Mt experiences appear to show that tee tads of refo^ are feasible. MDRC is also learning about the \"charters\" in Philadelphia s high schools (^Fine, 1994)- their organization is in some significant respects similar to Project Transition s tocher-student uicii V o ................. .______ n.mDr't nrniprf in Philadelohia s clustersVand there are some valuable implementation lessons for MDRCs project in Philadelphias   with Robert Felner the issues that a major implementation experiences. MDRC staff are discussing and evaluation study should address. 17Research Questions A rigorous, multi-site study can produce reliable evidence about the effectiveness of Project Transition, and if the evidence is positive, can set the stage for major and widespread changes in American high schools. In addition, positive findings will lay the foundation for improvements in the remaining years of high school. MDRCs planned study will enable practitioners and policy makers to learn the answers to the following questions about the implementation and the impacts of the Project Transition reforms: In large, comprehensive high schools with high dropout rates and numerous low-achieving students, is it feasible to implement reforms that alter the organization of teachers and students work and schedules in the first year of high school, creating clusters of students and teachers that function as schools within a school? Is it feasible to support and encourage groups of teachers to work together in collaborative groups resembling the teacher learning communities studied by McLaughlin, Talbert, and Little? What activities, training, feedback process, and supports contribute to this? Is it feasible to use coaches and structured reflection to improve teachers instructional practices? How can the coaches work be most effective? Is it feasible to meet the educational needs of students who fall behind in grade 9 by combining action plans and extra resources with students continued participation in the teacher-student clusters? approach be effectively implemented? How can this In what ways does the school and community context of participating high schools shape the implementation and the day-to-day operation of the grade 9 reforms? How do these contextual effects work, and what lessons do they provide regarding ways to improve grade 9 education for teachers and students? How do students experiences in the Project Transition clusters differ from the experiences of other first-year students in large, comprehensive high schools? How do their teachers experiences differ from those of other teachers of first-year students? Do participating teachers and students view the clusters as desirable or not? What reasons do they give for these views? How can the grade 9 reforms be implemented in other schools and communities that may wish to adapt it to their circumstances? What appear to be the core elements at other implementers should strive to maintain, and which elements can be altered in response to local circumstances? What lessons can be learned from the implementation process in the participating schools? 18 What is the impact of Project Transition on students performance in their first year of high school\non their achievement, attendance, homework completion, grades, course credits earned, assignment to high-cost special services, discipline referrals, motivation, perceived efficacy and locus of control, and perceptions of the classroom environment? What is the impact of Project Transition on students longer-term school performance\non the same outcomes in later grades, plus grade promotion and high school graduation? What is Project Transitions impact on the psycho-social and emotional growth and development of students? If the reforms produce substantial positive impacts on students school performance, what are the impacts on students post-high-school outcomes\npost-secondary enrollment and completion, transition to work, and earnings? Do boys and girls differ with respect to the reforms impacts and their perception of the reforms? If so, how and why does this happen? Do low- achieving students and students of color differ from other students with respect to the reforms impacts and their perception of the reforms? If so, how and why does this happen? What are the incremental costs of implementing the reforms, over and above the cost of the regular comprehensive high school program? Research Design some The research questions described in the previous section are intended to provide answers to coma of the major unanswered policy questions about high school reform\nAre Project Transition s reforms capable of being implemented in large high schools with a history of high dropout rates and low achievement, and if so, do they produce substantial positive impacts on students achievement, graduation rates, and healthy development? In other words, can these reforms turn around a failing high school, and can they change the outcomes for students who would have failed without the O' reforms? In order to create the leverage to get policymakers and practitioners to take action if the reforms produce substantial positive impacts, the answers to the research questions must be seen as being highly reliable and not attributable to causes unrelated to the reforms - such as students or teachers motivation, prior achievement, socio-economic status, or other factors resulting from the ways that people are selected to participate in the reform demonstration. In addition, the research design must be clear and readily explainable to policymakers, practitioners, and researchers. MDRCs work places great emphasis on the creation of research designs that meet these criteria. The implementation research design will document the process through which the reforms are introduced, adapted by teachers to fit into their practices, and experienced by students. It will 19 examine the daily experiences of students and teachers who participate in the reforms, and will make comparisons with the experiences of others who do not. The implementation process will be studied for at least the first 2^ years in each participating school. In each district, additional implementation lessons and comparisons will be gathered from another high school that has lengthier experience with teacher-student clusters and other reforms in grade 9. This part of the research design will build on the implementation-institutionalization perspective described previously in this paper. The impact research design will determine what difference the reforms made for the students who were assigned to the classes that are part of the reform demonstration. This determination requires the researchers to determine what these students outcomes would have been if they had not been part of the reform demonstration. Consequently, the research design needs to compare the outcomes for students who are in the reform demonstration to the outcomes for students who are equivalent in all ways (including motivation, prior achievement, socio-economic status, and other characteristics) except that they do not receive the reforms. MDRC has considered three types of impac research designs for this project: random assignment designs, regression discontinuity designs (t .so known as interrupted time series designs), and matched comparison group designs. All have strengths and limitations. Random assignment designs, when properly executed, create equivalent treatment and control\nroups whose outcomes can appropriately be compared. The reliability and credibility of impact CT- findings that are based on a sound random assignment research design would be very helpful for presenting Project Transitions results to policymakers. In this research design, a high schools grade 9 students would be divided into two groups through a lottery-like process\none group would receive the reform demonstration and the other would receive regular grade 9 instruction. If it is impossible to divide the grade 9 students in a school into these two groups, and to operate the reform methods and the regular grade 9 methods within the school simultaneously, then it would not be feasible to use a random assignment research design in that school. This might occur in schools that decide to include all grade 9 students in the reform demonstration, from the very beginning of its implementation\nhowever, it is worth noting that MDRC staff have visited several schools that \"phased in\" key elements resembling Project Transition, starting with half of the students in grade 9 - and thereby demonstrating the feasibility of this approach. Currently, MDRCs preferred strategy is to use a random assignment design, provided that it is clearly appropriate to create two groups of students (one receiving the reforms, and one receiving regular grade 9 instruction) in the cooperating schools. Regression discontinuity designs compare the outcomes for students who attend a school before a reform is introduced with those who attend the same school after its introduction. Regression discontinuity designs can be used to measure the changes that result when reforms are introduced for all students in a grade simultaneously. For this research design to produce credible results, there must be a high degree of stability, for several years before and after the introduction of the reform, in the school and in the characteristics of students attending the school. If this condition cannot be met - for example, if a schools average test scores have been inconsistent from year to year before the planned introduction of the reforms - a regression discontinuity research design is not appropriate. Anoer problem with regression discontinuity designs is caused by the fact that it will be difficult to obtain parents permission for researchers to examine student records when parents have moved\nthis presents a barrier to collecting data on the stability of student 20outcomes prior to the introduction of Project Transition. Subgroup analysis may also be problematic because most school district data systems contain little information on students demographic characteristics. Finally, the cost of obtaining long-term follow-up data for multiple cohorts of students is very high. Taken together, these issues raise questions about the feasibility of using a regression discontinuity design. MDRC staff continue to work on ways to resolve these issues. Matched comparison group designs compare the outcomes for students who are part of a reform demonstration to outcomes for \"matched\" students who have similar characteristics. In studies using this design, it is often difficult or impossible to know whether the two groups of students were really equivalent when the study began. Often, the matched students are selected in ways that suggest that they are on average less motivated, have different prior achievement, or come from families with different characteristics than students who participate in the reform demonstration. When the matched students are enrolled in a different school than the students participating in the reform demonstration, the unmeasured differences between the teachers, instructional methods, and school climates in the reform and comparison schools are a significant threat to the reliability of the research design. Because of the difficulty of obtaining highly credible impact fmdings from most matched comparison designs, MDRCs research team believes that it would be very risky to use a matched comparison group research design in Project Transition. However, MDRC is gathering information about matched comparison designs that seek to avoid the problems discussed here\nif a more reliable comparison group design is identified, it will be considered for use in this project. While random assignment designs appear to be, on balance, the most promising research designs for this project, it is possible that the most reliable and robust approach may be a combination of a random assignment design with a comparison to a single pre-Project Transition smdent cohort. This approach would take advantage of some of the strengths of regression discontinuity designs, without the feasibility problems of collecting data on numerous cohorts of students who attended grade 9 years before the research effort began. Specifically, it would enable the research team to make three kinds of comparisons: Project Transition students versus the randomly-assigned control group\npre-Project Transition students versus the randomly-assigned control group (if this comparison found no difference, it would indicate that the regular grade 9 program was producing consistent and stable effects)\nand pre-Project Transition students versus Project Transition students. This combined research approach would provide highly credible and rigorous benchmarks from which to measure the gains of e Project Transition students. Moreover, people who are concerned that there might be contact between the Project Transition and control group students and teachers would benefit from the comparison with pre-Project Transition students, who could not be affected by this kind of potential \"contamination.\" The research team will gaer information from the cooperating schools to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of all three types of research designs. This will include information on the feasibility of phasing-in the reforms, starting with approximately half of the grade 9 students and teachers\nthe past and likely future consistency of the schools educational activities and student characteristics\nand other factors. After weighing this information, MDRC and the participating schools will decide which research design is most likely to be feasible and to produce highly reliable and credible results. Robert Felners (1981) study of teacher-student clusters provides an indication that there are some high schools in which it is appropriate and desired by school staff to implement the proposed 21 reforms in phases, starting with one half of the first-year students and teachers In this situation, it would be feasible to randomly assign students to receive either the new approach or *e regular first- year high school program. All first-year students would be included in the random assignment for those special education and honors students who are already in clusters of classes process, except that are separate from other students classes. Teachers are obviously crucial participants in the proposed study. Consequently a quesuon that requires careful thought is how to select the teachers who will participate in Project Transition For the project to succeed, the support of a large majority of the teachers in a participating school will be required. MDRC will fully inform teachers about the project and will conduct a secret ballot vote to determine whether teachers want their school to participate. If a random assignment r^ch desit^n is used, one possible approach to selecting teachers to participate in the reforms would be to aainthe consent of the participating schools grade 9 teachers to randomly assign them to two . .. . r____ __j *1__________ Hol'jv thPir tr^iimncT and would implement the reforms, and the other group would delay their traimng reforms for the pilot and evaluation period (and would contmue to use the and instructional methods during this time). After the groups\none group participation in the schools pre-existing organizational structure--------- . . evaluation year, the teachers in the control group would have the opportunity to be uam^ and to imolement the reforms, and would receive the necessary support to do so. Considerable discussion and consensus-building with teachers, unions, and school officials will be needed to determine whether it is feasible to randomly assign teachers in this way. If a regression discontinuity research design is used, all of a schools teachers who t^ch arade 9 students would participate in the demonstration. This would eliminate the possibility of bi^ the selection of teachers,'provided that teachers grade-level assignments are not systematically changed when the project begins. Of course, the research would examine teachers grade-level assignments to assess whether they remained stable. Virtually all large-scale demonstration projects encounter issues raised by potential threats the research, including potentially \"contaminating factors. As these issues arise in Project to researcn, inciuaiiig povciiu\u0026lt;niy vuuwwuiiauiie Transition, MDRCs research team and its expert advisors will address them. Some may requure changes in the monitoring or implementation of some aspect of the demonstration\nothers may require changes in the research design. MDRCs staff have extensive experience in identifymg and these challenges. Recognizing and meeting these challenges in designing approp credibility of the projects findings is a central priority for MDRCs work ways that maximize on this project. A crucial component of MDRCs work is the assurance of eical treatment for all Durin\u0026lt; the site selection process, MDRC will work with local participants in MDRC projects. During the site selection process, muku wm - -ub school staff parents, and other stakeholders to design and implement measures insuring the e\u0026amp;ical treatment of all participants in Project Transition\nthese measures have been used successfully in o MDRCs Career Academies evaluation and other MDRC studies. Site Selection and Roles of Partners MDRC hopes to select three school districts and up to two high schools in each district to participate in Project Transition. 22MDRCs approach to selecting sites for this project and planning the roles to be played by the participating organizations reflects three goals: assuring that Project Transition will be well implemented\nconducting a highly reliable evaluation that will provide valuable information for policymakers and practitioners\nand building the local capacity to implement, support, institutionalize, and expand the Project Transition reforms if they produce positive impacts. Site selection decisions will be based on the following characteristics of each participating school district and high school: The district is committed to systemic reform in its high schools\nhas shown this commitment by implementing teacher-student clusters in grade 9 in at least one high school\nand is seeldng to expand the use of clusters in grade 9. A local institution or agency is available to support, maintain, and (eventually) lead a local effort to implement the professional development and coaching components of the reforms\nis organization has the staff, the skills, and the knowledge of the local schools and community needed to serve as MDRCs local resource partner (LRP) for the project. The district has several large, comprehensive high schools with numerous feeder schools, and these high schools serve a substantial number of low-achieving students and have a high dropout rate. The district is willing to use its own resources for implementing the projects professional development activities, including the additional shared preparation period for participating teachers. (Note that MDRC and its funders will reimburse sites for the costs of research-related activities and coaching.) The district and the participating high school staff are willing to cooperate with the requirements of the projects research and data collection. The participating high school has broad support for Project Transition from the principal, teachers, teacher union, parents, and other stakeholders. The participating school is an appropriate site for a longitudinal impact study of Project Transitions reforms, with a large grade 9 population, limited use of ability grouping in grade 9, little use of special programs for grade 9 students, limited mobility of students (so that students can receive a full year of the reforms), and without other significant barriers to a reliable determination of the reforms impacts The participating high school is an appropriate site for implementing a highly reliable and credible research design. If a random assignment research design is selected, participating schools need to be able to \"phase in\" the reforms, with a pilot year and an evaluation year in which approximately one-half of the grade 9 students and teachers would participate in the reforms, followed by the use of the reforms for all grade 9 students and teachers (except for students in segregated classes, as described elsewhere in this paper). 23These site selection criteria are intended to maximize the likelihood of successfully unplemX M-t Transition, building a strong local capacity to support system-wide reform, and obtaining an important and policy-relevant evaluation. the results m order to rd that end MDRC^will identify and work closely with a project is local capacity-building, o _ professional development ^racdvWes'Tf ProTe^t\" Transition and will provide the infrastructure and expertise to cctain and Land the reforms after MDRCs part of the demonstration ends. sustain and expand the reforms To clarify the ive schedule shows the main tasks for roles that MDRC and its partners will play in this project, the following tentative schedule snows me u.-- which each participatmg orgai^tion is respons planning, pilot, and demonstration/evaluation phases of the project. Planning (fall 1994 - spring 1995) MDRC: Identify potential sites Identify potential local resource partners (LRPs) Continue to develop the reforms, in collaboration with LRPs, districts, and LRPs: schools Formalize agreements with sites and LRPs Consensus-building in sites with all stakeholders Continue to develop the research design Sto Wormatlon\u0026lt;h. feasibility of random assignment and regression discontinuity research designs in potential sites With sites decide which type of research design to use Work with MDRC to build the LRPs capacity for conductmg professional development and coaching Work with sites to prepare for implementation Develop training for coaches and teachers Districts\nFormalize district support for Project Tr^ition Allocate resources for the districts contribution to the project school staff and parental support for Project Transition Schools\nFormalize _ . Identify teachers for participation m pilot year Pilot year (summer 1995 - spring 1996) LRPs: Train coaches and teachers Collaborate with school staff to plan for fall 1995 activities Conduct summer institutes UOnUUUL iUllUiiw . ___ Implement professional development and coaching in schools Districts\nSupport school and LRP work S' sSie grade 9 srudenu and teachers for faU 1995 classes Implement Project Transition in grade 9 24MDRC: Begin implementation research data collection and baseline data collection Review and oversee work by LRPs, districts, and schools If a random assignment research design is used, collaborate with schools to plan for random assignment of students and teachers Begin dissemination activities and networking Demonstration/evaluation year (summer 1996 - fall 1997) LRPs: Revise and improve activities based on pilot experiences Implement and support professional development and coaching Districts: Support school and LRP work and data collection Schools: Revise and improve activities based on pilot experiences Schedule grade 9 students and teachers for fall 1996 classes Continue to implement the reforms in grade 9 Provide evaluation data MDRC: Revise and improve activities based on pilot experiences Continue implementation research data collection and baseline data collection Review and oversee work by LRPs, districts, and schools If a random assignment research design is used, randomly assign students and teachers for the evaluation Collect evaluation data Survey students to measure Project Transitions impacts on their attitudes and perceptions Analyze implementation data and impact data and prepare reports, with input from LRPs, districts, and schools Disseminate findings If the fmdings from the demonstration/evaluation phase are positive, MDRC plans to measure Project Transitions longer-term impacts on students achievement, attendance, engagement in school, grades, credits earned, graduation (and dropping out), and post-high-school employment and education. MDRC will also continue to work with districts, schools, and LRPs during the 1997-1998 school year to expand the reforms to include all grade 9 students and teachers in the participating schools and to collect additional data. In addition, MDRC, the schools, districts, and LRPs will work on applying the lessons of the reform effort to the upper high school grades. A major goal of this project is for the LRPs to continue their work with districts and schools after MDRCs role in the project is completed\nMDRC will work with the LRPs, districts, and schools to facilitate this process. 25 References AAUW Educational Foundation, 1993. Hostile Hallways: The AAUW Survey on Sexual Harassment in Americas Schools (Washington, D.C.: AAUW Educational Foundation) Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989. Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century. The Report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents (New York: Carnegie Corporation) Robert D. Felner, Judith Primavera, and Ana M. Cauce, 1981. \"The Impact of School Transitions: A Focus for Preventive Efforts,\" American Journal of Community Psychology vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 449-459 Robert D. Felner, Melanie Ginter, and Judith Primavera, 1982. \"Primary Prevention During School Transitions: Social Support and Environmental Structure,\" American Journal of Community Psychology vol. iO, no. 3, pp. 277-290 Roben D. Felne., Stephen Brand, Angela M. Adan, Peter F. Mulhall, et al., 1993. \"Restructuring the Ecology of the School as an Approach to Prevention During School Transitions: Longitudinal Follow-ups and Extensions of the School Transitional Environment Project (STEP),\" Prevention in Human Services vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 103-136 Michelle Fine (editor), 1994. Chartering Urban School Reform: Reflections on Public High Schools in the Midst of Change (New York: Teachers College Press) Michael G. Fullan, 1990. \"Staff Development, Innovation, and Institutional Development,\" in Bruce Joyce, ed.. Changing School Culture Through Staff Development (Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin, 1993. \"What Matters Most in Teachers Workplace Context?\", in Judith Warren Little and McLaughlin, eds.. Teachers Work: Individuals, Colleagues, and Contexts (New York: Teachers College Press) Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin and Joan E. Talbert, 1993. Contexts ITiat Matter for Teaching and Learning (Stanford University: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching) National Center for Education Statistics, 1991. Dropout Rates in the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education) Diana Oxley, 1994. \"Organizing Schools into Small Units: Grouping,\" Phi Delta Kappan vol. 75, no. 7 (March), pp. 521-526 Alternatives to Homogeneous Edward Pauly, 1991. The Classroom Crucible: What Really Works. What Doesnt, and Whv (New York: Basic Books) 1 26 Melissa Roderick, 1990. \"The Path to Dropping Out: Middle School and Early High School Experiences,\" Working Paper H-90-13, Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Kennedy School of Government) Melissa Roderick and Douglas Novotny, n.d. \"Student Life in High Schools: A Longitudinal Study  Project Description,\" paper provided by the authors. University of Chicago, p. 1 Seymour Wapner, 1981. \"Transactions of Persons-in-Environments: Some Critical Transitions,\" Journal of Environmental Psychology vol. 1, pp. 223-239 27 PROJECT TRANSITION: REFORMING HIGH SCHOOLS STARTING IN GRADE NINE OVERVIEW FOR SCHLAGLE HIGH SCHOOL Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation August, 1995 I Introduction The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), a non-profit research organization, has asked Schlagle High School in Kansas City, KS to work in partnership with us to develop and implement Project Transition (PT), an approach aimed at improving the instructional environment of 9th grade students. The primary components of PT include: (1) student-teacher clusters or teams\n(2) a daily shared planning period for team teachers\n(3) teacher-centered professional development\nand (4) the use of action plans for failing students. This overview describes the goals of PT and its components, the benefits for and responsibilities of Schlagle High School should Schlagle decide to be involved with PT, and MDRCs evaluation plans. What are the goals of Project Transition? The overall goal of Project Transition is to transform the educational experiences of 9th graders as they make the transition from middle school to high school. This is often a vulnerable period in students schooling, marked by high absenteeism and declining grades which are often the antecedents to dropping out. Specifically, the goals of PT are to: 1. 2. 3. create a more personalized and supportive learning environment for 9th grade students within large, comprehensive high schools\nimprove the academic performance and achievement levels of 9th grade students\nand create a more stimulating and rewarding work environment for teachers in which they have an opportunity to work with their colleagues and a coach to improve instructional practices. What is Project Transition? The core components of Project Transition - which would be adapted by Schlagles faculty - are\nPersonalized, small-scale learning environments for students based on teacher-student teams of four teachers and approximately 120 - 130 9th grade students. Teacher-student teams enable students to get to know their teachers and classmates well and teachers to respond to students needs. Ideally, each teacher-student team consists of one teacher from each of four academic subjects (English, math, science, and social studies) and students taking the four classes taught by those teachers. 1Intensive professional development for teachers to improve the quality of instruction. Teachers rarely have the opportunity to spend substantial time working together as part of a community of professionals that takes responsibility for improving its performance. The goal of PT is to build a \"teacher learning community\" that will provide concrete, sustained support for upgrading instruction. In PT teachers get resources that help them collaborate, including daily shared planning and professional development periods for each teacher team\na coach to facilitate the teams shared work, and demonstrate and provide feedback on improved instructional methods\nand links with The Learning Exchange to provide further professional development, including summer institutes for the teacher teams and on-going support for teachers on an as-needed basis. Use of action plans for failing students. Professional development will prepare teacher teams to recognize the early warning signals of student failure and to implement specific action plans for students in need of extra assistance to prevent failure. Action plans could include tutoring by peers and by members of the teacher team, extra instructional time, and student-teacher-parent contracts. Taken together, these components in effect create \"small schools\" or schools-within- schools for 9th grade students which, along with intensive professional development to help teachers work together effectively, can provide an enriched, supportive learning environment for students as well as teachers. How would Project Transition be implemented at Schlagle? Before Schlagle decides to become involved in PT, we hope there will be a process that leads to a decision to go forward that has broad support. In particular, we think that Schlagles administrators, teachers, and other staff need to consider and decide how PT meets their needs as professional educators. We say this because the core elements of PT are only the beginning of a process in which the teachers, staff, and students of participating high schools provide the substance that leads to improved teaching and learning. Participating schools adapt these components to their own, unique school environments, adding their own ideas and approaches to improving student instruction within the PT framework of student-teacher clusters supported by teacher-led professional development. Individual school communities determine the specific structural, curricular, and professional development activities, and the administrators and teachers of the participating high schools run PT. MDRC provides assistance in building a consensus to implement PT and provides resources to support the professional development coach and The Learning Exchange. MDRC will also evaluate the demonstration to provide information on how PT is implemented and its effects on students attendance grades, credits earned, discipline referrals, and graduation, and on students attitudes, engagement in school, future plans, and social development. 2What is the proposed timeline for implementing Project Transition? Project Transition would be phased in over 3 years: 1. Fall 1995 - Spring 1996 Planning and Baseline Year Kev Activities: planning by stakeholders within the Schlagle community on how to tailor PT to their school environment, consensus building, depending on whether or not teachers adopt PT signing the Memorandum of Agreement, identifying the PT teacehrs, collecting baseline data from the current 9th grade, and hiring (with PT teachers involved) the professional development \"coach\". 2. Summer 1996 - Spring 1997 Demonstration / Evaluation Year Kev Activities: summer institute for teachers, enrollment of incoming 9th grade students into \"teams\" that generally travel together during the day with the same core of teachers, data collection and research on PT, daily meeting in the common planning period, ongoing professional development with the coach and The Learning Exchange. 3. Summer 1997 - Summer 1998 Expansion Year Kev Activities: summer institute for teachers with follow-up, 2nd year of implementation of PT for 9th grade students and teachers, decision on whether and how to expand PT based on results from the research findings. What are the benefits for schools participating in Project Transition? Funding supplement to cover coaches, professional development activities, and research-related costs. MDRC has secured funding for PT to compensate participating school districts for research and data collection costs and the costs of the coaches and summer institutes, and some additional resources for ongoing professional development. State-of-the-art study of Project Transition. Schools selected to participate will receive a rigorous evaluation of their high school transition project at virtually no cost to the school or district. The study will provide an in-depth examination of the implementation and effects of PT. National and local exposure to help solidify support from the school board, community and state. Schools can use their participation in the study as tangible evidence of their involvement in systemic reform. This may be useful in solidifying state and local support in order to preserve the reforms during the test period and justify an expansion if research findings are positive. 3Opportunities for idea-sharing and information e.xchange. Participating schools will be selected from several regions of the country. As part of a national network, these sites will have the opportunity to compare experiences, learn about innovative approaches, and share operational lessons and \"best practices.\" Locally, Schlagle faculty would be encouraged to establish a professional relationship with Harmon High School, which has successfully implemented student-teacher teams, to serve as a resource. Daily and on-going professional development. School staff will receive daily professional development, facilitated by their \"coach\", development will be provided by the Learning Exchange. Ongoing professional Local program and policy development. At the local level, school districts and the participating schools will have access to specific findings that can be used by administrators and teachers to develop policies for improving student success in the school. What are the responsibilities of schools participating in Project Transition? Project ownership. Schlagle High School will need broad support for PT from the principal, teachers, students and parents. School staff and teachers must want to develop PTS core components into a promising approach which seeks to improve instruction for 9th grade students at Schlagle. School staff should feel comfortable working with MDRC to secure support from the district, school board, superintendent, teacher union, parent groups, and other education stakeholders in the community. Eligibility factors. Schlagle High School successfully met the eligibility criteria to participate in Project Transition. The schools environment is appropriate for a longitudinal impact study of PT: a large 9th grade population, low to moderate mobility of students, high dropout rates, high percentage of students qualifying for school lunch program, limited use of ability groupings in the 9th grade (or willingness to shift from ability groupings), and little use of separate, self-contained special programs for 9th grade students. We continue to discuss how to incorporate science classes into the PT model. Data collection. High school and district staff are willing to cooperate with PTs research and data collection requirements, including making school records available to the research team, helping to administer student surveys, and participating in field research visits by MDRC staff. 4What other sites are involved in PT? We plan to develop PT in three or four sites nationally. At this time, Pulaski High School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is implementing PT in the 1995-1996 school year throughout its ninth grade. We are also having active discussions with school officials in San Antonio, Texas and New York City, New York. How is Project Transition funded? In Kansas City, PT is funded in part by the school district which has agreed to provide resources to allow PT teachers to have a one course load reduction in their teaching responsibility in order to incorporate the common planning period into their daily schedule\nthe Kauffman Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Ed\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_1628","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for an award of attorneys' fees","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":["1996-09-30"],"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","Lawyers","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for an award of attorneys' fees"],"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/1628"],"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":["64 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.  .  : .. ... FILEO US. DISTRICT COURT ' EASTFRN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SfP 27 1996 ~;~ES W, Mcl.iUHMA~K, CLERK SEP ~ 0 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS Otfice ot Desegregation Monitorm9 WESTERN DIVISION -- -- _ .. ___ -. ___ ..,,_,, ... ~ - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. OEP ClfRI( PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for An Award of Attorneys' Fees (September 1996) The LRSD defendants sought as to LRSD an end to the requirement that the plans be implemented. The district sought an end to the court's jurisdiction, and, thereby, any role for ODM. The Joshua Intervenors filed a comprehensive response. The Joshua Intervenors prevailed on this matter when the court on September 23, 1996 denied LRSD's motion. The Joshua Intervenors are, at minimum, entitled to an award of attorneys' fees for their work on this matter as prevailing parties . .E..,__g_,_, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988; Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 17 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1994); Hatfield v. Hayes, 877 F.2d 717, 719-20 (8th Cir. 1989). 1 1 By making this motion and this argument, the Joshua Intervenors do not waive their contention that they are entitled to fee awards at this stage of the case based upon their engaging in reasonable post-judgment monitoring, irrespective of their \"prevailing\" with regard to each separate element of their work. 1 The time claimed for the efforts of Joshua counsel -- 50.16 hours is reasonable. See Declaration of Bob Pressman, para. (12.} and Attachment One. It has been described on a daily basis, based upon contemporaneous records. Id. Time is claimed for one person (lead counsel, John W. Walker's and Ms. Springer's time has been waived}. The intervenors had to take seriously an effort to end, as to LRSD, the requirement that the plans be implemented and the court's jurisdiction. The LRSD memorandum cited 40 court decisions. Preparation of a response required consideration of not only many of these decisions and others, but also, among other things: the LRSD's exhibits (numbering 17}, the text of the various plans and other documents, the testimony of witnesses Armor, Orfield, and Walberg, and the court's various findings about the quality of \"compliance\" by the officials and agents of the LRSD. The rate sought for an attorney with more than 30 years of relevant experience, much in the areas of school desegregation and racial discrimination generally, is proper. First. The rate is supported by rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 2 Second. The rate is shown to be reasonable by reference 2 See McDonald v. Armentrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (8th Cir. 1988} (in 1988, the court noted its approval in 1986 in this case of the rate of$ 200\\hour for a Washington, D.C. \"cooperating attorney who had been in practice approximately thirty years\" and of the same rate in 1988 in the Kansas City case for \"an experienced civil rights attorney for his services in [that] school desegregation case ... \"}; Planned Parenthood Sioux Falls Clinic v. Miller, 70 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 1995} (rates of from$ 200 to $ 260 per hour for the work of four attorneys in an appeal}; see also Joshua Intervenors' final submission in support of our earlier comprehensive fee petition documenting that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit made an award recently to lead counsel for work on the Harvell appeal at the rate of$ 250 per hour}. 2 to the ruling in Morgan y. Gittens. see Pressman Dec., para. ( 13. ) ( d) and enclosed copy of the opinion. Third. The rate is supported by the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins and the affidavits of Geraldine Hines and Jeffrey Kabrick (attached to the motion). Fourth. The rate is supported by the survey conducted by the publication Arkansas Business. See Pressman Dec., para. (13.) (e) and survey attached thereto. Conclusion The motion should be granted, promptly. # 6404 Walker, P.A. 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 ..E,\u003c,~6'~ Bob Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, ( v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 72-911-WAG ROBERT GITTENS, ET AL,, Defendants. JUDGMENT AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES This action came on for hearing before the Court, Honorable w. Arthur Garrity, Jr., District Judge presiding, on plaintiffs' applications for attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1988, and the issues having been duly heard and a - decision having been duly rendered on the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the Memorandum of Decision filed contemporaneously herewith, It is Ordered and Adjudged that the plaintiffs Tallulah Morgan et al. recover of the defendants Robert Gittens et al. the sum of $228,162.69, of which $128,162.69 shall be paid to Thomas I. Atkins, Esq., and $100,000 to the Law and Education Center, Inc., for the services of Robert Pressman, Esq. Dated at Boston, Massachusetts, this 3_L day of January, 1996. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS TALLULAH MORGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 72-911-WAG ROBERT GITTENS1 , ET AL., Defendants. GARRITY, D.J. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AS TO ATTORNEYS' FEES January 31, 1996 As noted in the Final Judgment and the Final Judgment as Amended, 2 the Court has under advisement plaintiffs' In keeping with practice, the named defendant is the Chairman of the Boston School Committee. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d) (1), defendant Gittens is substituted as the named defendant; and Mayor Thomas M. Menino and other successor municipal officers are automatically substituted as parties defendant. 2 Between May 1990 and July 1994, judgment was amended thrice by this Court, on September 19, 1990, June 21, 1991, and July 30, 1993, and once on February 21, 1991 by the Court of 1 I applications for awards of attorneys fees and expenses pursuant to 42 u.s.c.  1988. In November 1988 Attorneys Atkins and Pressman were awarded compensation for services and expenses through December 14, 1988 and October 5, 1988 respectively, Atkins by court order and Pressman by agreement with defendant. Since then plaintiffs have filed a series of applications, initially in December 1989, followed by several supplements3 covering services and expenses of Atkins and services of Pressman through the summer of 1993. They have not sought compensation for time spent thereafter on miscellaneous matters and preparing further memoranda. 4 Defendant City of Boston has responded to each of plaintiffs' applications, contesting their right to any awards at all and raising several particular objections. The Court heard oral argument on April 18, 1990 and has received voluminous supporting materials, including comprehensive, detailed and contemporaneous records of time spent and expenditures incurred; affidavits of the applicants stating their general qualifications and describing particular services in the instant case; affidavits of members of the bar of this court attesting to the reasonableness of the hourly rates Appeals. Precise dates are omitted partly because unnecessary since they appear on related exhibits and because there are small differences in the filing dates and periods covered by plaintiffs' separate applications and supplements for services. Plaintiffs' last memorandum was filed on June 1, 1995 to which defendants replied on June 16, 1995. 2 charged; reports in legal publications as to fees customarily charged in 1989 by lawyers in law firms in Boston and elsewhere; and transcripts of prior proceedings in this case. 5 In ruling upon the pending applications, the Court has analyzed a small mountain of filings which might in other contexts be overkill but not here because the events to which the services of counsel relate are long past and had to be reconstructed. OVERVIEW OF APPLICATIONS Thomas I. Atkins, Esquire, is in private practice specializing in civil rights litigation, particularly school desegregation cases, with offices in Brooklyn, New York. Due to his scholarship and long specialized experience, Mr. Atkins is in a class by himself representing plaintiffs in this type of litigation. Before moving to the national scene, he was active in Boston civic affairs since his days at Harvard Law School. For example, he was elected as a city councillor for two terms, and learned of the City's racial tensions first hand. Robert Pressman, Esquire, has comparable credentials, outlined in his affidavit filed with plaintiffs' application dated January 24, 1990. Following five years with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, he came in 1970 to the Center for Law and Education in Cambridge, a national support center for the entire legal services program on education issues. Mr. Pressman has tried school desegregation cases in a dozen 5 Especially relevant is the Court's appraisal at a November 15, 1988 hearing of Attorney Atkins' extraordinary qualifications as counsel for plaintiff class. 3 federal district courts, argued appeals in several federal circuits and been a principal contributor for two years to the Education Law Bulletin. Of all the attorneys who have filed appearances for various parties to these proceedings, who probably number in the thirties, he is the only one who was with the case since its inception, attending more hearings and submitting more briefs than any other lawyer. Being an employee of the Center, the Court's award to plaintiffs for his services will go to the Law and Education Center, Inc. Total compensation sought by plaintiffs for Atkins' services is $129,123 plus reimbursement of expenses amounting to $3,162.69, and for Pressman $109,311 for services with no claim for expenses. The application for Atkins is predicated on an hourly rate of $300, and for Pressman a rate of $200. Both applications are approximately $18,000 greater than those submitted on August 27, 1993 for such services and expenses. At that time, as shown in the following tables of applications filed on the dates and covering the time periods specified, hourly rates charged by Atkins increased from $240 in 1988 to $300 in 1991; and by Pressman from $140 in 1988 to $200 in 1991. 6 Plaintiffs are now seeking awards for the first three years, 6 A third set of periodic applications was received from plaintiff intervenors El Comite de Padres Pro Defensa de la Educacion Bilinque, capably represented in these proceedings for two decades by Attorney Caroline B. Playter of Boston. Ms. Playter's hourly charges increased from $125 to $140 in 1990, and her reapplication filed in 1995 was based upon a current hourly rate of $175. As occurred with all previous applications by El Comite de Padres, its final one was settled. 4 - 1988-91, at rates which their attorneys began charging in 1991. ATKINS' P~RIOOIC APP~ICATIOII~ P~RIOO C~R~Q HClJRS ~ !.ill Qill TOTALS SUBMITTED 12/15/88-12/16/89 239 240/hr 57,360.00 2,134.41 59,494.41 1/24/90 1/3/90-4/30/90 4.5 265/hr 12,852.50 192.70 13,045.20 4/30/90 5/1/90-5/18/90 23.25 265/hr 6, 161.25 n.a. 6,161.25 5/18/90 5/19/90-5/21/90 2l .OO 265/hr 5,565.00 308.70 5,873.70 6/6/90 5/30/90-4/2/91 17.75 265/hr 4,703.75 n.a. 2,928.75 4/8/91 9/26/90-12/4/90 7.50 265/hr l,987.50 n.a. l,987.50 4/8/91 4/15/91-8/24/93 73.41 300/hr 22,023.00 526.88 22,549.88 8/24/93 TOTALS: 430.41 110,653.00 3,162.69 113,815.69 PRESSMAN'S PERIOOIC APPLICATIONS AFFIDAVIT DATE OATES OF \\IORK HClJRS RATE TOTAL 12/29/89 l0/6/88-12/29/88 12.40 $140 S 1,736.00 4/9/90 1/13/89-12/28/89 211.TT $160 $33,883.20 5/18/90 1/2/90-5/18/90 114.23 S160\" $18,276.80 4/3/91 7/3/90-4/1/91 83.15 $160 $13,304.00 10/28/93 4/11/91-6/28/93 50% of hours 62.50 $180 S11,250.00 SOX of hours 62.50 $200 $12,500.00 TOTAL HClJRS: 546.55 AMOJNT: $90,950.00 Fees claimed in these periodic filings totalled $201,603; fees now sought total $238,434, an increase of $36,831. Expenses of $3,162.69, 1 all incurred by Atkins, remain the same. Without waiving explicitly a general objection to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to award fees under 1988, defendants have modified their position regarding reasonable hourly rates for services of plaintiffs' attorneys. In two oppositions filed in April, 1990, they first contended that Defendants' initial objection to this item was waived at page 10 of their memorandum filed December 13, 1993-. 5 maximum hourly rates for Atkins' services should be $140 and $90 for Pressman. The second opposition increased these figures to $200 and $140 respectively; but argued that roughly two-thirds of the applicants' services should be classified as \"non-core\" and compensated at the lower hourly rates of $160 and $100 respectively. A later defendants' memorandum in opposition filed in December 1993, applicable to services after April 11, 1991, agrees to increased hourly rates of $300 and $190 for core work8 but suggests $190 and $120 for non-core, respectively. Total fees proposed by defendants in their December 13, 1993 memorandum in opposition, without waiving substantive objections, are $56,674.15 for Atkins and $50,372.20 for Pressman, a total of $107,046.35. Costs of $3,162.69 incurred by Atkins have not been reduced by defendants in relation to fee reductions. Historical Background Consideration of the merits of plaintiffs' pending applications requires an understanding of the relevant history of these proceedings. It is recounted in detail in Morgan v. Nucci, 620 F. Supp. 214, 217-218 (D. Mass. 1985), and Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313, 315-17 (1st Cir. 1987), and shows how the Court's remedial orders were lifted incrementally, a procedure later endorsed in Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992). The case was closed, except for the pending applications, in similar 8 These were merely token concessions, however, since they pertained to only 4.5 hours of 96 hours claimed by Atkins during a period of more than two years; and to only 24 hours of the 115 hours claimed by Pressman during the same period. 6 incremental fashion by so-called Final Orders dated September 3, 1985 (attached as Appendix A), Final Judgment dated May 31, 1990, Amended Final Judgments dated September 19, 1990 and June 21, 1991 and Final Judgment as Amended dated July 19, 1994. An important closing order, vacating the Court's injunctive orders which had governed the student assignment process, was also issued by the Court of Appeals on September 28, 1987. See 831 F.2d at 326. Thereupon, the Defendant Mayor hired two consultants, Michael Alves and Charles Willie9 , to develop a new student assignment plan. After several months of consultations and hearings, the consultants in December 1988 proposed a plan to the Boston School Committee (\"BSC\") which approved its general framework on December 28, 1988. Following a public hearing on February 14, 1989, the Committee, on February 27, 1989, voted to adopt the plan subject to further modification arising out of the 90-day process ordered in paragraph 8 of the Court's 1985 final orders. The State Board convened eleven negotiating sessions, in which plaintiffs' counsel participated fully, which proposed numerous changes which were eventually adopted in April 1989 by the School Committee. Called the Controlled Choice Plan (\"CCP\"), it was scheduled for implementation at entry elementary grades in September 1989 (Phase I) and systernwide in September 1990 (Phase 9 Both were closely associated with the Court's plan, Alves as Project Director for Boston Desegregation Assistance at the State Board, and Willie as one of the four Masters who designed the plan adopted by the Court in 1975. 7 II); meanwhile the Court plan would continue in effect. Dissatisfied with some aspects of the CCP, and seeking more time for further study and amendments, plaintiffs moved for an injunction against its implementation on the ground that it would tend to resegregate the schools. After hearings on May 26, 30 and 31, 1989, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion, and Phase I of the CCP went into effect in September. In December the Committee again directed its general counsel \"to initiate the 90- day process required for modification of orders in Morgan vs. O'Reilly so that the second phase of the new student Assignment' Plan adopted herewith may be implemented\"; and again plaintiffs' counsel participated actively. Roughly 55% of counsels' services covered by the pending applications (532 hours out of a total of 977) pertains either directly or indirectly to the CCP. Another segment of plaintiffs' applications to which defendants are objecting on legal grounds is hours spent counteracting the efforts of the Boston Teachers Union (\"BTU\") to eliminate and then overturn on appeal paragraph (3) of the Final Judgment dated May 31, 1990, entitled \"Faculty and Staffing.\" The legal point now alleged by the defendants is that time spent defending against an intervenor's claim, which was also resisted by the BSC, is not properly chargeable against the BSC and City defendants. Undisputed Areas Defendants have not questioned several essential 8 components of plaintiffs' overall burden of proving their entitlement to attorneys' fees and expenses during the wind-down phase of these proceedings. The first is plaintiffs' having prevailed in demonstrating pervasive~~ segregation in Boston public schools and obtaining numerous far-ranging remedial orders, nearly all affirmed by the Court of Appeals and left in place by Supreme Court denials of certiorari. Nor have defendants challenged the inter-relationship between the hours for which compensation is now sought and the several claims as to which plaintiffs gained complete success. See Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 940-41 (1st Cir. 1992). Also undisputed are the hours that plaintiffs' attorneys claimed that they worked, the adequacy of their descriptions of services performed, and the contemporaneity of their diary entries. Clearly they met the record-keeping requirements ordered in Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st cir. 1984). It is clear too that Atkins and Pressman exercised sound billing judgment. There was virtually10 no duplication of services; e.g., it is apparent from an exhibit filed with plaintiffs' first supplemental application that, of the 33 meetings and four days of hearings attended by plaintiffs' counsel pertaining to the Controlled Choice Plan, plaintiffs' attorneys attended together only two of them. It is also 10 Agreement on this point is qualified by defendants' contention, addressed post, that charges by Pressman for conferring with Atkins should be disallowed because they are \"duplicative legal services.\" 9 apparent that work on behalf of plaintiffs' interests was divided so as to avoid duplication. All hours claimed were worked by Atkins and Pressman personally; none was referred to paralegals or associate counsel, any of whom would have required timeconsuming orientation and introduction to the complex, even arcane, issues with which plaintiffs' attorneys had become intimately familiar. Since his office was out of state, Atkins did not charge for time spent traveling to and from Boston. In sum, plaintiffs have made a strong prima facie showing of entitlement to the award of fees and expenses sought in the pending applications. It behooves them to show further that the hours claimed were reasonably spent and that their claimed hourly rates of compensation are reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983}; Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). These essential elements of plaintiffs' applications are disputed by defenda' nts on grounds which we now address. DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS As heretofore noted, most of counsels' services for which plaintiffs now seek compensation related to the Controlled Choice Plan. Of such CCP services, three-fourths comprised their participation in 90-day sessions concerning Phases I and II or in 90-day subcommittee work, and the balance pertained to plaintiffs' unsuccessful attempt, by motion for a preliminary injunction denied May 31, 1989, to delay implementation of the CCP until 1990. Defendants central objection to an award for 10 such services rests on the above-mentioned 1987 Court of Appeals decision vacating the Court's orders pertaining to student assignments; and our award of fees for such services reflects our understanding of the relationship of the appellate court's order to provisions of the 1985 Final Orders not appealed from. In the defendants' view, after September 25, 1987, \"plaintiffs no longer had either the status of 'prevailing' parties on the issue of student assignments or the authority to monitor or review the school defendants' actions in developing and implementing the new plan.\" On the contrary, we find that the Court of Appeals ruling did not nullify any rights of the plaintiff class or deprive it of the victory it had achieved in the area of student assignments. Rather it reaffirmed plaintiffs' entitlement to the non-discriminatory treatment that they had received under the Court plan. It was aimed not at the plaintiffs, but at the lower court, which should no longer \"continue to involve itself\" in student assignments. The appellate decision did not affect paragraphs of the Final Orders on the unified facilities plan, parent councils, and faculty and staff. Nor did it disturb provisions of the Final Orders not appealed from, including the permanent injunction in Paragraph (2) and the detailed consent mechanism contained in paragraph (8) for the gradual transfer to the defendants of general responsibility for managing its schools, a transition begun with disengagement orders in 1982 and advanced by orders in 1984 and 1985 terminating the Court's 11 jurisdiction in several areas of school administration. At every turn, starting with negotiations initiated by the State Board in June 1981 aimed at fashioning a comprehensive consent decree, 11 never achieved, the Court relied upon the cooperation and, where obtainable, the collaboration of the defendants. Thus it came as no surprise that the school defendants, after September 25, 1987, resorted to the paragraph (8) procedures of the Final Orders to facilitate their development and implementation of the CCP, sometimes called the Alves-Willie Plan, aptly described by them as representing \"an evolution, not a counterrevolution.\" Until the opening of the 1989-90 school year, the defendants continued to comply with the Court plan and, except for entry elementary grades, did so until September 1990, three years after the Court of Appeals mandate. Plaintiffs' counsel participated fully and constructively in the development of the CCP, not as strangers or volunteers, as defense counsel has suggested in opposing an award of fees, but at the repeated request of the defendants. The details of their services in this regard are set forth in affidavits appended to plaintiffs' applications. Generally speaking, as soon as an executive summary of the proposed new Plan was available on February 9, 1989, BSC's general counsel mailed copies to parties to the paragraph (8) 90- 11 The Court's memorandum dated August 2, 1983 acknowledged the first State Board monitoring report as \"a long step toward a common ground from which the parties can discuss and confront issues of compliance and non-compliance in an intelligent and informed fashion.\" (emphasis added) 12 day process, including plaintiffs, with an assurance that they would receive complete copies when available. Promptly, on February 13, Atkins and Pressman replied with a five-page letter, copied to counsel for other 90-day process parties, raising various issues for discussion, including facilities and programs, seat allocations, transfers of students on the waiting list and opportunities for black pupiis to attend school in East Boston. All these and other issues raised in plaintiffs' letter were agenda items at several meetings moderated by the State Board. 12 Three series of 90-day process meetings were convened, all at the request of the school defendants, as follows: on February 27, 1989, the Boston School Committee approved the following order: ORDERED, That the School Committee approve the Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan submitted on December 28, 1988 and amended by the School Committee on February 7, 1989 and February 27, 1989, and authorize the School Department to undertake the necessary preparations for implementation of the plan, subject to further modification pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph 8 of the Final Orders in Morgan v. O'Reilly. (emphasis added) On July 26, 1989, BSC General Counsel asked state Board counsel to convene a 90-day process to consider a package of school closings and consolidations, stating in part: 12 Former Superintendent Wilson's affidavit dated May 25, 1989 stated, at paragraph 15: \"During February and March and April, my staff brought to my attention numerous additional concerns and recommendations for changes in the Plan raised during the course of the paragraph 8 proceedings. I considered them carefully and recommended to the Committee that it approve a number of amendments to the Plan based on those recommendations.\" 13 If you believe that these closings and consolidations conflict with any operative Court orders, the school defendants ask you to determine, pursuant to paragraph 8, that these closings and consolidations are emergency matters, due to the budget crisis, which the School Committee may adopt without negotiation or that these closings and consolidations effect insubstantial modifications of court orders and therefore need not be negotiated. If you determine that negotiations are required, we would appreciate your convening the parties immediately and attempting to expedite negotiations so that these closings and consolidations may be implemented in September 1989. (emphasis added) On December 12, 1989, the BSC adopted the following motion (12 affirmative, 1 absent): Resolved that the School Committee direct their Office of General Counsel to initiate the 90-day process required for modification of orders in Morgan vs. O'Reilly, so that the second phase of the new Student Assignment Plan adopted herewith may be implemented. (emphasis added) Continuing reliance by the BSC on the assistance of plaintiffs' attorneys regarding student assignments was demonstrated repeatedly during the development of the CCP. For example, in April 1989, the BSC established a three-member independent commission to review the pattern of actual assignments made for the 1989-90 school year, to be composed of one member appointed jointly by the City and the School Department, one member appointed by the plaintiffs, and one member appointed by the State Board of Education. By letter dated August 28, 1989, plaintiffs indicated that Pressman would 14 be their representative. For another, early in 1989 the BSC appointed a High School Student Assignment Subcommittee chaired by member Rosina T. (\"Kitty\") Bowman, to recommend development of a viable assignment plan for high school students. Plaintiffs designated Pressman to be their representative on the \"Bowman Subcommittee\" and, on this assignment, he spent 17.5 hours attending eight subcommittee meetings from October 30, 1989 through February 5, 1990. The collaborative relationship between plaintiffs' counsel and the BSC extended to implementation of the CCP and carried forward until the end of 1992. For example, on March 11, 1992, school committee counsel wrote to plaintiffs, in pertinent part as follows: Enclosed are several documents related to the proposed modifications to the Student Assignment Plan. The School Committee adopted the proposal (Attachment 1) conditioned upon satisfactory discussions among the parties. For another, on November 23, 1992, Pressman made a presentation to a BSC subcommittee at English High School with respect to proposed policy changes in the student assignment plan. We find that all the hours spent by Atkins and Pressman preparing and presenting proposals to other participants in the 90-day process negotiations and attending all 90-day process meetings and in related studies, consultations and presentations are compensable under 1988. Several legal theories support this award. One is quantum merrit: the defendants invited counsel's participation and benefitted substantially from it in a 15 context where it knew that plaintiffs' had received from defendants prior awards of attorneys' fees in the same litigation, that they had applied for and expected to receive further awards and that plaintiffs' counsel rendered their services in good faith. See Newfield House, Inc. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Public Welfare, 651 F.2d 32, 38 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1114 (1981); see also Transnational Corp. v. Rodie \u0026 Ursillo, Ltd., 920 F.2d 1066, 1070-71 (1st Cir. 1990). Another is that the 90-day process was, from plaintiffs' standpoint and interests, the equivalent of the further hearing authorized by the Court of Appeals in its September 25, 1987 decision, see, 831 F.2d at 326, except that plaintiffs' submissions were addressed to the school defendants rather than to the District Court, and except further that plaintiffs' submissions were not limited to student assignments but pertained also to other matters such as the condition and consolidation of schools, availability of textbooks, proposals of parent groups, etc. It was also in the nature of reasonable post-judgment monitoring, see Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1986); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), whereby plaintiffs sought and obtained assurance that the desegregation already achieved did not unravel to their disadvantage. Failure to Enjoin CCP Plaintiffs' application regarding services in connection with their unsuccessful attempt by motion filed May 16 15, 1989 to enjoin establishment of the CCP rests also on an additional basis: defendants obligation under paragraph (2) of the Final Orders and 42 u.s.c.  1983 generally to avoid resegregation of Boston's public schools. Plaintiffs contend that some of the CCP's provisions were objectionable on those grounds and that their efforts to change or eliminate objectionable provisions met with substantial if partial success. Plaintiffs point to various revisions in the new Plan made by defendants which had the effect of blunting plaintiffs' objections prior to the Court hearings on their motion. For example, the BSC modified a formula objectionable to plaintiffs for calculating relevant zone racial-ethnic percentages so as to exclude from the calculation students unavailable for assignment to zone schools. For another, the CCP as drafted would have reduced desegregation in East Boston, until the BSC approved a proposal by plaintiffs to permit black students from outside the North Zone to attend schools in East Boston on a space-available basis. On the other hand, plaintiffs' proof of likely resegregation fell short of demonstrating irreparable harm to the plaintiff class or an intent by defendants to turn back the clock to the era of de jure segregation. Quite the opposite: defendants' acceptance of changes sought by plaintiffs, together with other evidence, satisfied the Court that defendants' good faith in promoting desegregation remained strong. Hence plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied. Should plaintiffs nevertheless recover fees for time 17 spent by their attorneys (totalling 114.83 hours) preparing and arguing their motion for an injunction? Yes, in our opinion, principally because the claims presented in plaintiffs' motion were essentially an extension of claims they had been advocating throughout the previous decade and were interconnected with claims as to which plaintiffs prevailed. The law in this area has been well settled since first explicated in Hensley, 461 U.S. 424. It has been construed repeatedly in cases in this circuit. See,~, Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 940-41; Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School Dist. v. Pontarelli, 788 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1986f; Aubin v. Fudala, 782 F.2d 287 (1st Cir. 1986). Where claims presented by plaintiffs in a civil rights suit are related and plaintiffs have won substantial relief, attorneys fees under 1988 should not be reduced because of a discrete unsuccessful claim by plaintiffs. In the instant case, plaintiff "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_382","title":"Compliance 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":null,"dc_date":["2004/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance 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/382"],"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":["25 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\nJ. 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: Christopher Heller 1 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 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp;. Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Arm 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 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 323 Center Street 200 Tower Buildin! Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ig Christopher Heller Pa-. Page 3 of 3 0.!- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION received may 1 4 200^ DKEGREGATIO? fSoNITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FIT.iNG DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12, 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (^ERSD) 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-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. 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 3Little Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1.The 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 Afincan-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 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\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 Afidcan-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. 1 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 (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the year\nelimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were mvolved 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 Enghsh teachers, etc.).  LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerlw 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 Comphance 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 Comphance 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 further supervision and monitoring. The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 iProposed 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 Afiucan-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 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 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. Opinion, p. 152 (LRSD ackno^vledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required\n(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 Comphance 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 A s reference to testing data, it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part. ^'1* A X WAA w A IO XXX XXX Uj 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\n(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 Peading 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 admimster 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 admini stratinn 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. 7 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, EL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5 1Proposed 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 o. 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\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 LRSD s Afihcan-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 Afincan-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. 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 Readingkanguage 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 imder  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. S^ 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 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 1 Iof 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 Afincan- 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 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 8 j iComprehensive 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 OUT 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 admimstration 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), Knsta 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 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 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. 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 Watsons principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two armual program evaluations to ADE. 10 t11. 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 quahfications 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, whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with similar or qualifications. \u0026gt;5 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 hhat, 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 Comphance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving Afincan-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 ComTnirtee 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 jresented 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 Pendley 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 2002^February 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 2002F ebruary 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 MayOctober 2003 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 moject (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval.___________ 28. Write Section 2.7.1 \"inal Compliance Report or federal court and file with Court. 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 Team JAppendix 1 Proposed IL-Rl ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: 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 jn 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 to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. or 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. Whoiey, 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\nI? to assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. I s 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). s I 3 I 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. i j 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. C, D. 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 Joeilen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development u Council. 46, 123-124.) 7Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPNCODE: 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\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 ?9t a k i n g ROBB-Y 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 slippery, often rocky road, v/ith 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 fife 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\n 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 B Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting, You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbeli Canyon, Mora. NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-mail\nRobbychampion@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\ne Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or wdl extend for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE 1: 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 2002 t. a\nltj 3l jg: JE St a JI r X I 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, ey 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 TeacherJmduction 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 e 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\nqualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data collection. .7. Determine a realistic schedule for coUecting data. 8. Create a system for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase EI 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 wiU be shaped, to use a quantitative or a , quahtative model  or a mixture of the two. In the design phase, you make oer major decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to do an in-depth case study, wheer to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at\nwww.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ champion234.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 III\nPREPARE TO REPORT 1. Determine which audiences wiU 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 smdents, and hallway displays of smdent 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 aU 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 accomplish ail the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project Enlist steering committee members, partners, graduate smdents 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-quaiit)' 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 reaUy 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. B JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79John 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, pa 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 Comphance The carts 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 , which are to be subjected to a comprehensive program evaluation cJocument at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail reg^dmg mteiventions / scaflFolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of .African Amencan students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited pursuant to Section 2.7 . . 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' hp nntfitinn oorta A J_______ r-.i , , * The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use u 3 DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD of the Observation Survey and the in  r .  -------- ------------------- argument (page 1) 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 EXHIBITmentioned 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. ihc^ly. ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record, OCT. 24.2002 8:06ftM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.E JOHN w. Walker SHAWN CHILDS I John W. Wllker, p.a. Attorne? At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 OR COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKT P^ 8210 Hendeksqn BqaD Lrrtm Sock, Arkansas 722i n Phone: (501) 372-3425  Faz (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcheciydgawbolLaet Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Chris\nThis letter sets forth additional Compliance Plan. We comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD , ----------------* LLiC jUIkOU the dataJ  In tol^TSD attention should be given to the quality of e oata. m_the past, LRSD has used results on the RA and the Observation in consistent Txnth rr  ^nd the Observation SuTvcy in wcvs not nsistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teanherc 4., In addition, because teachers provided scores for to own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the diS newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest .55 must be avoided. :s recognition in the for 2. We are concerned about the .  manner in which the regulation describes the team nropAg-\nprepari^ evaluauons, again in the context of conflict of interest  L - - isavoided,e external consultant needs to write the report and control the conflict of interest In order to insure that context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the guarantee that the external ti' which w= describe,-JI Program Evaluation Procedures do not iizitk , cNfv   .' --------LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. Continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of P desenbed (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example the Board is bXwX'^sSStoe with remediation for students whose petoanc, is oe ow par Studying the actual implementation of these stotuds im an or a re more T' because class membersare so much AcibeiSn^esS Srf i 1 P^rfoxmauce on the Benchmark and Stanford /vcnievement lests. A. satisfactory desenpuon by e School Board :e standards (in all or a representative of the evaluations which it : exhibit I 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/Ri: NO 85S0] @002' . CX^. 24.2002 8:07flM JOHN W WALKER P R N0.9S3 P.3 Page Two October 23, 2002 ^dert^c should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation acmvines m ehstnet schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2), i^onicxiuai . Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations ofprograms deemed pamculmly direcmd to achievement of African American students for the Uidefiuiu: ' necessary to satisfy the court. We would Uke to receive the Boards assurance mat inns is me case. to be indefinite future, not We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. Walker Sincerely, JWW:Ip cc: AU Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RI NO 8580] @003 MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: Dennis Glasgow Gene Jones Compliance Remedy August 9, 2004 Thank you for providing time for Margie and me Wednesday and for making our conversation both pleasant and informative. We are pleased to be invited to participate in the planning for and implementation of the Courts June 30 Compliance Remedy. We will be available as much as necessary to complete the work. The proposed responses to the Compliance Remedy that you shared with us should be helpful to the people to be assigned those tasks. As you refine and update the document, it may be worth considering that the language of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy includes the term statisticians in the list of people to be hired. The language of the list of staff members of the Research, Assessment and Evaluation Department in the proposed response document does not. 1 also note that the term is plural in the Compliance Remedy. Significant tasks ordered by the Compliance Remedy in paragraphs F and G include written notification to Joshua and ODM of the eight programs to be targeted for step 2 evaluations and the quarterly updates. The proposed response document does not include these and may not need to, but they should be prominent on the list of things to do when the staff of the Research, Assessment, and Evaluation Department is assembled. The first of the quarterly updates is due December 1. Thank you for arranging our meeting with the superintendent this Thursday.PROJECTED SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS OF LRSD SCHOOLS BASED ON 2004 ACTAAP ASSESSMENT RESULTS SUMMARY:  Fifteen (15) elementary schools fully met standards for all subgroups in both mathematics and literacy. These schools are not on school improvement status.  Of the remaining nineteen (19) elementary schools that are on school improvement status, seven (7) met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in both math and literacy.  Bale, Baseline, Chicot, Cloverdale (Elementary), Dodd, Fair Park, and Rockefeller met AYP for 1 year. These seven schools can come off school improvement if they make AYP next year.  One elementary school moves up to Year 3 status: Mitchell.  Meadowcliff, Rightsell, and Western Hills are projected to be on alert since they failed to meet AYP for one or more subgroups in mathematics. These schools will be on Year 1 of School Improvement should they fail to meet AYP next spring.  At the middle level Mann and Pulaski Heights Middle Schools met the adequate yearly progress standard. They will remain on Year 1 of School Improvement. The other six middle schools will move up a year on school improvement, five to Year 2 and one (Southwest) to Year 3.  All five high schools were on Alert status last year. Four of them will move to Year 1 status due to not meeting AYP in literacy and math. Parkview met AYP in literacy and math and will move off school improvement status. SCHOOLS THAT MET OR EXCEEDED THE STANDARD IN MATH AND LITERACY FOR 2004: Bale Booker Chicot Dodd Forest Park Geyer Springs Jefferson McDermott Pulaski Heights Romine Wakefield Mann Middle Parkview High School Baseline Carver Cloverdale Elementary Fair Park Fulbright Gibbs Mabelvale Elementary Otter Creek Rockefeller Terry Williams Pulaski Heights Middle received AIIR - A 200H OFFICE OF desegregation monitoringSCHOOLS THAT WERE ON SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STATUS FOR THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: Current Status (Based on 2002-03 Scores) Level/School ELEMENTARY Chicot Year 3 Bale Baseline Fair Park Mitchell Wakefield Brady Cloverdale Dodd Franklin ML King Mabelvale Rockefeller Stephens Washington Watson Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Projected Status (Based on 2003-04 Scores) Year 3 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 3 Off School Improvement Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Off School Improvement Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Subgroup/Subject not meeting AYP All students: Math and Literacy All students\nMath All students: Math African-American students\nMath All students\nMath and Literacy African-American students: Math and Literacy All students: Math and Literacy Comments Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 2 consecutive years Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 1 year Met AYP for 2 consecutive years Met AYP for 1 yearWilson Woodruff Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 All students: Math All students: Math Meadowcliff Alert Rightsell Western Hills Alert Alert African-American students: Math All students: Math All students: Math MIDDLE SCHOOL Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest HIGH SCHOOL Central Hall Fair McClellan Parkview Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Alert Alert Alert Alert Alert Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2 Year 1 Year 1 Year 3 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Not on School Improvement All students: Math and Literacy African American students: Math and Literacy All students: Math All students: Math and Literacy All students: Math and Literacy All students: Math and Literacy African-American students: Literacy All students: Literacy All students: Literacy All students: Literacy Met Safe Harbor provision Met Safe Harbor provision 34% improvement in black students below basic in math compared to last year 88% of white students proficient in literacy Met AYP in literacy and mathEASTI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION FILED U.8. DISTRICT ^URT 'ESN district ARKANSAS JUN 30 2004 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By\n. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OPINION' I. Warning to the General Reader The general reader, if any there be, should realize that educators, like lawyers, have developed their own language. To the extent that time, patience, and skill would permit, I have tried to Gamerize'^ this Memorandum Opinion. I have fallen short, but hope the effort will be of some help. IL Background On September 13,2002,1 entered a Memorandum Opinion (the September 13 Decision) holding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all of its I would be seriously remiss if I did not once again note the tremendous amount of work United States Magistrate Judge Joe 'Hiomas Ray has done on this case. -Bryan Gamer, of Dallas, Texas, has published several excellent books and articles for the legal profession on the use of plain, understandable English. .0 72A Rev.a/82)desegregation obligations set forth iii the January 16,1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the Revised Plan)/ except those obligations contained in  2.7.1, LRSD V. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist, et al., 231F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002)\nafPd, 359 F.3d 957 (8* Cir. 2004). Section 2.7 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. 2.7.1 ensured that the promise made in  2.7 would have teeth by requiring that: Section LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to  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 Afidcan-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. ex 871. As stated above, m the September 13 Decision, I found that LRSD had substantially complied with its obhgations under  2.7 of the Revised Plan\nhowever, I detennined there were numerous, substantial deficiencies in LRSDs efforts to comply with its obligations under 2.7.1. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-1082. The September 13 Decision gave LRSD until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it had substantially complied with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in subparts A, B, and C of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. LRSD has been involved continuously in desegregation litigation since 1956. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at footnote 18. As far as I can tell from the reported cases, LRSD now has the During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as CX871. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)dubious distinction of having been under federal court supervision longer than any other school district in history. Thus, LRSD is well seasoned when it monitoring. comes to court supervision and On November 12, 2002, Joshua Intervenors\" (Joshua) appealed (docket no. 3704) the Septembers Decision. On March 2,2004, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. LRSD V. Joshua, 359 F.3d 957 (8- Cir. 2004). Thus, all aspects of the September 13 Decision are now final and the law of the case. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) seeking complete unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with the obligations imposed under the Compliance Remedy and  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSDs Request for Release from Court Supervision of Its I Desegregation Efforts (docket no. 3856), along with a supporting Memorandum (docket no. 3857). 1 must now decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, and whether it should be released from almost five decades of court supervision. in. The September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy Almost 70% of LRSDs students are African-American. Historically, the academic achievement of many of these students, as gauged by standardized test scores, is low and poses a significant long-term challenge to LRSD teachers and administrators. Of course, because this so-called achievement gap IS a nationwide phenomenon, it is a problem that educators must are '^e Joshua Intervenors are a group of Afiican-American school children.. enrolled in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua some of whom serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski Countv Snecial School District, and the North Little Rock School District. -3- A0 72A (Rev.a/82)I ( ' AO72A (Rev.8/82) confront in schools throughout the-country. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1073-74. Importantly,  2.7 of the Revised Plan promised only that LRSD would implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate Afidcan-American achievement, See docket no. 3410 at 51. However,  2.7.1 went on to require LRSD to assess the  2.7 programs annually in order to determine their effectiveness, and to modify or replace any programs that were shown not to be working to improve African-American achievement. Id. at 148. Read together, the obligations set forth in  2.7 and  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD not only to design academic programs that were int achievement of African-American students, but also to programs to ensure that they were, in fact, effective in improving^ Expressed in the vernacular of my native Scott County, Arkan^\n^ 1 c ise It. id  2.7.1 contained the bacon. These two sections of the Revised Plan are crucially important to the future educational success of a large number of LRSDs current and future students. During the November 2001 hearings on unitary status, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSDs Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum, defined a program assessment as something that is dynamic, it is interactive, its ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. In contrast, she defined a program evaluation as more long term, it may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a series of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report. Id. In other words, a program assessment is a relatively informal process that may not result in much documentation, while a program evaluation is a formal process that always A-AO 72A (Rev.B/82) I i I I I mvolves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan provided that LRSD must make assessmentsnot evaluations-of the  2.7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. However, as early as March 15, 2000, LRSD acknowledged, m its own Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356), that  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated it to prepare evaluations on the key  2.7 programs so that LRSD admimstrators could make an informed decision on the effectiveness of those programs. See LRSDs Interim Compliance Report at 51-55. Furthermore, during her testimony in November of 2001, Dr. Lesley admitted that, even though  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan did not mention anything about LRSDs obligation to prepare program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the  2.7 programs, she and other administrators interpreted that section of the Revised Plan as requinng LRSD to perform evaluations covering the most important  2.7 programs. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Because it is so important to an understanding of the Compliance Remedy, I want to be very clear on this pomt: The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that LRSD has always construed the obligations contained in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as requiring It to prepare formal program evaluations on the key  2.7 programs. See Interim Compliance Report at 51-55\nFinal Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001 (docket no. 3410) at 148\nDr. Lesleys testimony cited in the September 13 Decision, LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077. Since my decision will turn on whether LRSD has properly implemented the September 13, 2002 Compliance Remedy, it is set forth below in full\n-5-Vn. Compliance Remedy 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 Afiican-Amencan 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 details of this compliance remedy are set forth below\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 unprove the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those AO72A (Rev.8/82) i i I i I I I B. C. 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 eliminated. or 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. Nunnery 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 On page 148 of its March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report (docket no. 3410), LRSD flatly stated that it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen separate programs listed on that -6-that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery 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. In practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. D addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determ in p the effectiveness of those programs in improving Afiican- 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. 72A Rev.8/82) D. Joshua must monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan are E. to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. The ODM must also monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and help to ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. 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 LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in this Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. page. During the 2001-02 unitary status hearings, the evidence overwhelmingly established that, as of March 15, 2001, LRSD had not prepared any of those fourteen program evaluations. See LRSD,231'?. Supp.2dat 1079-80. Henceforth, I will refer to these fourteen program evaluations as the Page 148 Evaluations. -7- I I I ILRSD,131 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88 f-emphasis added). Even a casual reading of this Compliance Remedy reveals that it imposed four essential obligations on LRSD, Joshua, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): 1. 2. Preparation of Annual Assessments of  2.7 Program .s LRSD was required to annually assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 during the 2002-2003 school year and the first semester of the 2003-2004 school year and then use those assessments, the more than three years of testing data, and all other relevant available information to determine the effectiveness of those programs and to decide whether any of the programs should be modified or eliminated. LRSD also was required to maintain written records reflecting: (a) the criteria used to assess each program\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether any programs were modified or eliminated\nand (c) the administrators and teachers who were involved in preparing the assessment of each program. I I Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the  2.7 programs implemented during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year and to maintain written records of its armual assessments of each of those programs. I made no mention of LRSD preparing evaluations of  2.7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2,7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform program evaluations. However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the assessment obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing program evaluations. See discussion, supra, at 4-5. Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Because I was tracking the parties own language, I never dreamed the use of the tenns assess and assessment would suddenly create confusion for LRSD administrators in deciding how to comply with subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. Preparation of Page 148 Program Evaluations. I LRSD was required to hire experts to prepare the fourteen program evaluations identified on page 148 of its March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. The Court agreed to accept all program evaluations that had already been prepared by outside consultants and ordered LRSD to hire outside consultants to complete the unfinished program evaluations, which were to be approved by the LRSD Board and filed with the Court no later than March 15, 2003. Finally, as those evaluations were prepared, LRSD was required to use them - to the extent they I -8- AO72A (Rev.e/82)might be useful - in its annual assessment of the effectiveness of the  2.7 programs. 3. Monitoring. Joshuas counsel was required to continue with its monitoring of LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy and to use the procedures set forth in  8.2 of the Revised Plan to resolve any compliance problems that might arise. If Joshua and LRSD were unsuccessful in using the ODM to facilitate and resolve those problems, they were required to bring those compliance issues directly to me for resolution. Finally, the ODM was directed to monitor LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy and to help ensure that LRSD fulfills its obligations specified therein. The sole purpose of subparts D and E the Compliance Remedy was to ensure that, if the ODM was unable to successfully facilitate the resolution of any compliance issues raised by Joshua, those compliance issues would be brought to my attention so that I could resolve them on a timely basis, thereby avoiding any surprises when LRSD filed its Compliance Report. 4. Preparation of Compliance Report. V LRSD was ordered to file a Compliance Report by March 15,2004, documenting its substantial compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. TV. The Parties Compliance Activities after September 13, 2002 A. The Court Clarifies Joshuas Monitoring Obligation. After the entry of the September 13 Decision, LRSD did not seek clarification of any terms used in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations. Based on its silence, I concluded that LRSD understood what it was required to do under the Compliance Remedy, and that it was proceeding apace to meet those obligations. In contrast, on October 1, 2002, Joshuas counsel wrote a letter (docket no. 3680) objecting to the monitoring obligations imposed on them under subpart D of the Compliance Remedy. Among other things, Joshuas counsel challenged the Courts decision to: (1) impose monitoring obligations on them that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM\n-9- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)i and (2) place a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the ODM. Id. By way of relief, Joshuas counsel sought clarification of their monitoring obligations under subpart D ( . of the Compliance Remedy and a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of the ODM monitoring and Joshuas monitoring may be fully developed. Id. On October 11, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3685) clarifying the monitoring obligations imposed on Joshuas counsel under the Compliance Remedy. After noting that Joshua s counsel had been engaged in monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations since at least 1990,1 made it clear that subpart D of the Compliance Remedy only obligated Joshua s counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1091. Because the October 1,2002 letter could be read to suggest that Joshuas counsel would only continue their monitoring role, if ordered to do so by the Court, I also made it clear that: I do not believe I can force Joshuas counsel to perform monitoring duties  something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to do. I will leave it up to Joshua s counsel to decide if they have an ethical and professional duty to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshuas counsel resolves that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directingthem to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan - something I never expected to hear -1 believe I must now clarify Section VII.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows\nJoshua may monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the process for raising compliance issues set forth in  ^-2. et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall -10- XO72A Rev.8/82) present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timfily Id. at 1091. Finally, I emphasized that, regardless of whether Joshuas counsel decided to continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, the ODM staff most certamly will continue their close monitoring ofLRSDs compliance with that section of the Revised Plan. Id. at 1091. My final admonition follows\non the subject of monitoring was as K Joshua s counsel decide to continue their monitoring role, which is independent from the momtonng work performed by the ODM,... I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSDs implementation of its obhgations under  2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I wiU be available to resolve them. I at 1091. B. LRSD Adopts Compliance Plan, Approves Regulation IL-R1, and Designates Areas for  2.7.1 Program Evaluations. On October 10,2002, LRSDs Board of Directors (the Board) adopted a Compliance Plan that was specifically designed to satisfy the Courts Compliance Remedy. See Exhibit A to LRSDs May 14, 2003 Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745)? The 72A Rev.8/82) During the June 14 and 15, 2004 compliance hearing (hereafter referred compliance neanng (hereafter referred to as the ), the Proposed Compliance Plan was introduced into evidence as LRSDs In most respects, the Proposed Compliance Plan is identical to the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October 10, 2002. However, the Proposed Compliance Plan raises a number of questions about the meaning of subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. All of those questions were deleted from the final Compliance Plan approved by the Board on October 10,2002. As will be discussed later, LRSD did not bnng any any of those questions to my attention, or otherwise seek clarification of the requirements of the Exhibit No. 2. Compliance Remedy. -11-Compliance Plan recognized that, in order for LRSD to meet its obligations under the Compliance Remedy, it would have to satisfy three core obligations\n(1) develop a written procedure for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n(2) maintain written records of the criteria used to evaluate each [ 2.7] program\nand (3) repare 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.'\" Id. at 3-5 (emphasis added). Significantly, there is nothing in the Compliance Plan adopted by the Board that suggests LRSD was confused about the meaning of any of the terms in the Compliance Remedy or any of its compliance obligations. Additionally, the Compliance Plan makes it clear that LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy as requiring it to prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to .. .  2.7 . The Compliance Plan also included a detailed Action Plan Time Line that: (1) identified the LRSD employees who were responsible for implementing each activity necessaiy to satisfy the Compliance Remedy\nand (2) provided a schedule for completing each of those activities. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instmction, and Dr. Ken James, LRSD s Superintendent of Schools, were assigned personal responsibility for each of the twenty-eight (28) activities identified by the Action Plan Time Line. Id. at 7-10. Thus, It was up to Dr. Lesley and Dr. James to spearhead the timely implementation of all twenty- eight activities necessary to satisfy the Compliance Remedy. Finally, at the same time it approved the Compliance Plan, the Board also adopted -12- \\O72A Rev.e/82)Regulation IL-Rl, which set forth the written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. See Exhibit A at 2 (docket no. 3745).' According to the Compliance Plan, Regulation IL-Rl established the criteria for preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy LRSDs obligations under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy. On October 24,2002, the Board approved a Program Evaluation Agenda for the 2002- 03 school year that authorized the preparation of evaluations in three broad areas: (1) Elementary literacy\n(2) Secondary literacy\nand (3) the National Science Foundation (NSF) K-12 Math and Science Project. See LRSDs Exhibit No. 3\nODMs March 30, 2004 Report on LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy at 4 (hereinafter referred to as the ODMs Compliance Report) (docket no. 3854). LRSD subsequently construed the 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda as requiring it to prepare only two  2.7.1 evaluations in order to satisfy its ! I I I i I i I obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy: (1) I I a comprehensive Literacy Evaluation\nand (2) a comprehensive Math and Science Evaluation. Of course, Literacy and Math and Science are not programs they are broad I i ! I i I academic areas that roughly correspond to the grouping of college courses into Arts or Sciences. Because LRSD administrators, such as Dr. Lesley, had always constmed  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as requiring LRSD to prepare evaluations of the key  2.7 programs implemented to improve African-American achievement, the Board should have been aware that I I I During the compliance hearing. Regulation IL-Rl was introduced into evidence Joshuas Exhibit No. 2. as I -13- AO72A (Rev.a/ea)they were beingtoo general in dividing the academic universe into Literacy and Math/Science and then preparing a global evaluation of each of those areas. Nevertheless, in its March 12,2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837), LRSD contends that these two  2.7.1 evaluations fully satisfy all of its obligations under subpart A of the Compliance Remedy/ C. Joshua Invokes Facilitation Provision of Revised Plan. On November 4, 2002, Ms. Ann Marshall, the Director of the ODM, wrote Joshuas counsel a letter confirming that she: (a) had received their November 1,2002 letter requesting that she facilitate the dispute that had arisen between Joshua and LRSD regarding the adequacy of LRSD s Compliance Plan\nand (b) was willing to facilitate that dispute.' I Thereafter, I was never contacted by Joshuas counsel or anyone else about the outcome of the ODMs facilitation efforts. Because subpart D of the Compliance Remedy obligated Joshuas counsel to contact me only if the facilitation was unsuccessful, I concluded from the parties silence (and the ODMs silence) that the ODM had successfully resolved this dispute. On November 6, 2002,1 wrote Ms. Marshall to reinforce the crucially important role I expected herto playmmomtoring LRSDs compliance withits obligations under the Compliance As I explain later in some detail, I was notmade aware ofLRSDsPropoW Compliance Plan and Regulation IL-Rl until two months after LRSD filed its March 12, 2004 Comphance Report. LRSD did not file the October 10,2002 Compliance Plan with the Court until March 14 2003.  I Section 8.2 of the Revised Plan required the parties to use the ODM to facilitate the resolution of any compliance issues. Since the words facilitation and facilitate come directly TT*r\\-m fkio \"D c\u0026amp;irt Din., T _____j.i____... from the Revised Plan, I will use them. A copy of Ms. Marshalls November 4,2002 letter, marked Exhibit A, is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. -14- ^O72A Rev.8/82)I Remedy?* The instructions to her were: It seems to me it would be best if you worked with the parties toward implementing the remedies\nbut you should feel free to contact me in writing if a serious impasse develops. In other words, as long as everything is going along smoothly, I see no reason for you to make regular reports to me in this respect. - J. -------------- A wuywi. I emphasize, however, that you should feel free to call on me if serious problems anse. Neither the parties nor the ODM ever contacted me to request that I become involved in resolving any compliance disputes or other serious impasses between LRSD and Joshua, despite the requirement for such contact by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and my November 6,2002 letter. D. The Six Completed or Substantially Completed Page 148 Evaluations. The September 13 Decision stated that the Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. LRSD, 273 F. Supp. 2d at 1088. By the time I entered that decision, LRSD had completed or substantially completed six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. These SIX evaluations covered the following programs\n(1) Pre-K-3 Literacy\n(2) NSF Math and Science Project\n(3) Charter Schools\n(4) English as a Second Language\n(5) SEDL*^ Program at Southwest Middle School\nand (6) Collaborative Action Team Project. By December 31,2002, LRSDs Board had approved all six of these Page 148 Evaluations. II A copy of my November 6, 2002 letter, marked Exhibit B, is attached to this Memorandum Opinion. ^SEDL is an acronym for Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. ODMs Compliance Report at 8 (docket no. 3854). See -15- AO72A (Rev.8/82)E. The Eight Remaining Page 148 Evaluations. LRSD contracted with Dr. Steven Ross, a program evaluation expert and a member of the faculty at the University of Memphis, to prepare guidelines for completing or revising the eight remaining evaluations.'^ These eight evaluations covered the following programs\n(1) Middle Schools\n(2) Extended Year Schools\n(3) HIPPY\n'\"* (4) Campus Leadership Teams\n(5) Summer School - Elementary\n(6) Lyceum Scholars Program\n(7) Onward to Excellence - Watson Elementary\nand (8) Vital Link. In late November of 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document captioned Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD.'^ On January 10,2003, LRSD contracted with Dr. Ross and two other program evaluation experts. Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, to prepare these eight program evaluations. Dr. Ross prepared or completed evaluations I on Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY, and Campus Leadership Teams\nDr. Moore prepared or completed evaluations on Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education- and Dr. McNeal completed evaluations on Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School. j On March 14,2003, LRSD filed all fourteen ofthe Page 148 Evaluations with the Court, as required by subpart C of the Compliance Remedy. See LRSDs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations (docket no. 3745). The six evaluations, which were substantially completed as of 1 t I 'A number of years ago, Joshua formally agreed that Dr. Ross has the qnalificatinns necessary to prepare program evaluations. 'hippy is an acronym for Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters. See ODMs Compliance Report (docket no. 3854) at 8. '^During the compliance hearing, this document was introduced as LRSDs Exhibit No. 5. -16- ^O72A flev.e/82)September 13, 2002, are bound together in Volumes I and II. The remaining eight Page 148 Evaluations are bound together in Volumes HI and IV. On April 14,2003, Joshua filed Comments on the Submission of Page 148 Evaluations. (Docket no. 3752.) These comments identify and discuss numerous alleged deficiencies, most of which are contained in the eight Page 148 Evaluations that the Board after January 1, 2003. were completed and approved by F. Dr. Lesley and Dr. James Resign. On March 14, 2003, the same day LRSD filed the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations, Dr. Lesley, who was responsible for overseeing the preparation of those evaluations, resigned. and, two months later. Dr. Janies, LRSDs Superintendent, also resigned. As indicated ( ) previously, LRSDs Compliance Plan had assigned Dr. Lesley and Dr. James direct responsibility for each of the twenty-eight time line activities necessary for LRSD to implement the Compliance '^During the compliance hearing, these fourteen program evaluations were introduced as LRSDs Exhibit No. 13. During its implementation of the Revised Plan in 1998 through early 2001, LRSD originally intended to use its own Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) I to prepare the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. Dr. Kathy Lease was the Assistant Superintendent who headed PRE and reported to Dr. Lesley. See ODMs Compliance Report at 2. According to Dr. Lesley s testimony during the November 2001 hearings on unitary status. Dr. Lease dropped the ball in preparing these evaluations, which resulted in only a few partially completed and woefully inadequate evaluations being available on March 15,2001, the deadline for LRSD to file its Compliance Report seeking unitary status. Additionally, Dr. Lesley testified that, in her opimon, no one in PRE-including Dr. Lease-had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. See LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1077-81. I In early 2001, Dr. Lease resigned and left LRSD for other job opportunities. Since that time, PRE has functioned with only a statistician and several support employees, but no one was hired to replace Dr. Lease or take over and operate the department. In November of2003, LRSD appointed the statistician as the acting head of PRE. As a result, since Dr. Leases departure in early 2001, LRSD has essentially functioned without a meaningful Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. See ODMs Compliance Report at 6. -17- KO72A Rev.B/82)Remedy. i Thus, less than a year after the September 13 Decision, LRSD lost both of the crucially important leaders to whom all responsibility had been assigned for implementing LRSDs Compliance Plan. Both Dr. James and Dr. Lesley had been deeply involved for years in LRSDs implementation of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan, and both were thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of satisfying judicially imposed desegregation obligations. The almost simultaneous departures of Dr. James and Dr. Lesley during the early stages ofLRSDs implementation of its Compliance Plan clearly created problems for LRSD in its compliance efforts. In the ODMs Compliance Report, the authors observe that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation ofLRSDs Compliance Plan, and the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in filling those positions with acting or interim employees created a period of some uncertainty for LRSD. Id. at 5. In June of2003, LRSD appointed an Interim Superintendent to replace Dr. James. Later that month, on June 26, 2003, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who previously had been the Director of i I LRSDs Math and Science Department, was appointed to succeed Dr. Lesley as Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum. According to the Compliance Plans Action Plan Time Line, Mr. Glasgow originally was assigned responsibility for only two of the twenty-eight time line activities. Although it was not mentioned in LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3837), during the recent compliance hearing, Mr. Glasgow testified that, on March 18,2003, he assumed responsibility for all of Dr. Lesleys twenty-eight activities under the Compliance Plan. In August of 2003, after the Interim Superintendent, hired only three months earlier, left that position, LRSD hired Dr. Morris Holmes as the second Interim Superintendent. Dr. Holmes -18- AO72A (Rev.a/82)has continued to serve as Interim Superintendent through the date of this Memorandum Opinion 18 LRSDs Compliance Report does not address what role, if any. Dr. Holmes had in implementing the Compliance Plan. It seems that Dr. Holmes or someone else should have been assigned I responsibility for the twenty-eight time line activities that had been assigned to Dr. James in the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan\nbut the Compliance Report is silent on this point. G. LRSD Files Its Compliance Report Seeking Release from Court Supervision. When LRSD filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) on March 12,2004, IQ  it was supported by documents attached to it as Exhibits A through G. According to LRSD, the documents attached to the Compliance Report establish that it has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy and is entitled to be released from all fiirther court supervision and monitoring. A careful reading of the Compliance Report reveals a number of revelations that cast LRSDs efforts in a less than favorable light. First, the Report states that: (a) in October of2002, less than sixty days after the Courts September 13 Decision, Joshuas counsel raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan\n(b) subsequently, Joshuas counsel invoked the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set forth in Revised Plan 8.2\" and [the parties] met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate .5, an agreement\nand (c) the parties last such meeting with Ms. Marshall was on February 28,2003, but the parties failed to reach an agreement on Joshuas or 'On June 11,2004, the Board announced that it hired Mr. Roy Gregory Brooks to serve as LRSDs new Superintendent of Schools. It is my understanding that sometime in July August Mr. Brooks will assume his new duties as Superintendent. During the compliance hearing, this document was introduced into evidence as LRSDs Eichibit No. 14. -19- AO72A (Rev.B/82)( AO72A (Rev.e/82) objections to the adequacy of the Compliance Plan. See Comphance Report (docket no. 3837) at 1-2. Thus, LRSDs March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshalls facilitation efforts in late 2002 had failed-neither the parties nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D ofthe Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002 letter to Ms. Marshall Second, LRSD contends that, by failing to bring the parties disagreement over the Comphance Plan to the Courts attention, Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Id. at 1-2. As I explained earlier, the sole purpose of subpart D ofthe Compliance Remedy was to require the parties to bring potential compliance problems to my attention. as soon as they arose, so that I could resolve them early enough to prevent them fi-om becoming stumbling blocks to LRSDs compliance with its obligations under the other subparts ofthe Compliance Remedy. After the ODMs facilitation efforts failed, it must have soon become obvious to LRSDs counsel and the ODM that Joshuas counsel was not going to notify the Court. It seems to me that, at this point, both LRSD and ODM should have realized that it was in LRSDs best interest to let me determine, in March of 2003-while there was still time to do something about it~if the compliance issues raised by Joshua had merit. In a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 195 7 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshuas counsel-even if they are to be cnticized-against the Aftican-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSDs classrooms. I believe I would be ill advised to adopt waiver as a way to avoid reaching the merits of the adequacy of the board-approved -20- i I I I iCompliance Plan. In other words, I find that it would be inappropriate for me to default approximately 17,000 LRSD students. Third, LRSD acknowledges in the Compliance Report (docket no. 3837) that it was required to do two things to satisfy the core obligations imposed by subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy: (1) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 of the Revised Plan to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (2) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 of the Revised Plan to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Report at page 2, paragraph 4 (docket no. 3837\nLRSDs Exhibit No. 14) (emphasis added). To satisfy this first core obligation, which is contained in subpart B of the Compliance Remedy, the Compliance Report states that the Board adopted Regulation IL-Rl. As indicated previously, the Board adopted Regulation IL-Rl on October 10,2002. But, LRSD did not make I this key Regulation an Exhibit to either its March 14,2003 Notice of Filing Evaluations Pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy (docket no. 3745) or its March 12,2004 Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). On May 12, 2004, after I had been unable to locate this document anywhere in the record, I entered an Order (docket no. 3864) requiring that LRSD provide a copy I of Regulation IL-Rl. The next day, LRSD filed its Response (docket no. 3865), which attached I Regulation IL-Rl as Appendix 1 to Exhibit A of that document. Regulation IL-Rl contained the following procedures that were to be followed in preparing all future  2.7.1 program evaluations: 1 -21- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I i (1) Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. (2) Agree on the necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question: Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (3) 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 program with more potential for the improvement and remediation of AO 72A (Rev.8/82) I II I I I (4) (5) Afiican-American students. (See  2.7.1 of the Revised Designation and Education Plan and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g. dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to Superintendent\nCabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved) and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). \u0026gt;5 The team preparing the program evaluations had to meet to monitor the completion of assignments\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nand to formulate recommendations ... for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the -22-I improvement of Afiican-American achievement. (6) (7) (8) A final draft of the program evaluation had to be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. After the program evaluation was approved by the Board, a copy of the complete report had to be made available to the ODM and Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of the work to evaluate the process and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluation. See Regulation IL-RI at 3-7 (emphasis added). In paragraph 8 of the Compliance Report, LRSD states that it satisfied the second core obligation specified in subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, by doing the following things: (1) (2) Dr. Steve Ross was hired to prepare evaluations of the Districts elementary and secondary literacy programs. Ultimately, Dr. Ross authored the global Literacy Evaluation, which the Board approved in November of2003. See Exhibit F to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837).^ Dr. Don Wold, a retired member of the faculty at UALR, authored the global Math and Science Evaluation, which covered the overall math and science curricula (grades K-12) that LRSD had implemented with the grant it received ^As indicated previously, during the compliance hearing, the Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSDs Exhibit No. 14. -23- AO72A (Rev.S/82)from the NSF. The Board approved this evaluation in December 2003. See Exhibit G to Compliance Report (docket no. 3837). According to the Compliance Report, these two global evaluations satisfy all of LRSDs obligations under subpart A ofthe Compliance Remedy and constitute substantial compliance with the obligations contained in  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Ominously, the Compliance Report says nothing about whether these two evaluations complied with the mandatory requirements of Regulation IL-Rl. H. The ODMs Compliance Report on LRSDs Implementation ofthe Compliance Remedy. On March 30, 2004, the ODM filed its Compliance Report (docket no. 3854)^ commenting on various aspects of LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy. The first four pages of the ODMs Compliance Report re-plow the now largely irrelevant events related to LRSDs earlier compliance efforts under the Revised Plan.\"- The remaining nineteen pages of the Compliance Report contain Findings and Conclusions that, for the most part, criticize LRSDs compliance efforts. Among the more significant Findings and Conclusions in the ODMs Compliance Report are the following: . (1) As of September 13,2002, the date the Court imposed the Compliance Remedy, LRSD had implemented at leastforty-six programs designed to improve African- I During the compliance hearing, the ODMs Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as LRSDs Exhibit No. 15. -\"The September 13 Decision addressed in detail all of the events described in these four pages ofthe ODMs Compliance Report. -24- ^0 72A Rev.8/82)I American achievement under  2.7 of the Revised Plan?\" Id. at 10. I AO72A (Rev.8/82) (2) (3) (4) The ODM had difficulty getting LRSD administrators to identify the specific  2.7 programs that would be evaluated under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD administrators finally acknowledged to the ODM that the program evaluation agenda for the 2002-03 school year would include only elementary literacy, secondary literacy, and the NSF math and science project. LRSD administrators never explained to the ODM which  2.7 programs would be covered in the literacy and math and science evaluations. Id. at 12. While the Compliance Remedy directed LRSD to use all available testing data in assessing the effectiveness of the  2.7 programs, LRSD only did so in the Evaluation of the Math and Science Programs. (Exhibit G to LRSDs Compliance Report.) In the Literacy Program Evaluation (Exhibit F to LRSDs Compliance Report), LRSD limited the testing data to the SAT9 and the benchmark literacy exams. Id. at 14. Subpart B of the Compliance Remedy required LRSD to maintain written records reflecting the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of programs. LRSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. The ODM concluded that, while Exhibit C to LRSDs Compliance Report describes the annual program modifications for elementary and secondary literacy and math, there is no ^During the compliance hearing, LRSD witnesses correctly pointed out that the chart on page 10 of the ODMs Compliance Report was flawed. Among other things, a number of programs are listed twice, and some of the things that are listed as programs are not. -25-( AO 72A (Rev.8/82) (5) (6) (7) discussion of annual program modifications for science.^'* Id. at 15. The ODMs Compliance Report noted numerous shortcomings in the Literacy Program Evaluation. Id. at 1677. However, the most serious criticism was that the evaluation draws no conclusions about the extent to which student performance might be affected by program components, such as Reading Recovery or Accelerated Reader, nor does it correlate any teaching practices with student achievement. Id. at 18. The ODMs most serious criticism of the Math and Science Evaluation was that it does not offer data relative to the level of uniformity of program implementation and does not identify which  2.7 programs most directly improved the academic achievement of African-American students in math and science courses. Id. at 19. By the time the Court entered its September 13 Decision, six of the fourteen Page 148 Evaluations had already been completed or substantially completed by outside consultants. Subpart C of the Compliance Remedy provided that the Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. Between October 24, 2002, and December 19,2002, the Board voted to approve these six evaluations which covered the following programs: (a) Pre K-3 Literacy\n(b) NSF Math and Science\n(c) Charter School\n(d) English as a Second Language\n(e) 2'Although not mentioned in the ODMs Compliance Report, Exhibit C also fails to discuss the reasons for making each of the modifications in the math and literacy programs, or and how those modifications were expected to improve the effectiveness of those programs. -26-SEDL Program.- Southwest Middle School\nand (f) Collaborative Action Team. The ODMs Compliance Report does not contain any significant criticism of these six evaluations. Id. at 20. (8) (9) As of September 13,2002, eight ofthe Page 148 Evaluations still remained to be prepared. Under subpart C of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD was obligated to hire outside consultants to prepare those eight evaluations and the\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_793","title":"Purchasing","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":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Purchasing"],"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/793"],"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":["310 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\nRECEIVED JUL 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DATE: June 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools (JZI FROM: SUBJECT: /VChip Jones, Manager of Support Services [^Charlie Neal, Director of Purchasing Corrected Copy of Purchasing Policy Attached is a corrected copy of the purchasing policy to replace that submitted for first reading on June 19, 1991. The substantive changes are: a. Section 1-101\nRewritten. b. Section 1-108\nLast sentence added to clarify useage of singular and plural words. c. Section 1-108 (13)\nAdded subsection (o) to exempt commodities purchased for resale. d. Section 2-105\nLast line should have read, \"involved or when special knowledge or skills are needed.\"BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT POLICY SECTION GENERAL PROVISIONS Purpose: The primary purposes of this policy are\nTo simplify, clarify and update the policy governing procurement by the District. To permit the continued development of procurement regulations and procedures. To provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in the District's procurement activities. To ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the procurement system of this school district. To provide increased economy in District procurement activities by fostering effective competition. To provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity. 1-101 General Principles of Applicable Law\nThe Little Rock School Districts Procurement Policy shall be governed by the applicable laws of the State of Arkansas. 1-102 Obligation of Good Faith\nAll parties involved in the negotiation, performance, or administration of procurement transactions or contracts are required to act in good faith. tl Good faith II means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. 1-103 Application\n1 The policy shall apply to every expenditure of District funds or funds controlled by the District, regardless of their source, including state and federal assistance monies, under any contract or procurement action for commodities or contractual services. District commodities. It shall also apply to the disposal of Nothing in this policy or in regulations promulgated hereunder shall prevent the District from complying with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift, bequest, or cooperative agreement.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 2 1-104 Severability\nIf any provision of this policy or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of application of this policy which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, coid to this end the provisions of this policy are declared to be severable. 1-105 Current Policies Repealed\nThe following policies are rescinded and replaced by provisions contained herein\nEPS CODE DJ EPS CODE DJA EPS CODE DJC EPS CODE DJF EPS CODE DJG EPS CODE EDA EPS CODE GBI TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: PURCHASING PURCHASING AUTHORITY BIDDING REQUIREMENTS PURCHASING PROCEDURES VENDOR RELATIONS RECEIVING AND WAREHOUSING STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS 1-106 Current Policies Amended: The following policies, or all other policies or parts of policies containing provisions which may be in conflict or inconsistent herewith, are hereby amended and the application of this policy shall prevail. EPS CODE KHA EPS CODE DI EPS CODE DIA EPS CODE DK TITLE: TITLE\nTITLE: TITLE: GIFTS TO THE SCHOOLS FISCAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING INTRA SCHOOL FUNDS DISBURSEMENTS 1-107 Determinations\nWritten determinations and findings required by this policy shall be retained in the appropriate official contract file of the Purchasing office for a period of five (5) years. 1-108 Definitions\nThe following words shall have the meanings as defined whenever they appear in this policy or associated implementing regulations or contracts, unless: (a) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or (b) a different definition is prescribed for a particular policy provision or regulation. Also, unless the context requires otherwise, words in the singular include the plural, and those in the plural include the singular.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 3 (1) Business means any corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, joint stock company, joint venture, or any other private legal entity. (2) Commodities means all supplies, goods, materials. equipment, machinery, facilities, personal property and services to include personal and professional. (3) Construction means the process of building. altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing any public structure or building, or other public improvement of any kind to any public real property. It does not include the routine operation, repair, or maintenance of existing structures, buildings, or real property. (4) Contract means all types of District agreements. regardless of what they may be called, for the procurement or disposal of commodities, services, or construction. Collective bargaining agreements between the District and its employees are excluded from coverage under this policy. (5) Contract Modification means any written alteration in specification, delivery point, rate of delivery, period of performance, price, quantity, or other provision of any contract accomplished by mutual action of the parties to the contract. (6) governmental body. Contractor means any person having a contract with a (7) Cooperative purchasing means procurement conducted by or on behalf of more than one public procurement unit. (8) or characteristic. Data means recorded information, regardless of form (9) Designee means a duly authorized representative of a person holding a superior position. (10) Debarment means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids, requests for proposals, requests for quotes, or the award of a contract by the District for a specified period of time commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, the failure, or the inadequacy of performance. (11) Employee means an individual drawing a salary from a governmental body, whether elected or not. (12) Excess commodities means commodities having a remaining useful life but which are no longer required by the using organization in possession of the commodities.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 4 (13) Exempt commodities and services means those categories of commodities and services that are exempt from competitive bidding. The categories are\n(a) Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. (b) Fees, including medical and physician fees. (c) Freight and storage charges and demurrage. (d) Licenses. (e) (f) Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. Membership in professional, trade, and other similar associations. (g) Postage. (h) Taxes. (i) Services of visiting speakers, lecturers, and performing artists. (j) Travel expense items, such as room and board and transportation charges, (k) Utility services or equipment which is defined, recognized, and regulated by the Arkansas Public Service Commission as a monopoly offering. (1) Professional and consultant services except as may be provided elsewhere in this policy. (m) Published books, manuals, maps, periodicals, films, tapes, diskettes, technical pamphlets, copyrighted material, informational and educational resource material, and other educational program support material when appropriately designated. (n) Items, components, or parts that would be compatible or otherwise cause incompatibility when used with or added to an existing set or system. (o) Commodities procured for resale in bookstores, canteens, gift shops and other similar operations. However, commodities procured under this definition shall not be shared, sold or transferred as a method of circumventing policy or regulation.Little Roc)c School District Procurement Policy Page 5 (14) Grant means the furnishing of assistance, public or private, whether financial or otherwise, to any person to support a program authorized by the Board of Directors. (15) May denotes the permissive. (16) Person means any business, individual, union. committee, club, other organization, or group of individuals. (17) Procurement means buying, purchasing, renting. leasing, or otherwise acquiring any commodities, services, or construction. It also includes all functions that pertain to the obtaining of any commodity, service, or construction, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contracts, and all phases of contract administration. Procurement Official or Purchasing Official means (18) the person duly authorized to enter into and administer contracts and ma)te written determinations with respect The term also includes an authorized representative thereto. acting within the limits of authority. (19) Regulation means the administrative instructions developed to interpret and define applicable policy, and to prescribe the requirements, procedures, and practices necessary to implement that policy. (20) Services means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a contractor, not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports which are merely incidental to the required performance. This term includes professional and personal services but does not include employment agreements or collective bargaining agreements. (21) Shall means the imperative. (22) State Contract means a contract for the procurement of commodities or services awarded and administered by the State of Arlcansas. (23) Surplus commodities means any commodities no longer having any use to the District. This includes obsolete commodities, scrap materials, and nonexpendable supplies and equipment that have completed their useful life cycle.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 6 (2U) Siis pens ion means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids, requests for proposals, requests for quotes, or the award of a contract by the District for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation, or during any legal proceedings that may ensue because a person is suspected upon probable cause of engaging in criminal, fraudulent or improper conduct, or failure or inadequacy of perfoiroance which may lead to debarment.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 7 SECTION 2 - AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE 2-101 Designated Purchasing and Contracting Official: The designated legal purchasing agent for the Little Rock School District is the Director of Purchasing. This appointment is in accordance with Title 6, Chapter 21, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. 2-102 Purchasing Director's Authority: Except as otherwise expressly provided in this policy, the authority of the Purchasing Director encompasses procurement of all commodities, services, and construction on behalf of the Little Rock School District, regardless of the source of funding. 2-103 Responsibilities of the Purchasing Director: The Director of Purchasing is the primary responsible official and shall possess the express authority and jurisdiction in matters pertaining to: (1) The procurement and supervision of procurement of all comnodities, services, and construction needed by the District. (2) The supervision, management and control over all inventories of commodities belonging to the District, regardless of the method or source of acquisition. (3) The management and supervision of the distribution, disposition, disposal and inventory control procedures of the District's fixed assets (personal property). (4) Management responsibility for the operation of the District's Central Supply Center and such warehouses and storerooms as may be established for the storage and distribution of materials and supplies. (5) The selection, qualification and disqualification of vendors, suppliers, and contractors. (6) Establishment, management and control of programs for the development of specifications, quality standards, inspection, testing and acceptance of commodities and services. (7) Recommendations to the Superintendent and the Board of Directors on policies pertaining to procurement functions of the Little Rock School District.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 8 (8) The promulgation, dissemination, and enforcement of rules, regulations, and procedures related to procurement, materials management and construction, as long as these are not inconsistent with applicable federal, state, or Little Rock School District Board statutes or policies. 2-104 Authority to Delegate\nThe Director of Purchasing shall have the authority to delegate certain procurement functions and responsibilities as required to enhance effectiveness and economy, and convene such committees or advisory councils as may be necessary to accomplish procurement activities. The Director shall retain oversight and general management authority in instances where purchasing activities have been delegated. 2-105 Coordination: The Director of Purchasing shall coordinate with user schools and departments as needed in the development of reciuirements and specifications. Users will provide specifications when technical or nonstandard factors are involved or when special knowledge or skills are needed. 2-106 Unauthorized Purchases: Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful for any District official or employee to order or initiate purchase of any commodities, services, or construction, or make any contract or agreement within the provisions of this policy other than through the Purchasing Department, and the District shall not be obligated for any purchase or contract made contrary to these provisions. 2-107 Procurement Violations: The Director of Purchasing shall have investigative responsibility involving alleged violations and make recommendations to the Superintendent in those instances of actual violations of procurement statutes as prescribed by Act 724 of 1991, the \"Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act.\"DATE: June 19, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Purchasing Policy for First Reading The attached policy presents the first and most important sections of the new purchasing policy, which will consist of a total of 10 sections when finished. The remaining sections will be completed for the July Agenda meeting. Although the procedures have been in place, the development of the formal governing policies to replace the rather ambiguous and confusing 1981 policies have evolved slowly due decision-making level. to several changes in administrators at the As part of the overall policy review, and because of current personnel turnover, we are making a major effort to complete this rather complex change prior to the start of the coming school year. The overall concept is to replace several random policies with one comprehensive document that reaffirms the authority and responsibility assigned to the central purchasing office, while realigning the manner in wiiich the policy and the implementing regulations are presented to conform to the format of the procurement code model developed by the American Bar Association. Converting the District purchasing to a system patterned after the Model Procurement Code (MPC) has been an objective of the District for a long time. This process was first presented to the Board in February of 1989. (See enclosed transmittal memorandum dated February 13, 1989) Also enclosed is a brief introduction to the MPC, which will give you an idea of what is involved. The entire document will consist of 10 sections. The Model Procurement Code contains 12 articles, but for our purposes all appropriate provisions can be combined into 10 sub-headings or sections. The first two are key in that they establish the authority and the level- of responsibility which will prevail throughout the full procurement process. The provisions covered have been carefully cross-referenced against all current federal and state laws and regulations to ensure conformity. Enclosed also are copies of selected laws and policies that should assist you in your review. I recommend that you approve for first reading the enclosed new initial policy. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT POLICY SECTION GENERAL PROVISIONS Purpose: The primary purposes of this policy are: To simplify, clarify and update the policy governing procurement by the District. To permit the continued development of procurement regulations and procedures. To provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in the District's procurement activities. To insure the fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the procurement system of this school district. activitie To provide increased economy in District procurement by fostering effective competition. To provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity. 1-101 Supplementary General Principles of Law Applicable\nUnless displaced by the particular provisions of this policy, the principles of law and equity, including the applicable statutes of the State of Arkansas, and law relative to capacity to contract, agency, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, or bankruptcy shall supplement the provisions of this policy. 1-102 Obligation of Good Faith: All parties involved in the negotiation, performance, or administration of procurement transactions or contracts are required to act in good faith. \"Good faith means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. 1-103 Application: 1 The policy shall apply to every expenditure of District funds or funds controlled by the District, regardless of their source, including state and federal assistance monies, by this District under any contract or procurement action for commodities or contractual services. the disposal of District commodities. It shall also apply to Nothing in this policy or in regulations promulgated hereunder shall prevent the District from complying with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift, bequest, or cooperative agreement.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 2 1-104 Severability: If any provision of this policy or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of application of this policy which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this policy are declared to be severable. 1-105 Cixrrent Policies Repealed: The following policies are rescinded and replaced by provisions contained herein: EPS CODE DJ EPS CODE DJA EPS CODE DJC EPS CODE DJF EPS CODE DJG EPS CODE EDA EPS CODE GBI TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: PURCHASING PURCHASING AUTHORITY BIDDING REQUIREMENTS PURCHASING PROCEDURES VENDOR RELATIONS RECEIVING AND WAREHOUSING STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS 1-106 Current Policies Amended: The following policies, or all other policies or parts of policies containing provisions which may be in conflict or inconsistent herewith are hereby amended and the application of this policy shall prevail. EPS CODE KHA EPS CODE DI EPS CODE DIA EPS CODE DK TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: TITLE: GIFTS TO THE SCHOOLS FISCAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING INTRA SCHOOL FUNDS DISBURSEMENTS 1-107 Determinations: Written determinations and findings required by this policy shall be retained in the appropriate official contract file of the Department of Purchasing for a period of five (5) years. 1-108 Definitions: The following words shall have the meanings as defined whenever they appear in this policy or associated implementing regulations or contracts, unless: (a) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or (b) a different definition is prescribed for a particular policy provision or regulation.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 3 (1) Business means any corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, joint stock company, venture, or any other private legal entity. joint (2) Commodities means all supplies, goods, materials. equipment, machinery, facilities, personal property services to include personal and professional. .nd (3) Construction means the process of building. altering, repairing, improving, or demolishing any public structure or building, or other public improvements of any kind to any public real property. It does not include the routine operation, repair, or maintenance of existing structures, buildings, or real property. (4) Contract means all types of District agreements. regardless of what they may be called, for the procurement or disposal of commodities, services, or construction. Collective bargaining agreements between the District and its employees are excluded from coverage under this policy. Contract Modification ( 5 ) means any written alteration in specifications, delivery point, rate of delivery, period of performance, price, quantity, or other provisions of any contract accomplished by mutual action of the parties to the contract. (6) governmental body. Contractor means any person having a contract with a (7 ) Cooperative purchasing means procurement conducted by, or on behalf of more than one public procurement unit. (8) or characteristic. Data means recorded information, regardless of form { 9 ) Designee means a duly authorized representative of a person holding a superior position. (10) Debarment means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids or requests for proposals or requests for quotes or the award of a contract by the District for a specified period of time commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, of the failure, or the inadequacy of performance. (11) Employee means an individual drawing a salary from a governmental body, whether elected or not. Excess commodities means supplies having a remaining (12) useful life but which are no longer required by the using organization in possession of the supplies.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 4 (13) Exempt commodities and services means those categories of commodities and services that are exempt from competitive bidding. These categories are: (a) Advertising in electronic and print media, periodicals and related publications. (b) Fees, including medical fees and physician fees. (c) Freight and storage charges and demurrage. (d) Licenses. (e) Maintenance on office machines and technical equipment. (f) Membership in professional, trade, and other similar associations. (g) Postage. (h) Taxes. (i) Services of visiting speakers, lecturers, and performing artists, Travel expense items, such as room and board and transportation charges. (k) Utility services or equipment which is defined, recognized, and regulated by the Arkansas Public Service Commission as a monopoly offering. (1) Professional and consultant services except as may be provided elsewhere in this policy. (m) Published books, manuals, maps, periodicals, films, tapes, diskettes, technical pamphlets, copyrighted material, informational and educational resource material, and other educational program support material when appropriately designated. (n) Items, components, or parts that would otherwise be compatible or cause incompatibility when used with or added to an existing set or system. (j )Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 5 ( 14) Grant means the furnishing of assistance, public or private, whether financial or otherwise, to any person to support a program authorized by the Board of Directors. It does not include an award whose primary purpose is to procure an end product, whether in the form of supplies, services. or construction\na contract resulting from uch an award is not a grant but a procurement contract. (15) May denotes the permissive. (16) Person means any business, individual, union, committee, club, other organization, or group of individuals. (17) leasing, Procurement means buying, purchasing, renting. construction. or otherwise acquiring any commodities, services, or It also includes all functions that pertain to the obtaining of any commodity, service, or construction, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contract, and all phases of contract administration. (18 ) Procurement official or purchasing official means the person duly authorized to enter into and administer contracts and make written determinations with respect thereto. The term also includes an authorized representative acting within the limits of authority. (19) Regulation means the administrative instructions developed to interpret and define applicable policy, and prescribe the requirements, procedures, and practices necessary to implement that policy. (20) Services means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a contractor, not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports, which are merely incidental to the required performance. This term includes professional and personal services, but does not include employment agreements or collective bargaining agreements. ( 21) Shall means the imperative. ( 22 ) State Contract means a contract for the procurement of commodities or services awarded and administered by the State of Arkansas. ( 23 ) Surplus commodities means any commodities no longer having any use to the District. This includes obsolete supplies, scrap materials, and nonexpendable supplies and equipment that have completed their useful life cycle.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 6 (24) Suspension means the disqualification of a person or business to receive invitations for bids or requests for proposals or requests for quote the or the award of a contract by District, for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation, or during any legal proceedings that may ensue because a person is suspected upon probable cause of engaging in criminal, fraudulent. or improper conduct or failure or inadequacy of performance which may lead to debarment.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 7 SECTION 2 AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE PROCUREMENT OFFICE 2-101 Designated Purchasing and Contracting Official: The designated legal purchasing agent for the Little Rock School District is the Director of Purchasing, This appointment is in accordance with Title 6, Chapter 21, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. 2-102 Purchasing Director's Authority: Except as otherwise expressly provided in this policy, the authority of the Purchasing Director encompasses procurement of all commodities, services, and construction on behalf of the Little Rock School District, regardless of the source of funding. 2-103 Responsibilities of the Purchasing Director: The Director of Purchasing is the primary responsible official and shall possess the express authority and jurisdiction in matters pertaining to: (1) The procurement and supervision of procurement of all commodities, by the District, services, and construction needed (2) The supervision, management and control over all inventories of commodities belonging to the District, regardless of the method or source of acquisition. (3) The management and supervision of the distribution, disposition, disposal and inventory control procedures of the District's fixed assets (personal property). (4) Management responsibility for the operation of the District's Central Supply Center and such warehouses and storerooms as may be established for the storage and distribution of materials and supplies. (5) The selection, qualification and disqualification of vendors, suppliers, and contractors. (6) Establishment, management and control of programs for the development of specifications, quality standards, inspection, testing and acceptance of commodities and services. (7 ) Recommendations to the Superintendent and the Board of Directors, on policies pertaining to procurement functions of the Little Rock School District.Little Rock School District Procurement Policy Page 8 ( 8 ) The promulgation, dissemination, and enforcement of rules, regulations, and procedures related to procurement, materials management and construction, as long as these are not inconsistent with applicable federal, state, or Little Rock School District Soard statutes or policies. 2-104 Authority to Delegate: The Director of Purchasing shall have the authority to delegate certain procurement functions and responsibilities as required to enhance effectiveness and economy, and convene such committees or advisory councils as may be necessary to accomplish procurement activities. The Director shall retain oversight and general management authority in instances where purchasing activities have been delegated. 2-105 Coordination: The Director of Purchasing shall coordinate with using schools and departments as needed in the development of requirements and specifications. Users will provide specifications when technical or non-standard factors are involved or a less special knowledge or skills are needed. 2-106 Unauthorized Purchases: Except as provided herein, it shall be unlawful for any District official or employee to order or initiate purchase of any commodities, services, or construction, or make any contract or agreement within the provisions of this policy other than through the Purchasing Department, and the District shall not be obligated for any purchase or contract made contrary to these provisions. 2-107 Procurement Violations: The Director of Purchasing shall have investigative responsibility involving alleged violations and make recommendations to the Superintendent in those instances of actual violations of procurement statutes as prescribed by Act 724 of 1991, the Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act. IILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS I February 13, 1989 TO: Board of Direct 3 FROM: Dr. Ernest f. Associate Superintende Charles Neal, Director of Purchasing ident /f' or Business Administration THROUGH: SUBJECT: Dr. George D. Cannon, Superintendent of Schools Report on Bid Requirements and Purchasing Procedures Attached are copies of purchasing and bidding procedures currently in practice. The format follows that which was developed during the 1983-84 effort to publish the Administrative Procedures Manual. The Purchasing Department is presently working on a project to rewrite and consolidate the functions and responsibilities of the Purchasing Department along with the rules, regulations. and procedures associated with those functions. The product will be a procedures manual patterned after the Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. This is a major rewrittlng task but the results will be a more comprehensive procurement procedures manual. We're projecting completion in August.laaa ,1 nil 0 /fcf BASIC: PUBLIC PURCHASING \u0026amp; MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Most of these Acts are covered in FM 74-7, Attachment _______ , 0  All purchasers must be fully aware of and comply with these laws. MODEL PURCHASING CODES AND ORDINANCES The laws under which public purchasing must operate vary from state to state as within each state. well as among municipal entities These variations can and do create confusion for vendors and, in some cases, may not provide or the best purchasing practices. Many laws and ordinances are not specific as to the responsibility for the purchasing I but speak only to some of the legal requirements. practices, es. The National Institute of Municipal Law Officers \u0026lt;NIMLO) and the American Bar Association (ABA) have attempted to structure model purchasing ordinances. Both, organizations have agreed that centralization of purchasing authority is far superior to fragmented authority xa xar superior to iragmented authority, and that the installation of sound purchasing methods, including centraliza- tion, will result in savings to the municipalities. NIMLO Ordinance. , _ ______________ This model purchasing ordinance National Institute of Municipal Law Officers in cooperation with the National Institute of Governmental Pi^chasing to assist any states or municipalities in their adoption of a centralized purchasing policy ordinance. or -^A Code. The American Bar Association is now coordinating the development of a model procurement code for state and local governments. The Association has worked extensively with NIGP and the National Association of State Pj^chasing Officials (NASPO). They have also worked with the National Purchasing Institute (NPI), as well as with the private sector, including the National Association of Purchasing Management (NAPM). The suggested code is still in workingpaper form, but when completed it should provide for unifomnity among public purchasing jurisdictions, just as the Uniform Commercial Code has provided the business world with uniformity. is governments. They have also worked with as well as with The suggested code is still J The proposed Code is intended to provide statutory controls and appropriate limitations of a fundamental nature public. The Code will contain only necessary details so as to establish a practical structure which motes good purchasing practices. to protect the public. 16 statutory - pro- The new Code should permit \"I I 2 8 8 1 1 '1 -4 1 JINTRODUCTION This Model Procurement Ordinance for Local Governments is designed to provide a small unit of local goverrunent with (1) policy guidance and statutory language for managing and controlling its procurement of supplies, services, and construction for public purposes, (2) guidance for 1 itracts, and (3) 2 set iC CO! tile administrative arid judicial resolution of controversies relating to of ethical standards governing public cind private participants in the procurement process. The Model Procurement Ordinance is essentially a condensation of the ABA Model Procurement Code I for State and Local Governments, tailored for consideration and use by smaller units of local government. The Model Procurement Ordinance was drafted by the American Bar Association Coordinating Committee on a Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments, a joint committee of the ABA Section of Public Contract Law and the ABA Section of Urban, State, and Local Government Law. The Ordinance was developed by the Coordinating Committee with the active cooperation and financial support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To help ensure that the Model Procurement Ordinance would be practical for use by small local jurisdictions, the Coordinating Committee established a Purchasing Officials Review Group whose members were appointed by the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), a key member of the Coordinating Committee's Advisory Board. NIGP, and many of its members, had actively participated in the drafting and review of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments and the Code's Recommended Regulations. f- Procurement Under Federal Assistance and Certification I Attachment O to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-102 (Uniform Ad- ministrative Requirements for Grants-In-Aid to States and Local Governments\nProcurement Standards) sets forth procurement standards that govern public purchases made by states and local governments using most federzil assistance funds. The Model Procurement Ordinance is designed to provide a small local government with a sound, workable, and consolidated public purchasing idards. Although the Ordinance was developed with the system that meets those federal assistance of EPA, it is also aa^ \u0026gt;le to procurements made using federal funds awarded under grants or cooperative agreements from other federal agencies. Pursuant to Attachment O, many of the major federal grantor agencies have established programs for the certification of the procurement systems used by their state and local government grantees. Since the Model Procurement Ordinance was designed to meet Attachment O standards, it should be an especially helphJ tool to those units of local government that choose to participate in such procurement system certification programs. Drafting Concepts The ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments has proven readily useful to a jurisdiction with a large procurement responsibility and a substantial procurement organization available to manage the public purchasing function. It could be readily adapted for use by most states, major cities, large urban counties, and other large public entities. The Code's adaptation for use by smaller public bodies, however, proved to require substantial modification. To meet this challenge, the Coordinating Committee undertook the drafting of the Model Procurement Ordinance for Local Governments. The Ordinance is tailored to the more limited procurement responsibilities and limited administrative resources available to most local governments. At the same time, the fundamental principles of good procurement and ethical standards set forth in the Code have been retained, but appear in a \"streamlined\" form. The Ordinance is designed for consideration by small cities and counties, towns, townships, and other small public bodies exercising a public purchasing responsibility. viiAN OVERVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE General Provisions Article 1 states the general purposes of the Ordiriance, and contains definitions of terms used in the Ordirumce.  1 Office of the Purchasing Agent Article 2 suggests the basic organizational structure for managing and conducting public purchasing on a centralized basis. At the same time, the Article gives clear recognition to the benefits of specific delegations of appropriate authority to other professionals available within the local government. Source Selection and Contract Formation Article 3 establishes competitive sealed bidding as the preferred method of contracting, but also authorizes the use of other source selection methods in appropriate, specified situations. The other source selection methods are competitive sealed proposals, a competitive selection procedure for designated types of professional services, simplified procedures for making small purchases, and strict requirements relating to sole source procurements and emergency procurements. The Article states the requirements for contracting by each method. Contracts not awarded by competitive sealed bidding generally require a written justification, which becomes a matter of public record. The Article also provides for cancellation of solicitations, the correction or withdrawal of bids, and the cancellation of awards. The Article provides for determinations relating to the responsibility of prospective contractors, and provides authority to require bid and performance bonds. It also requires the submission of cost or pricing data, and conducting of a price analysis or a cost analysis, for contracts awarded without adequate price competition and for contract price adjustments. The Article authorizes the use of the type of contract most appropriate to the procurement, although it retains a preference for fixed-price contracts and prohibits cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost contracts. It also permits, and regulates, the use of both multi-year contracts and the technique of multiple source contracting. Finally, Article 3 also specifies requirements for effective contract administration, and for the reporting of anticompetitive practices. 5 1 ! ! I ! I 5 I I I ! Specifications Article 4 requires that specifications be written in a manner that maximizes competition. In particular, it regulates the use of brand name specifications to encourage competition. Procurement of Construction, Architect-Engineer and Land Surveying Services Article 5 covers special aspects of coristruction procurement, including the selection of the appropriate method of construction management, and the use of bid, performance and payment bonds. It also provides a procediue for the competitive award of contracts for architect-engineer and land surveying services in lieu of techniques provided in Article 3. Debarment or Suspension Article 6 contains procedures for making debarment or suspension determinations. 'i it ix I I rI' i I' The Model Procurement Ordinance, like the ABA Model Procurement Code from which it is derived, was developed as a ' mode!' rather than a \"uniform\" legislative proposal in recognition of the substanKal differences among local governments in terms of both governmental orgrini: hon and legal authority to prescribe their own procurement systems. Therefore, the focus of the Model Procurement Ordinance is on the policies and procedures necessary for a modem and cost-effective public purchasing system that is fair and open to public scrutiny. 'The Cnordinating Committee ere courages thoughtful modification to meet local needs, but calls to the attention of those responsible for adapting the Model Procurement Ordinance the process through which its recommendations were developed. Drafting and Review Process The Model Procurement Ordinance for Local Governments was developed during a drafting and review process that spanned more th^ two years. In addition, the Ordinance, as a condensation of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments, had the benefit of the five years of effort that went into drafting the Code and its Recommended Regulations. The initial draft of the proposed Model Procurement Ordinance was prepared by the ABA Model Procurement Code Project staff, under the general guidance of the Coordinating Committee on a Model Procurement Code. Working with Project volunteers and EPA's Task Force on the Model Procurement Ordinance, the proposed Ordinance was refined during the preparation of three internal review drafts. Following a line-by-line review of the last internal review draft, undertaken in conjunction with the EPA Task Force, the Coordinating Committee issued a Public Review Draft of the proposed Model Procurement Ordinance in August of 1981. Almost 3,000 copies of the Public Review Draft were circulated. Comments were actively solicited until the close of the comment period in March of 1982. The Purchasing Officials Review Group and the Coordinating Committee then conducted a line-by-line review of the Public Review Draft in light of the comments received. Following further discussion, a Coordinating Committee's Final Draft was presented to the governing Councils of the cosponsoring ABA Sections in May 1982. Following Council review over the next several months, final approval action on the text of the Model Procurement Ordinance was taken in August during the 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association. I I I 8 i Drafting Mechanics Commentary has been occasionally inserted to explain the purpose of a particular provision, to provide further amplification of its meaning, or to demonstrate its application in the context of a particular procurement situation. In addition. Commentary may indicate where adjustments may be needed to make a particular provision conform to existing law or regulations. The Ordinance also includes several 'Editorial Notes,\" which provide addibonal assistance to those adapting the Ordinance for use by a particular jurisdiction. Experience indicates that most jurisdictions will not include the Commentary or the Editorial Notes in their ordinances. Bracketed material [ ) indicates matters needing particular attention during the drafting of an ordinance based on the Model Procurement Ordinance. Brackets enclosing a blank require the insertion of language appropriate to that jurisdiction for such things as dollar and time limitations, position descriptions, or references to ^lecific state laws. Suggested language in brackets indicates that the jurisdiction may want to make changes in light of its own experience and circumstances, or because other local requirements may be applicable. Two bracketed phrases appearing side by side usually indicate that one should be inserted and the other deleted. I' viiir' I Cost Principles fl I. Article 7 has been rcscr/cd. Should an enacting jurisdiction wish to iriclude in its ordinarice a comprehensive set of contract cost principles, the text of Chapter 7, Cost Principles, of the Recommended Regulations to the ABA Model fh-ocurement Code for State and Local Governments may be considered. Supply Management Article 8 has been reserved. Should an enacting jurisdiction wish to include in its ordinance the coverage of such topics as quality control, inventory management, excess property transfer, and the disposition of surplus property, the text of Chapter 8, Supply Management, of the Recommended Regulations to the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments may be considered. 5 Appeals and Remedies 1 Article 9 suggests mechanisms for the resolution of disputes arising from the solicitation and award of procurement contracts, bid protests, and contract performance claims. In addition, this Article provides procedures for handling contracts awarded in violation of law. ! Cooperative Purchasing I ! Article 10 has been reserved. Cooperative purchasing and joint-use arrangements among units of local government or with the state have proved to be cost-effective management tools. However, given the broad array of potential users of the Model Fh-ocurement Ordinance, and the various state law limitations on their authority to enter into such intergovernmental agreements, it was not possible to address effectively this important subject. Should an enacting jurisdiction be able to include in its ordinance coverage of agreements for cooperative purchasing and the joint use of equipment, faciEties and personnel, it may consider Article 10, Intergovernmental Relations, of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments and Chapter 10 of the Code's Recommended Regulations. i I i Assistance to Small and Disadvantaged Businesses Article 11 has been reserved. Provisions to assist small and disadvantaged businesses, and other socio-economic programs implemented through the procurement process, could be inserted in this Article by the enacting jurisdiction. Ethics in Public Contracting Artide 12 contains ethical standards with accompanying sanctions that are appbcable to all participants in the pubEc procurement process. The proposed ethical standards cover conflicts of interest, gratuities and kickbacks, contingent fees, and misuse of confidential information. I'i APPENDIX The Appendix sets forth provisions which address the various socioeconomic and other federal public policy goals implemented through Attachment O (Procurement Standards) to OMB Circular A-102 (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants-in-Aid to States and Local Governments). They have been included with the Model Procurement Ordinance as a convenience for any enacting jurisdiction that wants its pubEc purchasing system to address aU the current requirements of Attachment O. They do not constitute the recommendations of the American Bar Association, or of any of its Sections or Committees. XStjlv o (\" 74 th General Assembly HGl OJO UI iJUd Hegiil.ir Session. 1933 1 \"AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE SOLICITING OF BIDS Ir-\"E^ COIIMODITV TO BE 2 PURCHASED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT zHAS^l^TIgASgJ^PURCtttSESP^ 3 ^7j,T(^f^tH0USAin)\nDOLLARS..ORlM^^^^ AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 4 b 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSSIBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKiVNSAS: 7 SECTION 1. Definition. (A) \"Purchasing Official' shall mean the yv. '.'ifcV'. I 29 30 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Board of Directors of any school district or a of the school district lawfully designated agent with authority to contract or behalf of the school district. (B) Commodities make purchases on shall mean all supplies, goods, material. ment, machinery, facilities, personal property equip- , and services, other than personal and professional services, purchased for school district. (C) :ioq^3i3 \"Purchase Price shall mean or on behalf of the the full sale or bid price of without any allowance for trade-in. Purchase shall mean and include not of a commodity but also the acquisition only the outright purchase of commodities agreements or lease-purchase agreements or any o whereby the school district has an option the rental payments on the pu (E) under rentar-purchase ther type of agreements to buy the rchase price thereof. \"Open Market Purchases by any purchasing official in SECTION 2. shall mean commodity and to apply those purchases of commoditVes which competitive All purchases bidding is not required of commodities by any school district. except those speclflc.lly exempted by Section 3, shell be made as folic' (A) ImeecK. instenccln which .he.esU.eted.:POPoh,Tp.tlc.hvn oc.exceed.two-thousan4e\u0026lt;ldUe\u0026gt;t= th,e=ood_le\u0026gt;, shell-.be ptocered y except those spccifica soliciCi n^Tds\\ provided that the and may purchase the commodity by negotiating a official may reject all bi\u0026lt;l contract. If the AS SNCROSSCD J/15/81 H.D. 190 1 2 J 4 0 8 9 10 1 I 12 13 14 15 2216 17 18 purchasing official, after rejecting all bids, determines that the purchase shou!-i be mude bij ne j-at lat i'jn then each raspons ible bidder \u0026gt;/ho s-ab.nitte bid shall be notified cf the determination and shall be rjiaen a port uni t \u0026lt;j to rx-^gotiate. f 1-.) Open ilarkei less chan cwo the. (C) Purcli.-isen nay Ik- matle wbev? -anii doll.iis ($2,000). No purciiasin.c\nf. ffiei.al shall p.irccl. or C:  iniic':in!\nc price is n D1 i t witii the intent or purpose to enable the purcha.se restrictive procedure. SECTION 3. to be in.Jde u er a less The hereinafter ii.sted commodities may be purchased without soliciting bids: and unavoidable emergency. (A) Commodities in instances of an unforeseen Provided, that no such emergency purchase shall be approved by the superintendent, unless a statement at cached co Che in writ ?. shall be purchase order describinp. the er.-crgency purcha.s.e of such cot (B) Commnuic (C) n.acess tatinu t n e I I r .otity without competitive bidding. s available onlv from the feder.al government' Ocilicy services, Ji'\n- by.  state '26 21 '22 23 24 25 6 27 28 29 30 31 che. races lor which re subject co reguiaiion e-.'.cy or a federal regulatory agency.' (D) lise.d '.nt and ~ac.hinere. 1 I I i I I SECTION 4.,The board of Directors of each school district shall p.c-- scribe che method oi soliciting bids by regulation and may adopt other rules and regulations governing the procurement of co.mmodiCies. SECTION 5. A violation of the provisions of this Act shall be a Class C misdemeanor. SECTION 6. hereby repealed. Ail laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act ar 3? 32 33APPROVED V nGnOvVFERRNN.OTRR /s/ Dobby Tullis -7- i. State of Arkansas 75th General Assembly Regular Session, 1985 A Bill HOUSE BILL 725 By: Representative Doramus For An Act To Be Entitled 1 2 \"AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 3 OF ACT 639 OF 1983 [ARK. STATS. 80-553] TO PERMIT SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO MAKE PURCHASES OF COM-available only from a single source without solicit7 3 9 ation OF BIDS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Section 3 of Act 639 of 1983, the same being Section 80-553 of the Arkansas Statutes, is hereby amended to read as follows: 10 \"Section 3. The hereinafter listed commodities may be purchased without 1 1 12 soliciting bids: (A) Commodities in instances of an unforeseen and unavoidable emergency. n 1 13 Provided, that no such emergency purchase shall be approved by the superlnten- 14 15 15 17 16 dent, unless a statement in writing shall be attached to the purchase order describing the emergency necessitating the purchase of such commodity without competitive bidding. (B) Commodities available only from the federal government. (C) Utility services, the rates for which are subject by regulation by 19 state agency or a federal regulatory agency. (D) Used equipment and machinery. ^Z^E) Commodities available only from a single source. Provided, that the 23 24 purchasing official determines in writing that it is not practicable to us\u0026amp; other than the required or designated commodity or service and a copy of tlr statement is attached to the purchase order.\" 26 27 25 SECTION 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereb 28 29 30 repealed. 'PROVED BY\nGOVERNOR ? I I A 1 : ( lsbl28 State of Arkansas 76th General Assembly Regular Session, 1987 By: Representative Flanagin ACT 65 1987 A Bill HOUSE BILL 1 fl?-'' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For An Act To Be Entiiied AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 2 OF ACT 639 OF 1983 [ARK. STAT. 80-552] TO REQUIRE SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SOLICIT BIDS FOR PURCHASES OF AT LEAST $5,000.00\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Section 2 of Act 639 of 1983, the same being Arkansas Statute 80-552, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2. All purchases of commodities by any school district, those specifically exempted by Section 3, shall be made except as follows: 11 12 (A) In each instance in which the estimated purchase price shall equal or exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) the commodity shall be procured by ( S r S 13 soliciting bids. 14 Provided that the purchasing official may reject all blds and may purchase the commodity by negotiating a contract. If the purchasing 15 official, after rejecting all blds, determines that the purchase should be 16 made by negotiation then each responsible bidder who submitted a bid shall 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 be notified of the determination and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to negotiate. (B) Open Market Purchases* may be made where the purchase price is less than five thousand dollars ($5,000). (C) No purchasing official shall parcel or split any item or items. with the intent or purpose to enable the purchase to be made under a less restrictive procedure. SECTION 2. hereby repealed. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are -16- .\"'PROVED BY bbkl31 GOVERHOR 1 2 3 : 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 tl 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30M O tn 2 \u0026gt; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 26 .. 27  28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Stale of Arkansas _ 78ih General Assembly Regular Session, 1991 ACT 7 24 1991 A Bill B}\nReprcseata'j.'es Stephens, McCuision, and McJunkin For An Act To Be Entitled HOUSE BILL 1807 \"AH ACT TO PROVIDE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING CERTAIN ARKANSAS LAWS RELATING TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNTIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS\nSECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be known and cited as the \"Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act\". SECTION 2. provides: DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act, unless the Act otherwise \"Public officer or employee\" means any officer or employee of a county, municipality, or school district located in the State of Arkaxisas{ XTb) \"Fiscal responsibility and management lavs\" means the following laws, as amended, and as applicable to the following subdivisions: (1) Counties: (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) Revision of County Government, Amendment 55 of the Arkansas Constitution\nCounty Record Retention, Title 13, Chapter 10 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nCounty Legislative Procedures, Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 9 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nCounty Executive Powers, Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 11 of the Arkansas Cods Annotated\nCounty Persotmal Procedures, Title 14, Chapter 14, Subchapter 12 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nCounty Officers, Title 14, Chapter 15 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\njmb055 1 1 / 1 (G) HB 2 3 (H) 4 5 (I) 6 7 (J) 8 9 (K) 10 11 (L) 12 13 (M) 14 15 (N) 16 17 (0) 18 Sale of County Property, Arkansas Coda Annotated SS 14-16- 105 and 14-16-106\nCounty Funds, Title 14, Chapter 21 of the'Arkansas Code Annotated\nCounty Purchasing Procedures, Title 14, Chapter 22 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nClaims Against Counties, Title 14, Chapter 23 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nCounty Warrants, Title 14, Chapter 24 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nArkansas County Accounting Law of 1973, Title 14, Chapter 25 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nCorrection of Errors on Tax Books, Arkansas Code Annotated 26-28-111\nSettlement - Payment of Taxes, Arkansas Code Annotated 26- 39-201\nand Review of Audit Reports by Legislative Governing Bodies, Act 187 of 1991\n19 (2) Municipalities: 20 (A) 21 22 23 (B) . 24 .. 25 (C) . 26 27 (D) 28 29 (E) 30 31 (F) 32 cn 5 9 33 (G) rt- ''34 3 g M M 2 \u0026gt; 9 35 (H) Prohibited Actions by Municipal Council Members or Municipal Officials and Employees, Arkansas Coda Annotated $$ 14-42- 107 and 14-42-108\nPowers and Duties of Municipal Officers Generally, Title 14, Chapter 43, Subchapter 5 of the Arkansas Code Aiwotated\nPurchase, Lease and Sale of Real and Personal Property, Arkansas Code Annotated S 14-54-302\nCities of First Class Generally, Title 14, Chapter 58 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nMunicipal Accounting Law of 1973, Title 14, Chapter 59 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nMunicipal Water and Sever Department Accounting Law, Title 14, Chapter 237 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nArkansas Municipal Courts, Police Courts, City Courts, And Justice of the Peace Courts Accounting Law, Title 16, Chapter 10, Subchaptar 2 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nand'\\ Review of Audit Reports by Legislative Governing Bodies, Act J 1 jmb0551 187 of 1991} HB 2 (3) Schools: 3 (A) 5 (B) 6 7 (C) 8 9 (D) 10 11 12 13 /o3o /I ^7 (F) School Disbursing Officer, Arkansas Coda Annotated 6-13- 613\nSchool District Treasurer, Title 6, Chapter 13, Subchapter 7 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nArkansas Teachers Salary Law, Title 6, Chapter 17, Subchapter 9 of the Arkansas Coda Annotated\nSchool Finance Acts, Title 6, Chapter 20 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nSchools Acquisition of Commodities, Title 6, Chapter 21, Subchapter 3 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nand Review of Audit Reports by Boards, Act 4 of 1991\n14 (4) The following laws are applicable to some or all of the political 15 subdivisions: 16 5 17  18 (A) (B)  19 20 ' 21 (C) 22 23 (D) . 24  25 (E) 26  27 28 (F) (G) 29 6 O M cn W 2 \u0026gt; a 30 31 32 (H) (I) (J) Limitation on Legislative and Taxing Power, Article 12, Section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution\nPolitical Subdivisions Kot to Become Stockholders in or Lend Credit to Private Corporations, Article 12, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution\nLending Credit, Article 16, Section 1 of the Arkansas Constitution\nLevy and Appropriation of Taxes, Article 16, Section 11 of the Arkansas Constitution\nLocal Capital Improveaient Bonds, Amendment 62 of the Arkansas Constitution\nRevenue Bonds, Amendment 65 of the Arkansas Constitution\nClerks of Courts, Collection and Settlement, Additional Fees, Investment of Moneys held in trust, Arkansas Code Annotated 5516-20-106, 16-20-107, and 16-20-108\nDepositories for Public Funds, Title 19, Chapter 8 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nPublic Worrks, Title 22, Chapter 9 of the Arkansas Code Annotated\nand Local Fiscal Management Responsibility Act\nIi) (c) \"Political Subdivieion\" means any county, tnunicipality, or school 35 V 36 3 jmbO55 HB 1 district of the State of Arkansas\n2 ^(d) \"Executive Officer\" means the following for the applicable 3 political subdivisions: 10 11 1) (e) ?qt: sxsctiCivs officsT** is tHs supGirintsndenw of the school or the director of the educational cooperative\nFor municipalities, an \"executive officer\" is the mayor, city manager, or city administrator\nFor counties, an \"executive officer\" is the elected official exercising administrative control over a particular county employee\nand \"Knowingly\" means that a person is aware or should have been aware 4 5 6 7 8 9 W 12 that his conduct will violate the fiscal responsibility and management laws. 13 14 SECTION 3. COMPLIANCE WITH FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT LAWS. 15 16 All public officers and employees shall comply with the provisions of the fiscal management and responsibility laws contained in this Act. 17 18 SECTION 4. INVESTIGATION BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Upon discovery or 19 20 21 notification of an alleged violation of the fiscal responsibility and management laws, the executive officer of the political subdivision shall investigate such allegations and take appropriate administrative action. 22 23 SECTION 5. DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION. After completing the . 24 . 25 . 26 . 27 28 investigation, if the executive officer of the political subdivision determines that one or oxsre of the fiscal responsibility and management laws have been violated, the facts and circumstances relating to a violation and any corrective or remedial action shall be documented and placed in the personnel files of the public officer or employee involved in the violation. 29 30 SECTION 6. NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION. The executive officer of the 11  31 political subdivision shall notify the public officer or employee of its A x) 12 findings and any corrective or remedial action to be taken. Notification 33 O M 3\" O tn co M 2 \u0026gt; a shall be made in a manner ensuring actual notice to the public officer or en^loyeo. The public officer or employee shall be notified that the failure to make corrective or remedial action within thirty(30) days after the date of notification creates the rebuttable presuinptlon that the violation was 35 4 jmbO55 1 committed knowingly. HB 2 3 SECTION 7. REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION. The public officer or employee 4 5 6 violating a fiscal responsibility and management law shall ba given not more than thirty (30) days from the date of notification to effect corrective or remedial action recommended by the executive director of the political 7 suhdiviaion. Failure to make corrective or remedial action within thirty (30) 8 9 days after notification createa the rebuttable presumption that the violation was committed knowingly. 10 11 SECTION 8. REFERRAL TO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, (a) If the executive 12 officer determines that there has been a violation of the fiscal 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 responsibility and management laws, the executive officer may request the appropriate prosecuting attorney to conduct an Investigation regarding the violation(s). (b) The Legislative Joint Auditing Committee may request the appropriate prosecuting attorney to conduct an investigation regarding violations of the fiscal responsibility and management laws documented in the audit report. (c) The prosecuting attorney shall conduct a timely investigation into 21 all matters referred to him under the provisions of thia Act. If the 22 23 .24 25 prosecuting attorney falls to conduct a timely investigation or file a civil suit under the provisions of this Act, the executive officer or the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee may request the Attorney General to conduct an investigation into the violations. .26 -.27\n^28 29 SECTION 9. CIVIL SUIT BY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. After conducting an 30 I 31 32 investigation Into the alleged violations, the appropriate prosecuting attorney or the Attorney General may file a civil suit In Circuit Court against the public offlcer(s) or employee(s) alleged to have violated the fiscal responsibility and management laws. Venue shall be in the county where the political subdivision Is located. I 3 to 2 tn M 2 \u0026gt; a 33 SECTION 10. CIVIL PENALTY. If the public officer or employee la found 35 by the Court to have knowingly violated the provialona of the fiscal responsibility and management laws, the Court shall Impose a civil penalty 5 jmbO55 '/i HB V 13 C' 44- \u0026gt; O n CO \u0026gt; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 '18 19  20 21 22 23\n24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 12 33 .34 ye upon the public officer or employee of not less than one hundred dollars ($100), nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each violation, and may subject the public officer or employee to the payment of damages resulting as a direct consequence of any violation. SECTION 11. RECOVERY OF COSTS. If the public officer or employee is found by the Court to have knowingly violated the provisions of the fiscal responsibility and management laws, the prosecuting attorney or the Attorney General shall be allowed to recover costs and attorney fees associated with the civil suit from the public officer or employee. Any costs or fees recovered by a prosecuting attorney under this provision shall be deposited into an account administered by the prosecuting attorney and shall be used for expenses of the office. Any costs or fees recovered by the Attorney General under this provision shall be deposited into the State Treasury. SECTION 12. CIVIL PROCEDURES APPLY. All actions and procedures under the provisions of this Act are civil in nature and shall be governed by the appropriate rules, regulations, and laws regarding civil actions and remedies. SECTION 13. EXISTING REMEDIES NOT IMPAIRED. The provisions of this Act are supplemental to any other remedies available by law. In addition, the provisions of this Act do not limit or diminish any civil rights administrative procedures available political subdivision. SECTION 14. or to any public officer or employee or All provisions of this act of a general and permanent nature are amendatory to the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated and the Arkansas Code Revision Commission shall incorporate the same in the Code. SECTION 15. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given affect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to ba severable. SECTION 16. hereby repealed. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this act are tn r PROVED ( I -A 3 - governor inibOS? 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DI FISCAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING The district accounting system will provide an accurate record of financial tmraen saaiscitniocns . acRuueucoiiurdnsi y will be nse..t. upK and ma in4t. ai7n edJ on a kbaaes4ics consistent with the accounting system detailed in the Accounting Manual for Local __ School District of Arkansas. riifli. In keeping with Board Policy, accounting will be bandied P-PtV^o^tnthaa.^t .nthee Board may receive monthly reports fr,o,m,, ,t,heer s .\u0026gt; Si. Superintendent on 4,.,^. --------------- -  - - , of funds as needed, and make investments of surplus funds. Cr. ixa js SSS .Vr .1 'X :*i The following purposes must be satisfied by the accounting system: . 1. 2 Administrative Control: The financial records must be adequate to guide the making or deferring of purchases, the expanding or curtailing of programs, and the controlling of expenses. Current data should\nbe c immediately available and in such form that periodic suntnarie^ may be,.I^^^^ readily made from the data. Budget Preparation: The financial records must be ad^uate-fd?serY^iAtgj^^ a guide to budget estimates of subsequent years, and to hold expenditure^ to the amounts appropriated. Accounts are to be kept for each item for.--/\" which separate budget estimates must be made. An adequate code of^expep^ diture accounts will be used. *. 1* \u0026gt; .'.tk/ 4\u0026lt;. '-'TT.^nZJZJX^laCKlUam  \u0026lt;- ................-i. a.-' Accounting for Stewardship: The financial records of the district\nntsra adequate to show that those .in charge have handled funds within the frame  work of law and in accordance with Board policy. The districts financial records will provide the following information 1. 2. I V3. 4. 5. e  -  ' A--- y . For each account in the districts budget: the appropriation, expenditures\nencimbrances, and unencumbered balance.   For each purchase order\nthe name of vendor, description of the item -a involved, the amounts, the call for bids if required, and an abstract:\nof the bids received. , For each purchase\nthe purchase order information above, plus the record, of receipt and condition of goods, the invoice and the record of payment For each income account\nthe budget estimate, the estimates as revised periodically, the receipts to date, and the balance anticipated. Income received under the-abatement procedure will be debited to the appropriate previously expended account. Legal Reference: Arkansas School Laws\n80-524, Act 384 of 1977, Section 7. Act 111 of 1979.  f  '5 I t U s A. B. C. D. E. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INTRA-SCHOOL FUNDS EPS CODE: DIA Depository Intra-school or activity funds shall be deposited in a single bank account at the bank selected for District funds. Source of Funds Funds to be deposited in these accounts are those derived from school organization activities, athletic events, school concessions, bookstore operation, and authorized fund raising drives. Record and Management Procedures Record keeping and management procedures to be followed in handling of these funds shall be prescribed by administrative directive. Purchasing . Purchase shall be in accordance with district purchasing policies and defined by administrative directive referenced above. Responsibility *  ' The fund manager shall be responsible for the proper management of  these funds. He/she shall sign all requisitions/purchase orders or related transaction documents that initiate or result in disbursement of activity funds. The Director of Financial Accounting Services shall be responsible for ensuring that activity fund transactions conform to appropriate policies and procedures and are accounted for properly. f Adopted: 12-17-811 '4' 5 i '/\u0026gt; ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT  \u0026gt; f-,r\u0026gt;, 'S .^EPS CODE^ : DJ I? ''r * f R 'y\\-. vc'* \u0026gt; I purchasing\n4 J/jiSS ,T !r ''O'T\nThe function of purchasing Is to serve, the' eHucaildhal pro^^^ K the necessary supplies, equipment, and services IX\nV 4 The Board I\nn_t_e_n_d__s to ,purchase competitively without prejudice.\nand. to/seek maximum educational value for every dollar expended ,1. 0^ be^entril 1 ze\u0026lt;\n^1n ? lAhe acquisition of supplies, equipment, and services w^Vbe^ceri^^ J rhe Purchasing PepartmentHwhich functions under the supervision of, the.Ex- Officio Financial Secretary, and through whose office all purchasing-\ntransaction '^are conducted. he acquisition of supplies, equipment, and services will the Ex-Officio Financial Secretary the responsibility for The prime guidelines governing_ The Board assigns the quality and quantity of. purchases made. ...- r. \n-  -- -jf tthhiiss rreessppoonnssiibbiilliittyy aarree tthhaatt aallll ppuurrcchhaasseess ftaailll wwiittmhinn txhnee fTrraammeewwuor r/,Of\n'-pZ budgetary limitations and be consistent with the approved educational- goals and programs of the district.. 'p'. i Adopted: 12-17-81 -V' .A 4 i j a . '4' \u0026gt; f. It?- r -fT ^'.4 'I 1 ' rT : 1  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DJA PURCHASING AUTHORITY the responsibility of the Purchasing Department to make purchases for school use. The Superintendent or his designee, the Director of Purchasing U.ruuyh the Ex-Officio Financial Secretary, is authorized to approve purchases in accordance with budget allocations except when such transactions must be It is through put to bid. D Individual.schools and departments will have no authority to make purchases except as these are approved by the Purchasing Office, 0 . 1 mzA -   Purchasing shall be*made on written order from the Purchasing Office in keeping with properly approved written requisitions. F-\"?* ,only-as\n:provided for by administwtive,directive., , .. ,.... Exceptions may be made X\"' 3\n'P.  Jt- S'' 'F^.j 'acti/sujr.s {A\u0026gt;. 2'^ y-i- 4* ^sjcr\u0026gt;\ncjcr\u0026gt;\u0026lt;oc  e- 75' R I .. Adopted: . 12-17-81 r 'tt- \u0026gt;\u0026gt;: -* \u0026lt;LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DJC BIDDING REQUIREMENTS Any item or group of items having an estimated cost of $2,000 or more must Exceptions may be made upon approval uf be purchased by soliciting bids. the Superintendent of Schools or his designee, in cases of bona fide emergencies, single source purchases, and other instances where bidding is not Any item or group of items feasible or required conimodities are exempt. having an estimated cost of less than $2,000 may be purchased as an Open Market Purchase at the discretion of the Director of Purchasing. When bids are solicited, the lowest responsible, responsive bidder meeting specification requirements shall be awarded the order or contract unless (1) all bids are rejected and the purchase negotiated, or (2) bidders have been informed that factors other than price alone, are to be considered in the award of the bid. Sufficient documentation will be maintained to substantiate competitive bid determinations. .'7'9*' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT A i EPS CODE\nDOF PURCHASING PROCEDURES K Quality/Quanity Control  The Director of ':y The Director of Purchasing, has full authority to question and kind of materials requested and delivered.in order that the best interests of the district may be served. Consolidation of Purchases shall seek to consolidate purchases into such the district within the limits The Director of Purchasing quantities as will result in the lowest cost to of available warehousing. V School^ Books tore \u0026lt;.T terns  . i^^^^tHe^i^Wf^tbe'dlstH to-purchase\nin^quWt/and ^princ^ple iterns handled by'school bookstores.-. ...oto-. the .school bookstores at cost plus a minimum markup ^^^ocaT ^^i^sing%?s .'i . Those'^-1 terns will be sold \"to -^utner^dcwr\n^ u=..na..=M-.r.. ttoi.strict prefer^ to^dwl^ with local sources of _^s'uppTyt\nin\ntOrminimize conmunication and ..shipping problems. Where out- gg??gKS!ro.\u0026gt;ftf.-c'tate'~ve'n aqai nst.-local vendors, the local ...vendor. \"^^r^rqfanl'ed-^the five'percent preference allowed by Arkansas Preference Lai^^.-if. . Requested in writing at the time the bid is submitted. Other^actors being .equal ST is r jr z :52 nrs . bi I Adopted: 12-17-81LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DJG .. VENDOR RELATIONS No favoritism will be extended to any vendor. 'Each order will be placed on the basis of quality, price, and delivery\npast services being a factor if all other considerations are equal. No employee or director of the district who has authority or influence over purchasing decisions will be an agent for, or-have any pecuniary or beneficial interest in, or receive any compensation or reward of any kind from any vendor for sale of supplies, materials, equipment, or services. Adopted: 12-17-81LITTLE RCLK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: DK DISBURSEMENTS Disbursements shall be made only with appropriate authorization and directly to the vendors, except for petty cash expenses which shall be limited to the minimumnecessary for effective and efficient operation. Documentation (requisitions, purchase orders, evidence of receipt of goods or services, invoices, etc.) to support disbursements shall be retained in active files until after audit has been completed. A list of disbursements for each month shall be submitted for Board approval at the regular meeting the fol lowing month. I I i I Adopted: 12-17-81I i I J I I i I II }I i I 1 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS-CODE: GBI STAFF GIFTS AND SOLICITATIONS ..L No employee of the Little Rock School District or member of\"the Board of Directors of the said district shall accept any gratuity or favor from any supplier, contractor, or person performing personal services for the Little Rock School District. Further, the same policy will apply to any person, partnership, company or any other entity which may reasonably be expected to perform such services, or offer bids orprices for any supplies, construct!on,-or maintenance work to .. be performed for the Little Rock School District. District. or any ye Adopted: A-.? 2-25-82  T- i:\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":"geh_p17222coll18_113","title":"Yvonne Tweddle interview with Sam Shirah (part one)","collection_id":"geh_p17222coll18","collection_title":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","United States, Tennessee, Hamilton County, Chattanooga, 35.04563, -85.30968"],"dcterms_creator":["Tweddle, Yvonne","Shirah, Sam, 1943-1980"],"dc_date":["1967","2019"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["Ballads, English--Appalachian Region, Southern","Oral tradition","Oral history","Racism","Race relations","Alabama--Race relations","Singing--Georgia","Enslaved persons--United States--History","Southern States--Rural conditions","Segregation--United States--1950-1960","African Americans--Southern States","Civil rights demonstrations--Southern States","Folk music--Southern States","Folk songs, American","Storytelling","African Americans--History","Country life","Guitar","Music","African Americans--Music","Southern University (Greensboro, Ala.)","Birmingham-Southern College"],"dcterms_title":["Yvonne Tweddle interview with Sam Shirah (part one)"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/p17222coll18/id/113"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. However, for this Item, either (a) no rights-holder(s) have been identified or (b) one or more rights-holder(s) have been identified but none have been located. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-RUU/1.0/?language=en"],"dcterms_medium":["open reel audiotapes"],"dcterms_extent":["32:34 minutes"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Dylan, Bob, 1941-","Moore, Bill","Wallace, George C. (George Corley), 1919-1998","Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","McBride, Barbara","Turnipseed, Marty","King, Martin Luther, III","Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","Zellner, Bob"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\nThe John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archive recordings contains unedited versions of all interviews. Some material may contain descriptions of violence, offensive language, or negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. There are instances of racist language and description, particularly in regards to African Americans. These items are presented as part of the historical record. This project is a repository for the stories, accounts, and memories of those who chose to share their experiences for educational purposes. The viewpoints expressed in this project do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the Atlanta History Center or any of its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. The Atlanta History Center makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in the interviews and expressly disclaims any liability therefore. If you believe you are the copyright holder of any of the content published in this collection and do not wa  The track opens up with four songs performed by Sam Shirah singing along with a stringed instrument, probably a guitar. The first song is about farming, traveling, places in the Union and the livelihood of migrant workers as the backbone of American agriculture. At 4:25 the second song begins, it glorifies country living, hard work, and staying away from cities and towns that offer the temptation of whiskey and liquor. The third song starts at 13:13 in which Shirah sings about regret, sadness, jealousy, and judgement of other people. Afterwards, a short fourth short song starts at 15:07 in which he reminisces about pleasant memories of his mother. At 16:07, Yvonne Tweddle interviews Sam Shirah. He starts with a story about Bill Moore, a postman and advocate for the Civil Rights Movement. On April 23, 1963 he was shot on his way to deliver a letter to Governor Ross Barnett of Jackson, Mississippi, about desegregation. Shirah, himself a supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, appealed to the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, for permission to march in protest. During the march, protesters sang a song that Shirah wrote to the tune of Go Tell Aunt Rhonda the Old Grey Goose is Dead. The song is played at 20:08 and ends at 21:32. Next, Shirah describes a church service he attended led by Dr. King, presumably Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., where he asked for volunteers to demonstrate against racial segregation despite the possibility of arrest. Ultimately, more than 50 people volunteered and marched to the Birmingham jail, many of whom police did ultimately arrest. Sam Shirah himself was arrested and consequently lost his job at the radio station at Birmingham Southern University, despite many of the students demonstrating beside him. Shirah sings two additional songs that were also sung during the march that focus on Bill (William) Moore, slavery, and Jim Crow laws.  Sam Shirah (1944-1980) was born outside Birmingham, Alabama. He attended Birmingham-Southern University for one year and then dropped out to become an active participant in the Civil Rights Movement in the American South. Then to pursue music full time, Shirah moved to New York where he performed in coffee houses, specifically in Greenwich Village. He later moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, and lived with Bob Dylan; then to Atlanta, Georgia, where he continued to be active in the Civil Rights Movement. Towards the end of his life, he continued to engage with both civil rights and music in Atlanta, playing in bars and speaking at the University of Georgia.  Marches, Civil Rights March, Protest and Social Movements  Y'vonne Tweddle English 406 Winter 1967 collected Winter 1968 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sam was born in Alabama, in 1944. He grew up in the country, \" near Birmingham. I-lis father and many of his relatives played the guitar, fiddle, and harmonica; and Sam learned his songs from them and from listening to the radio. I-Ie decided that he wanted to learn to play; and since no one seemed to have time to teach him, he sent off for a book that \\vas guaranteed to teach one how to play, in ten easy lessons or your money back. He was nine at the time. I-Ie entered Birmingham Southern college, dropped out after a year or so, and became involved in the Civil Rights Movement. Then he left the South for New York, where he played in numerous coffee-houses in Gremvich Village. Dissatisfied with this life, he again came South, lived for awhile with Bob Dylan, in New Orleans, and later entered the Civil Rights Movement once again. I-Ie has also worked for causes such as the Women's Union in South Carolina. Sam plays, now, in coffee houses and bars around Atlanta, and also has a standing engagement at the University of Georgia. He lives, with some friends, at Wildwood Community, a farm started by a small group of people from Atlanta. Sam's style retains its original lava)) and authenticity; it has undergone changes with the different influences to which he has been TAPE Ii~. Side 1. 1. It's a mighty hard row\" my poor hands has hoed An' my poor feet has traveled down a hot dusty road, Out of your'dust bowl and westward we rolled, An' your desertsweshot, an' your mountains was oold. California, Arizona, We worked all your crops, An' its then up to Oregon to gather your hops, Dig the beets frolllyourground, pick the grapes from your vines, To place on your table your light sparkling wines. ' Well we ,worked in your orchards of peaches and prunes, IIn'weslepton the ground by the light of your moon, lit the edge of the city you will find us and then, We\"oome' with the dust and we're gone with the wind. Green pastures of plenty from dry desert ground, From:the GrsndCoulee Dam Where the waters go down,_ Everyplace in this union, us migrants has been An we'll stiok in this fight, this fight we will win. It's always We remblethia river and I, Up' arid down your green valleys I' Uwol:'k til r die, An' I'll defend it with my life ,need it be, Green pastures of plenty must always be free. 2. (Refra in) Well, it's real, it's real, one more time. It's real, its real, one more time. I, got an aching in my belly an ashakin' in my head, An' I feel like I'm dyin', Oh Lord I willh I was dead, If I live 'till tomorrow, it'll be a long, long time. But I'll live and I'll fall and I'll rise, on codeine. (Refrain) When I ,was a young, girl my mama said ohild, Well the whiskey and liquor will driVe you Wild, Yes the Whiskey's the Devil and Liquor's a curse, But the fate of her child was a many times worse. (Refrain) (First Verse) Stay away from those cities, stay away from those towns, StaY away from those places where the remedy is found, 2 ,. 1 am Q lonesome hobo without family or friends Where another man's life might begin .. is exaotly where mine ends, I played my hand at robbery, blackmail and de~eit, An' I served time for \"verything except begging on. the street. Well now onoe I was rather prosperous, there was .nothin'. I did lack; I had 14 kt. gold in my mouth and silk upon my baok, But! 'did not trust my brothel', an' you carried him to blame, Which ,led me to myfeta of doom, to wandsI' off in.sharne. Kind 1ediesand kind gentlemen,. soon ..1 will b.e gone, But heed these words of werning before I do pass on, Stay free from petty jealousy and live by no man's' code, And keep your judgments for yourself, lest you Windup on this road. 4. Well in my memovy there's ... pioture Of a faoe so dear to me, Of loving arms that used to hold me, When 1 sat on Mother\"s knee. TAPE I. Side 2. 1. Bill 14oorewa8 (I didn't. know .it, see, 1 never met him), he was a postman; he was born and raised in Miseiesipp:l., and .he, you know, left Misa1ssippi beoause the....he was a pretty advanced kind of a h....d, and he didnet dig :\\.t,you kno\\f, theinjustioe and all. He went north to Baltimore, and he became il. postman. .. An' like when the. civil rights movement started, he \\fIlS try:l.ne.to figure out ~he was in CORE, .big menber, leader in the Baltimore looal, or whatever You oall it, ohapter), I gueslI:he was. tryin' to'f'igur.e out what :he ahoulddo, you know, being a Southerner an' all. So he just that like sinoe he was a Postman, thst he would deliver II. letter that he wrote. 'So he wrote this letter an' he oame down to Chattanooga on the bus 01' tra,in or something, and he started Walking. frolll Chattanl1oga, pulling ,a little wagon with. his supplies 1 guess in it, stuff like that you know, and he had a lot of l:l.ttle signs all over, said Eat at JQe'S, BIMk and White.U ....And he was deliverin' this letter, you know,he was a postman. wasgoin' to deliverthie letter to Ross Barnett, in Jackson, Mississippi, his hoae state. He started walkin l . He walked all the way fromOhllltte,Mc;\u0026gt;ga, down into alabama, ..through Georgia, the tip of Georgia, T. guess he was walking about lOb miles; not that far, I guess, about ao miles. And then somebody shot him; killed him, with a rifle~ (Tape 1. Side 2, cont'd) He was walking down the highway and somebody ambushed him an' like all he was doin' was doin' his thing, man, deliverin' his letter, he was a postman. An so like, we started, you know. we had II. big debate like where were we gonna start the marohl were we gonna,start where he was killed or would we start at Chattanooga, start allover again. Now I wanted to start right at Atalla. which is right out of Gadsen, Alabama, you know; an' just start right where Bill left off and just oarry it on, you know, as far as I could get, oarry the letterl but everybody else wanted to start at Chattanooga, so that.'s where we started from. We marched, about three days, I guess, about 60 miles, 'til we got to the Alabama line and we were arrested. Thel'ewere ,ten of us, five Negroes and five Whites ,~ there w9.$;five blaok people and five white people, an' me an Bob Zellner was, from Alabama. An the third day, see right before we went into Alabama. I wrote this telegram an' I said, \"Dear Governor Wallace.\" I said,\" I appeal to you, as my former Sunday...sohool teacher and as a fellow Alabamian to let me walk through my own state like I walked through Tennessee and Georgia,\", you know, and so forth something like that. and because he used to bsmy Sunday-school teacher. But anyway, 1'111 were walkin' down the hignway, and we'd make up theese songs as we' was wa1kin' along. (To the tune of \"Go tell Aunt Rhods'the Old Grey Goose Is Dead.\") Go tell Governor Wallace,/t,0 tell Governor Wallace, Go tell Governor Wallace,that William Moore\" is dead. He was killed with a rifle, killed with a rifle, Killed with tI. rifle, two bullets through his head. And the nation is cryin', the nation is a'cryin', The nation is eryin', Because Bill Moore is dead. But his spirit marches onward, his spirit marohes onward, His spirit marches onward, Although his pody's dead. Well, see we ...whenever we ... I was in Birmingham when he was killed, was working for FCLC sort of...gettin' paid by them a little bit, and 1 was \\~orking at this radio station, too. So when I went to ... l carried these t\\~O girls named Marty Turnipseed and Barbara McBride, took them to a mass meeting; Dr. King was preaching and at the end of his service he was asking for volunteers to come down, to volunteer to go to jail. And I guess there was maybe about eight or ten people came dmvn. Black people. And then it slacked off and nobody was coming. So these two gidS, Barbara McBride and Marty Turnipseed, they got up an' they went down, you know, appealing to people to come, you know. An they got up and went down; and like the whole church flipped out; man - an' like here's two white, Southern, females, born and raised in the state of Alabama, going to a college in Alabama, and they're )'Iilling to go to j ail for our cause, and like ' so what are we? So like the whole church flied out and the all started ettin: un and lin.lI\"\"nn- rlnhfn th ic::lc::. 4 Man, I don't know how many camp- - ahout fifty people came down the isles, and they volunteered to go to jail. So the next morning, Barbara Turnipseed went down to demonstrate, sit inj \\~as arrested by the police commissioner, Bull Connor, and questioned and took back out to the colle.~e in a meeting with the officials of the college and everything. And Barbara McBride's name came up and like they put the clamps on her, couldn't leave the campus or nothing. So I took her place, man, that afternoon, and 1 got picked up by Bull Connor myself, see. But like when I went back out to the campus this evening, I was trying to find out what \\~as going on. There was a mass meeting that night, and everybody was asking about 'em, so I \\~ent out there to get them and they ordered me to leave the campus and not to return. I told them I worked there; I worked on the campus, 'cause the radio station I worked for was on the campus in the conservatory of music building. And they says well it's too bad, you know. \"We're making a policy now that you can't come on this campus. So I refused to leave; I said well, look, I said I was a student here; I said, \"I'm not a student hene now, but I have many griends here, and, I said, \"I feel like that the Bill of Rights guarantees that, ah, the citizens of this country have the right to associate with who they please.\" And I said,\"You can't do that, you can,t have slavery out here.\" I said the people out here who are my friends have a right to associate with me and I'm on the campus visiting them ... an' I ain't gonna leave. So they went to call the cops, see. So while they were gone to call the cops, I went down to tell the black people who were \\~aiting in the car, to leave. And they said, \"Wait a minute; you can't do that. We got ta talk to Rev. Shuttles\\~orth first, see whether he wants to get in a fight with Birmingham Southern before you do that, you know; otherwise you'll just be up the creek by yourse If. So I said O. K.; so we went back to the mass meetin; and I went to talk to Rev. Shuttlesworth. By that time,see, they had a warrant out for me - for my arrest for trespassing on the campus at Birmingham Southern College. And Rev. Shuttlesworth says, \"IIere; here;s $40. You get a bus and get out of town. We don't want to get in a hassle with them yet.\" I got a bus, and Annie Pearl Avery went with me; black chick, you know, from Birmingham. An we were gonna go to the SNICK conference in Norfork, Va. Because that's where the march was gonna be talked about Bill Moore. We came to Atlanta and got arrested for freedom riding - she was a black chick. But they let us go - let me go - let her go. But Guy Carawan came down to the bus station before they'd let us go. We had to call him 'cause they held us about an hour-and-a-haIf, questioning. We we:ce gonna get a ride in Atlanta, but everybody'd done split for Norfork. So we went on up to Norfork and that's where we planned the march and everything - came back to Atlanta and on to Chattanooga - started it. And I guess Bill Moore was the catapult that threw me into the Civil Rights Movement, more than I'd been before, anyway. Cause I'd decided on my own, you know, that if nobody was gonna march, that I was gonna do it by myself. Just because ... I don't know. Just because like you know, I was protesting the murder of this man. But we went on down the road, singing songs. One of 'em we sang went like this: 5 Well William Moore, he was an American, Fought for his country in World War II, Kept on fight in , for the freedom, Of every Negro- and every white man, too. William Moore, he walked that valley, fie had to walk it by himself, Aint nobody else would walk it \\,ith him, He had to walk that lonesome valley by himself. So we must go, and walk this valley, We got to walk it by ourselves, Aint nobody else gonna walk it for us, We got to walk this lonesome valley by ourselves. Well that's the sane we sung. 1 think it was later written up ... 1 think Ernie Marsh wrote some of it: You got to join it by yourself Aint nobody here can join it for you, You gotta come down, join the Union by yourself. This here's an old freedom song ., comes from the days of slavery. They had a curfew that they, ah, had in them days. They had a patrol that \\,ent around; the black people called it the \"patty-role.\" Well do please master, don' ketch me, Just a ketch that nigger behin' that tree, He stole money, 1 stole none, Chunk' him in the cally-boose, just for fun. (Refrain) Run, nigger, run, the patty~role'l get yeh, Run nigger, run, its almost day. Well my ole master, he tole me, When he died, he g\\,in' set me free, He live so long, his head got bald, 1 give up the notion of him dyin' at all. (Refrain) Well my ole missus, she tole me, When she died she gonna set me free, Well she done died, many year ago, An' l'se still hoein', that same ole row. (Refrain) 6 WeH some folks say a Nigger won'steal But I caught one in my corn field, He run to the east and run to the west, Run his head in a hornet's nest. (Refrain) Some folks says a nigger wont steal, I caught three in my corn field, One had a bushel, one had a peck, One had a roastin' ear down his neck.  A PDF transcript exists for this recording. Please contact an archivist for access. [In some cases there will not be a transcript, in that case leave this field blank].  Professor John Burrison founded the Atlanta Folklore Archive Project in 1967 at Georgia State University. He trained undergraduates and graduate students enrolled in his folklore curriculum to conduct oral history interviews. Students interviewed men, women, and children of various demographics in Georgia and across the southeast on crafts, storytelling, music, religion, rural life, and traditions.  As archivists, we acknowledge our role as stewards of information, which places us in a position to choose how individuals and organizations are represented and described in our archives. We are not neutral, and bias is reflected in our descriptions, which may not convey the racist or offensive aspects of collection materials accurately. Archivists make mistakes and might use poor judgment. We often re-use language used by the former owners and creators, which provides context but also includes bias and prejudices of the time it was created. Additionally, our work to use reparative language where Library of Congress subject terms are inaccurate and obsolete is ongoing. Kenan Research Center welcomes feedback and questions regarding our archival descriptions. If you encounter harmful, offensive, or insensitive terminology or description please let us know by emailing reference@atlantahistorycenter.com. Your comments are essential to our work to create inclusive and thoughtful description.\n   \n\n   \n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1789","title":"Court filings regarding Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD), Office of Desegregation Management report, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, reply brief of Joshua intervenors, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-12"],"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--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","North Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","African Americans--Education","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD), Office of Desegregation Management report, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, reply brief of Joshua intervenors, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1789"],"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":["22 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: Court of Appeals, Amicus Curiae brief of the state of Arkansas in support of affirmance in favor of appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, notice of electronic filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2007-2008 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, notice of electronic filing, response in opposition to motion for declaratory judgment; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, Joshua intervenors' reply brief; Court of Appeals, certificate of service; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, letter-order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I No. 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS/ APPELLANTS V. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, and STATE OF ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division Honorable William R. Wilson AMICUS CURIE BRIEF OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE IN FAVOR OFAPPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General State of Arkansas SCOTT P. RICHARDSON #01208 MATTHEW B. McCOY #01165 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-1019 ATTORNEYS FOR ST A TE OF ARKANSAS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents .. ............................ .. .... .. ............... .. ..................................... .. .... i Table of Authorities ................................................... .. ................. .. ..................... ii Statement of Amicus Curiae and Summary of the Argument.. .... .. ........ ............. I Argument. ... ....................... .. ............... ............. ............. .... ..... ...................... .... ..... 4 I. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ................................. ............ ..... 4 II. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT LRSD SATISFIED ITS 2.7.1 OBLIGATIONS ...... .. .... .. .... .. .. 7 II. GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH A DESEGREGATION PLAN IS THE LAW OF THIS CASE, NOT \"DEEPLY EMBEDDED\" COMPLIANCE .... .. .. .. ............ .... ... ... I 0 Conclusion ...................... .... .. .. .. ... ....... ... ..... .. .. ......... ..... ... ...... ..... .. .... ...... ... .. ...... I 7 Certificate of Service .......... .. ............ ..... .. ......................... .. ................... .. ......... . 19 Certificate of Compliance .... ... ... .... ..... ...... .. ... .. .............. .. ..... .. ............... .. ...... .... 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Anderson v. Beseimer City, 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985) ...... .... ................ .. ........ ................... .. ... .... .. ... ..... 6 Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 , 103 S.Ct. 1382 (1983) .................................... ............... ........ ..... .. ...... 11 Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630 (1991) .... ..... ... .. .. ... .......... ......... .. ........ .. ............... 2, 12, 13 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753 (1955) ... .. .... 3, 12 Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Rent-a-Wreck of America, Inc., 181 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 1999) .............................. .. ............. .... .. ............. 5 First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp. , Ltd. 477 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2007) ............ ................. .... ..... ............... .... 10-11 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1991) ............... ............. .. 13 Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968) .. ... .. ....................................... .. ..... .. ....... .. ........ .. 12 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Armstrong, et al. , 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004) ......... .... ...... .. ... .. ...... .. .. ..... ... ..... .. ... 3, 5, 14 LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006) ............ ........... .. .. ........ 3, 15, 16 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002) ................ 3, 13 LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Ark. 2004) ... ... ............ 2, 14, 15 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 2007 WL 624054 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 23, 2007) .... ....................... ....... ................... 8, 9, 10, 15 United States v. Hively , 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006) ....... ........................... 11 II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I United States v. Manfre, 456 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2003) ................................ 11 United States v. McCarthy, 97 F .3d 1562 (8th Cir. 1996).... ...... .......... ...... .. .. 5 RULES Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(a) ..................................................... ................ .. ...... ... 5, 6 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I STATEMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The State of Arkansas files this Amicus Curiae brief pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) in support of the District Court's finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has achieved full unitary status. The State's interest in this proceeding arises out of its status as a party to the 1990 settlement agreement in this case, its general supervisory authority over the LRSD, the over $60 million each year the State spends in support of the desegregation efforts of the three Pulaski County school districts in this case, and the State's interest in seeing that the three Pulaski County school districts substantially comply with their desegregation plans. The Joshua Intervenors argue on appeal that the District Court's judgment finding the LRSD to have achieved unitary status should be reversed and that the LRSD should be returned to its nearly fifty years of court supervision. In support of this argument the Joshua Intervenors argue three points on appeal: 1) that the District Court erred in its fact and credibility determinations, 2) that the LRSD failed to do enough in establishing its program assessment and evaluation process, and 3) that the District Court should not have returned to the proper standard by which to measure the school district's desegregation plan compliance. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in its factual findings. Their primary dispute on appeal with those findings is their disagreement with the District Court's credibility determinations. The Court below properly chose which witness testimony to credit. The Joshua Intervenors have failed to demonstrate that the District Court abused its wide discretion. The LRSD took many steps and spent considerable resources to ensure that a process to continually assess and evaluate its key 2.7 programs was a permanent part of its curriculum. Although, the District Court had improperly imposed the heightened \"deeply embedded\" standard on the LRSD in this area, the record amply supports a finding that the LRSD met even this heightened standard. The District Court properly acknowledged that it had changed the law on the LRSD when it required that the district's \"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963, 997-8 (E.D. Ark. 2004)(emphasis in original). The correct legal standard is whether the district substantially complied with its desegregation plan in good faith. This has been the standard since Brown II was decided by the Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955). This standard was also clearly laid out by the District Court in its 2002 opinion finding the LRSD unitary as to the majority of its plan obligations, LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1035-36 (E.D. Ark. 2002), and was affirmed by this Court in 2004. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). In this Court's 2006 opinion, it clearly reserved judgment on the propriety of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F .3d 528, 541 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the \"deeply embedded\" standard is not the law of this case but was a departure from the settled law of this case. Two other school districts remain as defendants in this case: the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Spe~ial School District (PCSSD). A holding from this Court that the \"deeply embedded\" standard was proper would destabilize the settled law of this case. It would allow the standard for plan compliance to be changed without notice to these districts, as happened with the LRSD. Accordingly, the District Court's return to the proper standard should be clearly affirmed. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT Almost fifty years after the Little Rock School District's first major step in the integration of its schools, the District has achieved another milestone: a judgment from the district court granting full unitary status and complete release from court supervision. Through their appeal, the Joshua Intervenors seek to return the school district to court supervision. The State of Arkansas files this Amicus brief in support of the Little Rock School District's full unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors urge reversal of the District Court for three reasons: 1) they assert that the District Court was wrong in its factual findings because they disagree with the court's credibility determinations, 2) they believe that the School District's many efforts to embed a program evaluation process has not gone far enough, and 3) they assert that the District Court should not have analyzed district efforts using the good faith standard of substantial compliance. Because the District Court was clearly correct in each of its determinations, the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed in all respects. I. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS. The Joshua Intervenors argue factual errors based on their disagreement with the District Court's credibility determinations. Most 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I notably, the bulk of the testimony relied upon by the Joshua Intervenors are not factual statements but mere conclusions of certain witnesses about the effectiveness of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) efforts to comply with the District Court's 2004 order. \"Credibility determinations are within the exclusive domain of the district court, and are virtually unreviewable on appeal.\" United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d 1562, 1579 (8th Cir. 1996). A district court's factual determinations, including credibility of witnesses, are reviewed for \"clear error.\" Enterprise Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Rent-a-Wreck of America, Inc., 181 F.3d 906, 909 (s1h Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 52(a) (\"Findings of fact ... shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses\"). The Eighth Circuit does not overturn a district court's factual findings unless it is left with the \"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\" Little Rock School District, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., 359 F.3d 957, 963 (8th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court has instructed that Courts of Appeal may not reverse the district court's factual findings as long as \"the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety ... even though [the circuit court may be] convinced that had it been 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently\" Anderson v. Beseimer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-4, 105 S.Ct. 1504 (1985)(holding that appellate courts are bound by Fed. R. Civ: Pro. 52's clearly erroneous standard). The Joshua Intervenors point this Court to no objective basis for overturning the District Court's credibility determinations. \"[W]hen a trial judge's finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.\" Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575, 105 S.Ct. at 1512. The Intervenors focus primarily on the testimony of one witness, the director of the LRSD's Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department: Dr. Karen DeJarnette. As demonstrated by the record, Dr. DeJarnette's reliability in drawing conclusions about the district's unitary status efforts was substantially undermined at the unitary status hearings. Indeed, she revealed herself to have lost objectivity in opining on this ultimate issue of the unitary status hearings. Her testimony demonstrated that she had realized the effect that judicial supervision over  2. 7 .1 assessments and evaluations had on her 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I office, which was charged with carrying out these programs, and for that reason she was willing to act in support of continuing judicial supervision of the LRSD. She was shown to have shifted from an effort to comply with the court's order to an effort to gather power to her department without regard to the decisions of district administrators or the advice of the district's attorney. The District Court properly chose to discredit her testimony. The Joshua Intervenors have not shown error in the District Court's  credibility determinations. The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed. II. NO CLEAR ERROR IN THE COURT'S DETERMINATION THAT LRSD SATISFIED ITS 2.7.1 OBLIGATIONS As will be explained further in this brief, the District Court properly recognized that the requirement it imposed that the school district must show that its program for assessment and evaluation was \"deeply embedded\" in school policies, was outside the parameters set by prior court decisions and should be abandoned. Even so, the LRSD presented considerable proof that it had, in fact, \"deeply embedded\" a process for evaluating its  2.7 programs, those designed to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, and that it was sincerely committed to that endeavor. The Joshua Intervenors only evidence to the contrary is that a \"data warehouse\" was not completed and that the LRSD was still in the process of 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I developing school portfolios at the time of the hearing. These were initiatives to make the district's access to data on its students more readily accessible and better organized. However, the testimony and evidence demonstrated that the LRSD could produce accurate, reliable data on its student's academic performance without these programs. Chief among the District Court's factual findings in this regard is that the LRSD had in place a reliable process for gathering the information necessary to evaluate and assess its programs. ' LRSD maintains \"data silos\" (individual servers) in numerous departments, which contain all of the information PRE needs to prepare program assessments and evaluations. To access these data silos, PRE sends a \"radar request\" to LRSD's information technology department. Data specialists then go to the data silos and assemble the requested data. Dr. DeJamette and Mr. W ohlleb testified it usually takes two days or less for the data specialists to provide PRE with all of the requested data. Thus, even if the Data Warehouse failed to provide PRE with the data it needed, it could still prepare program assessments and evaluations using radar requests to access the data from the decentralized data silos where it is also maintained. The software concerns about perceived problems with the Data Warehouse represent a difference of opinion and preference, but the choice of Business Objects in no way indicates that LRSD has failed to comply with its obligations. LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 2007 WL 624054 * 17 ,r 23 (E.D.AR. Feb. 23, 2007)( emphasis in original). The Joshua Intervenors do not dispute this finding. Appellant's Brief p. 1. Accordingly, the undisputed factual evidence demonstrates that the LRSD has and continues to have ready 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I access to accurate, reliable data with which to assess and evaluate its  2. 7 programs. This was the same system used to provide data to Drs. Steven Ross and James S. Catterall for their  2.7 program evaluations. These experts vouched for the reliability of the data provided from this system in strong terms: \"All six of these evaluations were 'good evaluations.\"' Id. at *19 ,rs. \"Dr. Ross testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare .t hese six evaluations of 2.7 programs.\" Id. at *20 if6. \"Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall both testified that PRE provided them with all of the support and assistance they needed to prepare the eight evaluations.\" Id. at *21 ,r 2. Dr. Catterall \"stated that the data he received from LRSD was better than the data he received from most school districts.\" Id. at *20 if7. The evidence presented at the unitary status hearings showed that the district's efforts to create a data warehouse, Id. at *16 ifl9, and school portfolios, Id. at * 15, if 13, were additional efforts that went well beyond what was required by the LRSD's desegregation plan and the District Court's 2002 and 2004 compliance remedies. Accordingly, the District Court properly concluded: In short, there is nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy or Regulation IL-R which obligates LRSD to create a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios or to accomplish those two objectives before the comprehensive program assessment 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I process could be deemed to be \"deeply embedded.\" Clearly, LRSD administrators voluntarily decided to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, in part, to make it easier for PRE to have access to the data it needed to perform assessments and evaluations. Id. at * 17 ,I 24. The LRSD presented sufficient evidence that it had implemented a process of assessment and evaluation that satisfied the District Court's now (properly) abandoned \"deeply embedded\" requirement. If there was any doubt, it was erased by the evidence of the district's moving beyond its then existing data mining capabilities to the great expense it went to in developing a data warehouse and school portfolios to facilitate the process of program assessment and evaluation. Accordingly, the District Court determined that even though the \"deeply embedded\" standard should be abandoned, nevertheless the LRSD had satisfied that standard and had left no doubt that its  2. 7 program assessment and evaluation process met the requirements of the district's plan. III. GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE WITH DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS IS THE LAW OF THIS CASE, NOT \"DEEPLY EMBEDDED\" COMPLIANCE The law of the case doctrine provides that a court's decision on a rule of law should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent decisions in that case. First Union Nat. Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp. , Ltd., 477 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2007). It is an \"amorphous\" concept that directs the court's discretion, but \"does not limit the tribunal's power.\" Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 (1983). The doctrine does not apply to interlocutory orders, which can always be reconsidered and modified by the district court prior to entry of a final order. United States v. Hively, 437 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2006). As to appellate decisions, the law of the case \"ordinarily\" requires a district court to follow an appellate decision with re~pect to all issues directly decided by that opinion. United States v. Manfre, 456 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2006). Of course, a district court is not bound as to legal issues not addressed by an opinion of an appellate court. Id. Even where an appellate court has addressed an issue, however, the district court may still reconsider and modify the decision on that issue. \"Under law of the case doctrine, as now most commonly understood, it is not improper for a court to depart from a prior holding if convinced that it is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.\" Arizona, 460 U.S. at 619 fn. 8, 103 S.Ct. at 1391 fn. 8. Indeed, this Court has acknowledged that even where it has decided an issue of law, a district court is not prevented from revisiting the issue if the Eighth Circuit's decision was \"clearly erroneous and worked a manifest injustice.\" Manfre, 456 F.3d at 874. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Here, the District Court's insertion of a \"deeply embedded\" requirement into the case in 2004 was a departure from the settled law in desegregation cases. Since Brown II, the Supreme Court has held that a school district should be released from federal court supervision if \"the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.\" Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955)(emphasis added). In Green v. County School Board, of New Kent County, the Court again affirmed that a school district's obligation of compliance was \"to be acting in good faith.\" 391 U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1695 (1968). Twenty-three years later in a case on desegregation remedy, the Supreme Court again stated that a school district's compliance with its desegregation obligations must be weighed with a view to the \"good faith of the school board in complying with the decree.\" Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637-8 (1991). In Dowell, the Court rejected a request that a higher standard (not unlike the \"deeply embedded\" standard at issue here) be applied to a school district and held that the principles supporting a federal court's displacement of a school board's authority did not \"require any such Draconian result.\" Id. On the contrary, the Court instructed that \"[t]he District Court should 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I address itself to whether the Board ha[ s] complied in good faith with the desegregation decree.\" Id. at 249-50, 111 S.Ct. at 638 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Freeman v. Pitts the Court rejected the assertion that a school district had to engage in \"heroic measures\" to demonstrate compliance with a desegregation plan. 503 U.S. 467, 493, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1447 (1991). Instead, the Court emphasized that the school district was simply required to demonstrate its good faith commitment to the principles of desegregation. Id. This case has consistently followed the good faith standard enunciated by the Supreme Court. In 2002, when the District Court ruled that LRSD was unitary as to the majority of its desegregation obligations, the court went to great length to analyze the proper standard by which to judge the LRSD's compliance efforts. LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The result of that analysis was the court's conclusion that the proper standard was \"substantial compliance.\" Id. at 1032-33. It went on to give a focused definition of that term as it would apply to the case. Id. at 1035-36. The court held: I am required to examine whether any of LRSD's failures to comply with the Revised Plan in the six challenged areas are \"serious enough\": ( 1) to constitute \"substantial noncompliance\"; and (2) \"to cast doubt\" on LRSD's \"future compliance with the constitution.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Id. It was this standard that the court went on to apply in holding that the LRSD was unitary as to all aspects of its desegregation plan, save one:  2.7.1. This Court adopted this standard and used it in reviewing the District Court's 2002 unitary status ruling. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). Each section of that opinion analyzing the District Court's unitary holdings concludes with the statement that \"we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance.\" Id. It does not ' appear from this Court's 2004 opinion that the question of what standard applied to the LRSD's conduct was seriously doubted. To the extent that a different standard may have been urged, that request was rejected. See Id. at 965. Not quite two months after this Court handed down its March 2, 2004, opinion, the District Court issued the Memorandum Opinion at issue here regarding the LRSD' s efforts to substantially comply with  2. 7 .1 of its desegregation plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963 (E.D. Ark. 2004). The District Court acknowledged the effect of this Court's March 2, 2004, opinion: \"Thus, all aspects of the September 13[, 2002,] Decision are now final and law of the case.\" Id. at 965. Accordingly, the \"substantial compliance\" standard laid down in 2002 became the law of the case. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Moreover, the District Court acknowledged that \"[i]t is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy.\" Id. at 984 ( emphasis added). Despite the District Court's recognition of the proper standard, it departed from that standard in one aspect of its 2004 memorandum opinion. The court held that the LRSD's \"comprehensive process for assessing  2.7 programs must become a deeply embedded part of LRSD's elementary and ' secondary curriculum.\" Id. at 985, 997. The court's desire to see that programs designed to improve the academic performance of AfricanAmerican children in the LRSD continue to be assessed and evaluated for effectiveness is certainly laudable and should be commended. LRSD, 2007 WL 624054 *7-8 fu. 43, 47. However, as the court recognized, that desire is not a basis to change the rule of law applicable to this case. As the District Court explained in its 2004 opinion, the law in this area, and in this case, did not require the LRSD to engage in heroic efforts to demonstrate its good faith; it required substantial compliance in good faith with the LRSD's desegregation plan. On appeal from the 2004 District Court decision, the majority opinion of this Court did not directly address the \"deeply embedded\" standard. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). Instead the majority stated \"that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order.\" Id. at 540-41. The majority then made clear that its affirmance of the \"even more heightened requirements\" of the 2004 compliance remedy was based on the LRSD's ongoing efforts to comply with that remedy. Id. The question of. the propriety of these requirements was specifically reserved for another day: \"Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us.\" Id. at 541. This precatory language certainly falls short of this Court having decided to depart from the good faith, substantial compliance standard and to adopt the \"deeply embedded\" standard. To hold that LRSD was required to satisfy the subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement would drastically alter the law governing the future progress of this case. As this Court is aware, two more school districts remain under the supervision of the District Court in this case. Recognition and affirmance of the good faith standard of substantial compliance with a 16 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I desegregation plan by this Court would ensure that no such departures from the long standing law would be imposed upon these two remaining districts. The 2006 affirmance of the District Court's 2004 compliance remedy was clearly premised on the time that had passed and the then ongoing efforts of the LRSD in complying with the 2004 remedy. If this Court were now to approve the 2004 departure from the long-standing law of this case, it would allow the District Court to alter the standards for compliance applicable to the two remaining districts. without prior notice to those districts and the opportunity to conform their actions to the newly announced expectations of the court as opposed to the settled law. The Joshua Intervenor's request that this Court sanction this shifting sands approach to this half-century old litigation should be soundly rejected. The State of Arkansas requests that the District Court's return to the settled law of this case be affirmed for the benefit of the future litigation of the unitary status of the two remaining districts. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the State of Arkansas, as Amicus Curiae, requests that this Court affirm the District Court's grant of complete unitary status to the Little Rock School District in its entirety. 17 I I Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL I Attorney General I By: /4-~ I Scott P. Richardson, Ark. Bar # 2001208 MatthewB.McCoy, Ark. Bar#2001165 I Assistant Attorneys General 323 Center Street, Ste 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 I (501) 682-1019 (501) 682-2591 fax scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov I ' Dennis R. Hansen I Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the State of I Arkansas. I I I I I I I I I 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing brief and one virus free diskette containing a copy of the brief have been served on the following via regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this z~:ttay of November, 2007: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 024 21 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Hon. Andree Roaf Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 /4--~ Scott P. Richardson 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the applicable parts of this brief comply with typevolume limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7). The Brief contains 3,797 words and 355 lines of text. Pursuant to Local Rule 28A, Appellees hereby submit a 3 \" computer diskette to the Clerk and counsel for the principal parties. The brief was prepared in Microsoft Office Word 2003 using the proportionally spaced typeface Times New Roman in font size fourteen point. I, Scott P. Richardson, hereby certify that the diskettes presented to the Clerk and Appellant's counsel have been scanned for viruses and are virus free. Scott P. Richardson 20 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:35 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the :filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/7/2007 at 4:34 PM CST and filed on 12/7/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Office of Desegregation Monitor WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document N um be_!: 4171 (No document attached) Docket Text: NOTICE of Filing 2007-2008 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the PCSSD by Office of Desegregation Monitor (available in paper format only) (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirrnpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com - Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 12/10/2007 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) mhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 12/10/2007 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2007 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 \"ECEJVED DEC 2 o 2in Office of Desegregation Monitoring vlll One Union National ~,., .. _ OFFICE OF 124 West Capitol, Suh,t!~ATION MONITOR/ Little Rock, AR 72201 NG Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 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 December 2007 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: Scott Richardson, Attorney General's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Jim Cooper, Melbourne Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT cc\u0026amp;~CEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 2 0 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for December 2007. Respectfully Submitted, 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 December I Cy-f--_-1:,)007, 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. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 1 of 3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:12 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/19/2007 at 3:12 PM CST and filed on 12/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4172 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsrnith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net 2/5/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) mhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcec:fStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/19/2007] [FileNumber=l061501- 2/5/2008 0] [b95ad922a60bf757b40e2d3b8d210b19d9b11916044018f5bed3923038f3651d56 490c805980ba10dd76aafe7662051e96104aeecb06bd6203db604e359ff052]] 2/5/2008 Page 3 of3 Page 1 of3 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:12 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice (Other) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered on 12/19/2007 at 3:12 PM CST and filed on 12/19/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4172 Docket Text: NOTICE Of Filing the ADE's Project Management Tool for December 2007 by Arkansas Department of Education (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: H. William Allen (Terminated) hwallen@allenlawfirmpc.com, njjackson@allenlawfirmpc.com Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Stephen L. Curry (Terminated) scurry@aristotle.net John T. Lavey (Terminated) jlavey@laveyandburnett.com, jsmith@laveyandburnett.com Philip K. Lyon (Terminated) pklyon@jljnash.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Richard W. Roachell (Terminated) rroachell@aol.com, schoollaw@msn.com William H. Trice, III (Terminated) btrice@hfc-law.com Page 2 of3 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Sharon Carden Streett (Terminated) scstreett@comcast.net John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Will Bond (Terminated) will@mcmathlaw.com, tasha@mcmathlaw.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier (Terminated) rnhagemeier@uasys.edu, tsmith@uasys.edu Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/19/2007] [FileNumber=l061501- 2/12/2008 0] [b95ad922a60bf757b40e2d3b8d210b19d9b11916044018f5bed3923038f3651d56 490c805980ba10dd76aafe7662051e96104aeecb06bd6203db604e359ff052]] 2/12/2008 Page 3 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET Absc INTERVENOR/APPELLANTP 1 civc 0 v. DEc 2 o 2001 DESEG11/jf!lct OF ,7DN /,f O,JJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,;JTORJN(J APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) .I I .I, I I I I 'I I I I I I 1 I I I I Table of Contents Table of Contents ............ .. ..... .... ... .. ...... ...... ........................ .... .. ......... . Table of Authorities .......... .................... ... ........ ....... .... ... .. ... ............... . Argu1nent            oooo    \"                oo  OO    OO         \" The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal Certificate of Service ... .... ............ ... ..... ......... ..... .... ..... ... .. ... ........ .... .. .... . Certificate of Compliance ... .... ........ ....... ...... ......... ... .... ............ ... ....... ... . Attachments i 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 12 14 I I ,, I ,, I I .I I I I , , I I I I 1 I I Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 FJd 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Tmstee v. Pictet Overseas Tmst Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (1 stCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 FJd 1 (1 stCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company. 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 9, 11 4 2 I I I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I I Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 I I I ., , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1 ; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the \"deeply embedded\" language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with knowledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to detennine 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 fonn of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement.1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2.7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and re.mediate the academic achievement of African American students . .. . \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs . . .. \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15 .2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obviously not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of persom1el capable of perfonning assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and docmnents containing 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a tenn thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may detennine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 I I I I ., I I I I I I I I I I I I I l1 completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable constmction of the parties' broa,d voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a stmcture to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instmction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its tenns. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2. 7 .1 was not constrained by any directive( s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a\" Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F .2d at 13 78-80. Rejecting mlings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: It is important for the settlement plans to be scmpulously adhered to -- and here 3 I I I I I I. I I I I I I, I I I I I I ( I I we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that the monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's mlings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 378 (1992) (\"A  consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the mies generally applicable to otl1er judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, 111 a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court mled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1 , the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. 4 I. I I I I I I .,I I I I I I I I I I I, As to 2. 7 .1 , the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be swmnarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2. 7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2.7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80) [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001 , only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report ( at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7) [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079-80, para. 14) [ v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2. 7 .1 required the preparation of  evaluations of key 2.7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10) Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88): [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a 5 I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available infonnation in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2. 7 .1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as constrned by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong tenns by this court in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' . bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a tennination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2. 7. i. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] 6 I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I although, as LRSD's expert witness .testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearmg transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [470 F.Supp. at 971-72, 987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question  identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instmction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings inLRSD perfonnance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [470 F.Supp. 994]; [vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and mathscience evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 c01mnitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2.7 .1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"nm off\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no. part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43 . First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2.7 .1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2.7 .1. See n.2, supra.3 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2. 7 .1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2. 7 .1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaul~s, comes straight from the broad 2. 7 .1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication, \"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, tl1e State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2. 7 .1. and invoked by tl1e District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia . Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA 4 Knight V. PCSSD, 11,2 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 5 5 (b )(2 ), F ed.R. Ci v .Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the trnth of any avennent' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [him] .' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).\"; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) (opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union National Bank v. Pictet Overseas Tmst, 477 F.3d 616, 621 (8thCir. 2007) (discussing possible applicability oflaw of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what tl1e basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an infonned manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) ( whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a tennination of court jurisdiction. [470 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p ]art ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing . . .. \" [4 70 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black, supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, imanagement orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the hann. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony . . . and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e. , a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity . . .. \" First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element of Sec. 2.7.1 , fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain oflntervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2. 7 .1 ; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2. 7 .1 , for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a tennination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [ i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, detennine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [ iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, detennine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty\u0026lt;ruaol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Briefhas been served on this 18st day ofDecember, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24 .329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/or handdelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . ls/John W. Walker 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 2( a )(7)( C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A( c ), that this Reply Brief ( exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements ofFRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9. 0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one vims free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Fonnat). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file . Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 December 6, 2006 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway  Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Counsel: As you know, this case is set for a hearing to commence on Monday, December 18, 2006. By noon this Friday, December 8, 2006, please fax me a list of your witnesses with a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony of each witness and the length of time you estimate for  direct examination. Please also carefully identify each exhibit that you intend to offer at the hearing by noon Friday, December 8. By noon Monday, December 11, 2006, each of you should fax me a letter with your estimated time of cross-examination for each adverse witness. We may have to work~ long day to complete the testimony. I understand that the media has reported a stir or two concerning some of th.e potential witnesses, and concerning one or more of the lawyers of record. If these media reports are accurate, pf e~e advise me in exact and plenary detail what part, if any, these stirs will play in the December 18 hearing. Include any new issues that you anticipate (this information should also be submitted by noon, this Friday). It is my understanding that Mr. John Burnett and Mr. Steve Quattlebaum, both of the Little Rock Bar, are representing some of the potential witnesses or other principals in the case. Both of these Page 1 of 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lawyers are on Judge Tom Ray's recusal list. In view of this I think it is likely that he will recuse in the immediate future -- assuming, of course, that any of the individuals these lawyers represent will play a part in the hearing. I look forward to hearing from you. Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. P.S . No requests for extensions of the above deadlines, please. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Ms. Mary Johnson Other Counsel of Record Page 2 of 2 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW . -Document 4095 Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (601) 604-5149 January 18, 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP - Little Rock Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD ~- PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Counsel: . We will have a total of about 20 hours for the hearing, considering dinner (lunch) breaks, and a 15  minute break each morning and afternoon. -LRSD will have 7 hours to present its case. Joshua will have a total of2 hours for cross-examine of L_RSD's witnesses .. Joshua will have 7 hours to present its case. LRSD will have a total of 2 hours to cross-examine Joshua's witnesses. Cross-examination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy. You should be keenly aware of the time limits, lest evidence you deem important gets passed by. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson.Jr.  l/17?, Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:47 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response in Opposition to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 12/20/2007 at 3:46 PM CST and filed on 12/20/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4173 ( \"Po /'If~ h4 \\/\u0026lt;. clo C.1,1 W\\ C \") r Docket Text: RESPONSE in Opposition re [4141] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment, [4143] MOTION for Declaratory Judgment filed by Lorene Joshua. (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/20/2007] [FileNumber=1062801- 0] [2c4a2e7112bb6558e0a14444d8175f6274883ca83101922b2eb8a45ff417b39196 1145745a839186c4571040330aba330e2abdbb6c616bd01284d06d3dd62049]] 1/8/2008 . . - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW  1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722ftE\"  TELEPHONE (501) 374-37580 CEIVEO FAX (501) 374-4.187 . . . EMAIL: jolmwalkera ttYri'.uaol.com  DEC 2 Q 200l l)oc.. l/l,'t JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS . OFCOUNSEI DESEG OFFICE OF ROBERT McHENRY. P.A REGATION MONITORJNr. . 8210 HENDERSON .ROAI Mr. Michael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis; MO 63102 December 18, ] 007  . '!!!TILE ROCK, ARKA,'\\JSAS 722 1( PHONE: (501 ) 374-3425  FA.\"\\: (501) 372-3421 EMAIL: md1ear,\u0026lt;l;Z\u0026amp;,,wbd!.ne1 . ' Re: 07-1866 Little Rock School :District, et al. v. Joshua Intervenors, et al. Dear Mt. Gans: Enclosed please find ten copies of Joshua Iritervenors ' Reply Brief along with the digital version brief on a 3. 5\" computer diskette in PDF format to be filed in the above matter. JWW:lp Enclosures cc:  All Counsel of Record I I 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET Ab~c    INTERVENOR/APPELLANT~ 11 ,;1 c,vco 'EC E O 200 V. . 7 DESEG11oiff'CE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 7081108 '10/iJNq APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas  Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding RECEIVED DEC 2 O 2007 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITOIDNG Robert Pressman John W. Walker 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................... ................................ . Table of Authorities .................................... .. ..................................... . Argument .................................................. ....................... ................. . The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2.7.1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. F. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal 1 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 Certificate of Service .............. ....................................... ........................ 12 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Attachments i Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Trustee v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (lstCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (lstCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company, 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 10 9, 11 4 2 Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the II deeply embedded 11 language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with knowledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 provided that: 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. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement.1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2. 7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students .... \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs . ... \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15.2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obviously not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers - and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of personnel capable of performing assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233, 238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429, 442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may determine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and documents containing completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable construction of the parties' broad voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a structure to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instruction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an hnplementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2.7.1 was not constrained by any directive(s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a \"Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F.2d at 1378-80. Rejecting rulings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: 3 It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that the monitoring is done eff ecti vel y, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's rulings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,378 (1992) (\"A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some - respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court ruled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1, the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 4 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. As to 2.7.1, the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be summarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2. 7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2. 7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80] [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001, only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report (at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7] [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079- 80, para. 14] [v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2.7.1 required the preparation of evaluations of key 2.7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10] Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88]: [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare 5 and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available information in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2.7.1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as construed by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong terms by this court - in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a termination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2. 7 .1. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its 6 obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] although, as LRSD's expert witness testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearing transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 971-72,987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [470 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings in LRSD performance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [ 4 70 F.Supp. 994]; [ vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and math-science evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always 7 identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 commitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2.7.1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2.7.1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"run off.\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43. First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2. 7 .1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2. 7 .1. 8 See n.2, supra.3 Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2.7.1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaults, comes straight from the broad 2.7.1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication,\"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2. 7 .1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No - factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, the State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1. and invoked by the District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2.7.1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 4 Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the truth of any averment' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [him].' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).''; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) ( opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union NationalBankv. PictetOverseas Trust, 477 F.3d 616,621 (8thCir. 2007) (discussing possible applicability of law of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an informed manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 10 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a termination of court jurisdiction. [ 470 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p ]art of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing .... \" [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black, supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, \"management orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the harm. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony ... and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 11 hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity .... \"First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element - of Sec. 2.7.1, fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain of Intervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2.7.1; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2.7.1, for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a termination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. 12 Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, /s/.Tohn W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief has been served on this 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis,Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/orhanddelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. ls/John W. Walker 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A(c), that this Reply Brief (exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9.0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Format). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file. Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1:miec E' ivE 0 TELEPHONE (501) 374_375f1'E,;, . FAX (501) 374-4187 EMAIL: johnwalkeratt1'1i:vaol.com DEC 2 G 2007 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS l\\llr. Michael Shay United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 December 20, 2007 OFFICE OF OF COUNS DESEGREGATION MONITORINIRoBERT McHENRY, P 8210 HENDERSON RO LITTLE ROCK, .-\\RK.4..\u0026lt;\"\\/SAS 72: PHONE: (501) 374-3425  FA,'{ (501) 372a3 EMAIL: mchenr,1.1hswbdl Re: 07-1866 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Joshua Intervenors, et al. Dear Ivlr. Shay: Pursuant to our telephone conversation, enclosed you will find the original pages 13, 14, and 15 with Mr. Walker's signature. By copy of this letter, I am also providing all counsel listed on the Certificate of Service with these pages. If there are any additional corrections which need to be made, please advise. Sincerely, /\\ .Y  l ....-2 r7'1[!l0,1 o~v~ YsiL6raPowell Secretary to John W. Walker LP: Enclosures 13 . Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty(a)aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief was served on the 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 18 14 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to .Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 2( a )(7)( C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A( c ), that this Reply Brief ( exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of cotmsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements ofFRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using W ordperfect 9. 0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The tmdersigned has provided -one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all cotmsel of record: The digital version of this briefhas been famished on a 3.5\" computer diskette - in Portable Docmnent Fonnat (also known as PDF or Acrobat Fonnat). The digital version was generated by printing to PDE from the original word processing file . Dated: December 20, 2007 15 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ su pport@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:57 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Opposition This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 12/20/2007 at 3:56 PM CST and filed on 12/20/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4174 Docket Text: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION filed by Lorene Joshua re [4145] Brief in Support (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 . ' . . Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalk:eratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/20/2007] [FileNumber=l062865- 0] [65977f3b2c5e2ab4a9418b842718fd4c5295:f29ef9e7ef3b12d48014f6ad014540 aead3a02061f86aal 1564a5f02afl 7570a3601c799a30116bc81d2c7b02225]] 1/8/2008 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Poe. 'i 115 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, for its response to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, states: 1. Dr. Donna Humpries, a member of PACT, has pending an individual Title VII and 14th Amendment claim against Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in Humphries v. PCSSD, E.D. Ark. Case No. 4:06 CV-00606. Likewise, Ms. Norma Dixon, a noncertified employee of PCS SD, has pending an individual Title VII claim against PCS SD. Both are represented herein by PACT and other named class representatives. [Dkt. 1179] 2. Dr. Humphries alleges PCS SD has preferentially hired and promoted minority applicants for elementary administrative positions since at least 2001. The statistical evidence in support of her allegation is overwhelming.. See, Employment Analysis of Elementary School Assistant Principals in the Pulaski County Special School District (report of plaintiffs Page 1 of 5 3. expert, Dr. David Sharp), Docket# 38, Exhibit 1, in 4:06cv00606. In its motion for release from court supervision, PCS SD cites the very statistic which tends to prove racial bias in hiring and promotion relative to Dr. Humphries' case. Specifically, PCS SD informs the court that over fifty-two percent of its school based administrators are black. Brief in Support of PCSSD'S Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, at 5, (\"Brief, \"hereafter). Unfortunately, PCS SD fails to report to the court that only 21 % of the relevant labor pool of certified teachers for those positions is black, and therefore, it has reached this 52% level by methods that imply a further violation of the 14th Amendment. It is so far undisputed that PCS SD hires or promotes black applicants to elementary assistant principal positions at a rate from 2. 8 to 3 .2 standard deviations above what is expected based upon the relevant labor pool of certified teachers. See, Docket# 38, Exhibit 1, Case No. 4:06cv00606. No similar detailed analyses of junior high school and high school hires and promotions have been performed because of restrictions placed on discovery by the court in Humphries case. In Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977), the court holds that hiring or promoting one race at rates two or three standard deviations above the expected rate for that race is sufficient to establish that race was a factor in the hiring or promotion process for those positions. 4. Nevertheless, citing the racial composition of its certified administrative staff, PCSSD asserts that it is \"in compliance with\" a constitutional standard for ''Faculty and Administrative Assignments,\" citing Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1970). Brief at4-5, andfn. 8. For many years, PCSSD had met the legitimate racial diversity goals required by the court - i.e. nearly every certified Page 2 of 5 employee category reflected the relevant labor pool, - and thus, a phase of enhanced hiring and promotion of minorities was not required or contemplated by the court's approval of PCSSD's desegregation plans from 1987 forward. See, LRSD v. PCSSD, 659 F.Supp. 363, 369 (E.D.Ark. 1987)(\"Similarly, the affirmative action plan for administrative staff appears to have been successful although there remain underrepresentation in two specific categories: coordinators and directors .... The percentage of black administrators (24. 7%) is good and indicates a positive step toward curing this deficiency.\" Id.). By adoption of Plan 2000, PCS SD administration did reflect the labor pool - roughly 21 % of its administrators were black, and 21 % of certified teachers in the area were black. The same basic labor pool exists today, but 52.9% of administrators in PCSSD are black. At least in elementary schools, the statistics meet the legal standard for a prima facie case ofrace discrimination against white applicants for those jobs. How does this apparent race discrimination in employment affect the desegregation efforts of the three districts? We do not hazard a guess, nor is it PACT' s duty to analyze that question. However, these very considerations - the racial composition of PCSSD's employees - were a major component of the evidence which Judge Woods focused on when he made the original liability finding in this case. 5. PACT's concern on behalf of Dr. Humphries, is that PCSSD is seeking implicit or explicit court approval of the recent (2000-2006) hiring and promotions which resulted in the school's administration rising from 20% black to 52% black as if that rate of hiring of black administrators was related to a legitimate remaining remedial obligation in this case. Our concern is further heightened by the fact that PCS SD made no similar mention in its motion for unitary status that about 21% of its teachers are minority, and that about 21% of new Page 3 of 5 hires each year are black. Those statistics comport with the relevant labor pool percentages, but garnered no special mention for possible mention by this court when assessing PCS SD' s progress. 6. Whether the race discrimination now evident in PCSSD's employment of certified administrators will alter the court's opinion on unitary status, PACT urges the court to make an explicit exclusion of the district's administrative hiring and promotion process in any ruling on PCSSD's pending motion. If the court finds the issues raised herein need to be addressed in the hearing on the pending motion, PACT stands prepared to present that evidence for the court's benefit. 7. Ms. Dixon's employment claim arises out of her pursuit of a buyer position in the business department of PCS SD. On information and belief, that department has never hired a black buyer and all upper management positions in that department are filled by whites. WHEREFORE, PACT prays any order issued on PCS SD' spending motion for unitary status make explicit exclusion of the issues ofracial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in Humphries v. PCSSD, Case No. 4:06 CV-00606 (E.D. Ark.) and Dixon v. PCSSD, Case No. 4-07-cv- 01119 (E.D.Ark). Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 4 of 5 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following, postage prepaid, and filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record, this 21st day of December, 2007: Mr. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates, Woodyard, PLLC 425 West Capitol Ave. Ste.1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Ste. 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:43 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 12/21/2007 at 2:42 PM CST and filed on 12/21/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4175 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=12/21/2007] [FileNumber=1063977- 0] [6eeelb572383b02aa3b59dde83a32470fef7c66e2684100df9c47bc82e187b9ec9 a17dfd4938fe363ade679760fd69221e663289e4f47612309d62063ed2041b]] 1/8/2008 J)oc f/7? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EAS'Ji'S,DiSTRICTCOURT RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Mr. Stephen W. Jones 500 W. CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 0444 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 December 21, 2007 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway DEC 21 2007 JAMES ~RMAC~CLERK By: ~~~ OFFICE: (501) efii.fil'l:QileRK FAX: (501) 6045149 Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District, et al v. Pulaski Cotmty School District, et al 4:82-CV-00866-WRW Dear Counsel: I'm strongly disinclined to have a hearing on your motions to declare your Districts unitary until the Eighth Circuit renders its decision in the Little Rock School District case. As you know, Joshua Jnterveners are challenging the compliance standard I used during the last hearing. Until this issue is resolved by the Eighth Circuit, it seems to me that it would be ill-advised to conduct extensive, expensive hearings on your requests. While I've still got my mind charged with this issue, I anticipate that I will soon enter an order along the lines suggested above. Original: cc: Cordially, [t{/{MJJIL Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. /4r. James W. McCmmack, Clerk of the Court The Honorable Thomas Ray The Honorable Andre-e Roaf MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts . gov To:ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain a-res sage-Id : \u0026lt;1063998@ared . uscourts -. gov\u0026gt; ~ cc: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock Schoome.tr.ae Pulaski Cty School , et al Order n C  fl/ED Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicia ~elf'e f the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electrc[j},F.5a2J-~ , ?Rlf7 receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees ~'ffl]ly to all other users. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each docurr#~cEBJuring this first viewing . U. S . District Court DESEGREGATION F Eastern District of. Arkansas MDNITORJNG Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 12/21/2007 2:55 PM CST and filed on 12/21/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4:82-cv-866 https://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4176 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : Document: https://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/docl/02701103404?magic_num=MAGIC\u0026amp;de_seq_num=200582 9\u0026amp;caseid=26052 Docket Text: A LETTER/ ORDER the Court is strongly disinclined to have a hearing on Motions W,to Declare Districts Unitary until the Eighth Circuit renders its decision in the LRSD case. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson , Jr on 12 /21/07 . (d    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_1711","title":"Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Pulaski County Special School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","School administrators","School discipline","Student suspension","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment 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/1711"],"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":["42 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, order; 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.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN O 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME]W.~McO RMJACK, CLERK WESTERN DMSION By '\\ t l (\\ /\\A V ~  ' - .... ~ DEP filRi\u003c'- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * lntervenors. * ORDER Before the Court are the proposed budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.1 Without objection, the Court finds the proposed budgets should be and are hereby approved. -f'l\"-- IT IS SO _ORDERED THIS s._ DAY OF JUNE, 2000 i ~,t~21t C FJUD ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3361. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPLJ/tN7! WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP JH 0~ ~Qp BY zzt\u003e . _ 3. 3 6 4 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) RO BERTS. LINDSEY ( 1913-1991) IS.A.AC A. SC OTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR , GORDON S. RATHER . JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS OAVIO M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JEN NINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KA THLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHAR LES C. PRICE CHARLES T . CO LEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNST EIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Waiker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WE BSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TOCO WOOD Writ er's Di rect Dial No . 501-212 -1 273 m1ones(llwlj .com June 9, 2000 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATH RYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVtN W. KENN EDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUAR T JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. WEISENFELS ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 2 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING , Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's Motion for Court Approval of Administrative Reorganization which is being filed today.  MSJ/ao Encl. 182475-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD's MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION 1. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A is a Business Case dated June 9, 2000, supporting the combining of the responsibilities of the current offices of desegregation and pupil personnel. The specific reasons prompting and supporting this request are set forth in the Business Case. 2. In 1992, the PCSSD proposed a reorganization that, among other things, would have combined the responsibilities of the Offices of Desegregation and Pupil Personnel. The matter was litigated, but before it became necessai y for the Court to rule, an unexpected infusion of funds permitted the PCSSD to abandon this reorganization at that time. 3. The issue eventually was adjudicated in the context of a request for attorney's fees. In an Order dated December 1, 1992, this Court held that: [t]he Court finds that this reorganization was not so fundamentally in violation of the goals of the settlement plan that the Court would have reversed it. On the other hand, this Court would have permitted this reorganization to go forward with the understanding that the Court would 182441-v1 continue to monitor compliance with the settlement plan and would order a different organizational structure only if the new one proved unsatisfactory. 4. The PCSSD now, of course, operates pursuant to a new plan which does not contain the same rigid administrative hierarchy as the previous plan. 5. The district believes that it would be prudent, among other organizational changes it is making, to now effect the same reorganization that was proposed and evaluated by this Court in 1992. 6. This matter will be presented to the PCSSD Board of Directors on Tuesday, June 13, 2000. The Administration expects that the Board will approve the reorganization. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving the reorganization as described herein. 182441-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By -:-:-~..,,,---:- nes Iii (7 ulaski C t 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 182441-v1 .amueloneslll 3 Pulaski County Special School District Business Case June 9, 2000 Submitted to Judge Susan Weber Wright 1. Executive Summary: Pulaski County Special School District seeks to consolidate the positions of Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation into one new, blended position entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. This administrative change will allow for greater accountability, efficiency of operation, as well as cost savings for the District. 2. Background: . The Assistant Superintendents for Pupil Personnel and for Desegregation will both retire from the District on June 30, 2000. These positions have compatible areas of accountability and responsibility for equity and student affairs . within the District. These positions share an affinity that the District wishes to build on. Streamlining these positions into one area of responsibility will be an efficient way to address the Issues of accountability and equity faced by the District. 3. Problem Statement: Pulaski County Special School District has been experiencing decreasing enrollment, triggering declining State funding levels. Reductions In personnel are being carried out to provide revenue for employee raises in 2000 - 2001. Besides the elimination of fifty-four (54) teaching positions, the Superintendent is proposing eliminating five (5) district office and three (3) assistant principal positions. In his proposed reorganization, he proposes streamlining operations with fewer people and reconfigured job responslbllltles. 4. Alternatives: Since personnel salaries make up over eighty percent (80%) of the operating budget and remaining expenses are largely fixed costs, Increasing salary costs In-a condition of declining revenues leaves two other alternatives, in addition to the proposed action. First, the District could continue current overstaffed parameters and pay for raises out of fund reserves (savings) which amount, at present, to about $8 million. Gradually, the fund reserve would be depleted, causing deficits and leaving the District In a precarious financial state. The second alternative would be to deny employees raises, including experience steps and cost of living adjustments. I EXHIBIT jJ 5. Action Recommended: Because both the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation are retiring June 30, 2000, there is a propitious opportunity is being afforded to consolidate the two positions into one new one entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. 6. Objective: To reduce one assistant superintendent position and to save $105,000 per year by merging the two divisions. A. Goal Support: The functions of the pupil personnel and desegregation divisions have a clear affinity and significant interface. Attendance zoning, majority -to-minority issues, transfer requests, and minority student and personnel recruitment are major examples. The two connected areas can more effectively produce results to advance the goals of the District and Plan 2000 in a consolidated division. B. Benefits: . Benefits to the District would be in accountability, streamlining, efficiency of operations, reduction of administrative overhead, and the resulting cost savings. 7. Impact: The Impact on District programs will be positive, as the administrative accountability will be more concise. In the same manner, the District's desegregation plan, Plan 2000, will not suffer any negative consequence of this action and will, in fact, also be more efficiently managed. 8. Hesourcec: The two divisions will be merged. Existing personnel will be available as will the financial resources of these divisions. Reconfiguration to afford more productivity and proficient use of resources will be the result. Recurring cost savings of $10~,000 per year will be yielded. 9. Plan for Implementation: The Superintendent will bring his proposal to the Board of Directors at the June 13, 2000 meeting. With the Board's approval and the Court's acceptance, the plan will be Implemented as soon as is expedient. 2 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT June 14, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor PoJly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 2 6 ZOOQ OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD proposes to modify certain student assignments within the southeast sector. 2. The proposal is fully explained in the accompanying memorandum brief and the exhibits and business case attached to this motion. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court approving its proposed modification of student assignments in the southeast sector. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 .:. By 'i(,1, ~u..d- ~ '~ ~,4.JIJ,., -, 6J,Ju;b_ M. Samuel Jones 1(76060) l'1 16 , '\\ Attorneys for Pulaski County Special 1 'iJ School District 185439-v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 2-3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 185439-v1 2 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 30, 1999 - HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Jacksonville 1025 Mills 780 North Pulaski 900 Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 935 Robinson 506 Sylvan Hills 998 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACITY Fuller 945 Jacksonville Middle 800 Jacksonville Junior High 800 Northwood 964 Robinson (2-rooms devided) 486 Alpha Academy 300 Sylvan Hills 925 - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Adkins 370 Arnold Drive 420 Baker 330 Bates 768 Bayou Mete 660 Cato 576 Clinton 833 College Station 340 Crystal Hill 820 Dupree 465 Fuller 526 Harris 525 Jacksonville 785 Landmark 568 Lawson 325 Oak Grove 476 Oakbrooke 500 Pine Forest 556 Pinewood 523 - Robinson 450 Scott  280 Sherwood 460 EXHIBIT Sylvan Hills 456 TMoullrereslol nT aylor 455700 I 4 OLD BATES White Black Total SALINE CO. STUDENTS White 62 Black 3 153 199 57% 352 LANDMARK White 224 58% Black 163 42% Total 387 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Landmark Landmark minus minus Wrightsville Wrightsville plus Arch Street White 214 75% White 275 Black 71 25% Black 107 Total 285 Total 382  72% 28% ---- ARCH ST. STUDENTS White 61 -- Black 36 OPTION 3 Landmark minus Wrightsville plus Arch Street \u0026 Saline Co. White 337 75% Slack 110 25% Total 447  -----~~---~-O-L~D ~FU-L-L-E-R~ ----, - ,,,_ Whitt! 161 43% ----- ', --------+-------+----1 ----.,,. .,. Blaclc 217 - - -- Totz,I 378 57% \\ ,,' WRIGHTSVILLE , , ' STUDENTS White 11 Black 92 Total 103 NEW BATES White 314 43% Black 416 57% Total 730 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 :?T!ON 3 New Bates New Bates ~Jaw 3a~=s plus plus J/us Wrightsville Wrightsville .'iriQ ntsiilia minus minus Arch Street ,J..rr;h .3:r;at 3 S8linJ C;:i. White 325 39% White 264 36 \\1'/hite 202 30~',, Black 508 61% Black 472 64% Slack --169 70% Total 833 Tota l 736 Total Oi 1  1. PCSSD BUSINESS CASE FOR MODIFICATION OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN JUNE 23, 2000 Executive Summary: The PCSSD seeks to modify certain aspects of its student assignment plan respecting Landmark and new Bates Elementary Schools in the southeast sector to reassign certain students closer to their neighborhoods and to reduce the amount of transportation for those students. The particulars of the reassignment are reflected in Exhibit 8 to the motion, which accompanies this Business Case. 2. Background: Last year this Court approved the construction of the new Bates Elementary School and the transfer of the student bodies from old Bates and Fuller Elementary School to new Bates. Since the Court's decision, and as construction of new Bates has proceeded, interest has increased in the affected communities to effect a reassignmenL of certain students to schools closer to their homes. - 3. Problem Statement: The reassignment proposed projects that new Bates would have an initial student body that would be 70% black and 30% white. At the same time, the proposed reorganization would reduce transportation, assign more students to schools closer to their homes and likely assist the District in reacquiring students who have left the District. The problem, thus, becomes essentially one of a balancing act and selection from among competing priorities. 4. Alternatives: One alternative is to simply retain the status quo and make no reassignment proposals. The alternatives are set forth and explained in Exhibit 8. This action would be detrimental to both children and their parents by requiring larger bus routes. 5. Action Recommended: The impetus for this move has come from the African American Community. Because the District believes that the projected opening enrollment percentages can be ameliorated over time and that the number of students attending schools in the southeast sector could ultimately grow, that the proposed reassignment should be implemented in the interest of children, particularly the black children in Wrightsville who - would otherwise be bused away from their neighborhood school (new Bates). EXHIBIT 185373-v1 I 6. Objective: To accommodate the desires of many in the community to have their students assigned to the closest available elementary school and to reduce transportation without departing unreasonably from the District's student assignment goal. 7. Impact: The reassignment should save the District money in terms of transportation, should promote parental involvement in the schools, should promote additional voluntary transfers and should result in re-attracting students to this area who have previously left the District. 8. Resources: The proposed reassignment should reduce transportation costs in an amount not yet quantified. ;. 9. Plan for Implementation: The District's Board of Directors, on June 15, 2000, approved this rezoning subject to discussions with Joshua and approval by the Court. If approved, the District proposes to implement all aspects of the reassignment for the upcoming 2000-01 school year with the exception of the shift of the arts and music programs from Landmark to new Bates which would not occur until the following school year when the District anticipates it will have implemented the middle school concept district-wide. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN Introduction 11Ece1:veo -JUN '2' 6 -~ioOb OfflCEOf, ______., i~ \\BEGRESATION 'MONIT-ORINU PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Last year this Court approved the closing of Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools and the transfer of their student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School located off 145 Street, just west of the Community of Wrightsville in the southeast sector of the PCSSD. (Docket #3281 ). As the new Bates School nears completion, pressure has mounted from the community to consider changes in the student assignment pattern for new Bates and Landmark Elementary. Pursuant to a motion proposed by the African American Board Member representing the greater Wrightsville area and virtually all of the southeast sector of the district, the District's Board of Education voted recently to propose certain student assignment rearrangements and to submit those to Joshua and the Court for consideration. The proposed changes, and the reasons for them, are fully explained in the business case (Exhibit \"C\" attached to the motion) and in this memorandum. 184914-v1 Background As part of the territorial exchange ordered in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. This transfer, together with the transfer of the southwest Little Rock area to the LRSD, created a land-locked, majority black area of the PCSSD which the parties have consistently referred to throughout this litigation as the southeast sector. In the wake of the territorial transfer which left the PCSSD short of elementary seats, the PCSSD acquired the old Timex facility as an emergency measure, converted it to an elementary school, and opened it as Bates Elementary with an enrollment in excess of 800 students. Since that date, the enrollment of \"old\" Bates has dropped to 41t 352 students, of whom 43% are white and 57% are black. During the same time period, the PCSSD has seen the enrollment at Fuller Elementary shrink to 378 students, of whom 161 are white and 217 are black. (Exhibit \"B\" attached to the motion). As previously noted, the Court has approved the transfer of these two student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School. The current capacity of old Bates is 768 students and that of Fuller Elementary is 526 students. (Please see Exhibit \"A\" attached to the motion). Landmark Elementary, with a current capacity of 468 students, had an enrollment last year of 387 students, of whom 224 were white and 163 were black. Of the white enrollees, approximately 51 are white students recruited from north of the river for the school art and music specialty programs. 184914-v1 2 The Proposed Changes As Exhibit \"B\" reflects, there are three areas of student population proposed for reassignment. They are a mostly white area currently assigned to Bates hereafter referred to as the Arch Street students. A group of predominantly white students, heretofore assigned to Fuller, will be referred to as the Saline County students. A group of predominantly black students from the Wrightsville area, and proximate to the new school, will be referred to as the Wrightsville students. They are currently assigned to Landmark. Although it will statistically impact initial racial balance projections, the PCSSD proposes to shift the Saline County and Arch Street students from new Bates to Landmark and to assign the Wrightsville students from Landmark to new Bates. The - initially projected enrollments occasioned by these shifts project Landmark to be 25% black and new Bates to be 70% black. However, for reasons that will be explained hereafter, the District genuinely believes that these percentages can be rather expeditiously improved and that the immediate and proximate impact is to benefit children of both races and reduce unnecessary busing. The Wrightsville Students These students are located, geographically, on the far east side of the southeast sector. Until the early 1990s, these Wrightsville students were all schooled in the neighborhood at J.C. Cook Elementary School. After it burned, the decision was made not to rebuild and these students were shifted to Landmark. If no change is made, the same students will be transported twice daily past the new Bates Elementary School en - route to Landmark. To eliminate this prospect, and to substantially reduce the 184914-v1 3 - transportation burdens on these students, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to reassign these students to new Bates which, in the context of the geography of the PCSSD, would act as a neighborhood school for the Wrightsville students. The Arch Street Students These students are located, geographically, on the west side of the southeast sector. Most of these students attended Baseline Elementary when it was part of the PCSSD. After the territorial shift, they were necessarily reassigned to new Bates. While the assignment to old Bates did not create a substantial transportation burden for these students, their continued assignment to new Bates would. Because this group o( students largely mirrors the racial composition of the PCSSD as a whole, and because :::.. their assignment to Landmark would represent a somewhat reduced transportation obligation for them, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound for these students to be assigned to Landmark Elementary. The Saline County Students These students are located, geographically, on the far west side of the southeast sector. Prior to the desegregation plan, these students were assigned to Landmark Elementary as their closest school. In an effort to racially balance Fuller Elementary, these students were reassigned during the late 1980s to Fuller Elementary School, a considerable distance from their homes. To partially replace the Wrightsville students proposed for reassignment to new Bates, to reduce the transportation obligation for the Saline County students, who would otherwise be bused from the west to the east side of the sector, and to hopefully recoup some of the student losses that the District has 184914-v1 4 experienced from the Saline County area, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to transfer the Saline County students from new Bates to Landmark. The Landmark Specialty Students The PCSSD is also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002 school year. Even without the specialty students, Landmark is projected to be comfortably within the student assignment ratios for the PCSSD. The PCSSD further believes that new Bates would prove an attractive alternative to the specialty students since it would provide a shorter and more convenient transportation trip and would house the specialty students in a brand new school. All of these specialty students are white. Their transfer to new Bates would significantly reduce the initially projected minority enrollment at the school and, over time, the PCSSD believes that the transfer of the program would increase the number of white transfer students electing to attend the school, thereby annually moving new Bates closer to its ultimate racial balance goals. Because the sixth graders will be at the new Bates for the 2000-2001 year until the sixth grade is shifted to what will be Fuller Middle in 2001-2002, the transfer of the specialty program needs to be delayed until space opens up. By delaying the movement of this program until 2001-2002, the PCSSD should have ample time to educate and persuade the specialty students and their parents that movement of the specialty program to new Bates is a sound educational move. 184914-v1 5 The Long Term As this court is aware, the PCSSD proposes to shift to a middle school structure district wide beginning with the 2001-2002 school year. Little Rock has already completed this reorganization and the Court has previously approved the middle school concept in PCSSD's Jacksonville area. (Docket #2647). The PCSSD believes that the middle school concept, combined with the shifting of the Saline County students to Landmark and the reconstitution of the art and music specialty program at new Bates, will ultimately result in an increased white enrollment in these southeast sector schools. Except for the middle school concept, nothing about the current proposal will modify the feeder pattern to Fuller Junior High School and Mills High School. Neither will any of the proposals contained, herein, affect the current student assignment effort at College Station Elementary. It is also worth mentioning that the shift of the Fuller Elementary student body to new Bates will bring with it the string orchestra specialty program currently provided at Fuller Elementary. The PCSSD believes that the reconstitution of the art and music program from Landmark at new Bates, combined with the move of the string orchestra program from Fuller Elementary to new Bates, and the institution of a full-time physical education curriculum, will work a synergy making these programs even more attractive to white students from north of the Arkansas River since those interested in music in all of its dimensions will have more opportunities for this experience at new Bates if the PCSSD proposal is approved. 184914-v1 6 For all the foregoing reasons, PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving its motion to modify student assignment plan. 184914-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By V . J~~ 'f:f i-~6..J, ~ M. Samuel Jones 7(i666oj ( q7( 5\u003c-J) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On JuneZ..3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 184914-v1 8 - -- REC.EIV~D bJi__;--:[) EAST~ffN ~if ~,hl ~~~~SAS JUN 2 J 2000 JAMES 'N. McCGRMACK, LERK By: _____ _,,D.,...E\"\"P-,-.C\"LE-.-RroK JUN 2 8 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V CASE NO. 82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS OPPOSITION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION The Joshua Intervenors oppose the defendants' motion. First, there were no discussions as contemplated by the desegregation plan between the parties prior to this matter having been presented to the Court. See Letter from Mr. Jones to the Court dated May 24, 2000 as Exhibit A; Letter to the Court from undersigned Counsel dated June 12, 2000 as Exhibit B. Second, there is no brief attached to the motion as required by the local rules. Third, the business case does not address desegregation issues nor does it address how the changes will effectuate the desegregation commitments of the revised desegregation plan. Fourth, the business case is one which purports to save the school district money and nothing else. It does not address the desegregation staff nor define the work duties and responsibilities of those individuals. There is not a proposed job description of the new position that has been shared with Joshua. Indeed, there are myriad problems that should have been considered in the normal course of addressing desegregation issues that have not been addresse\u0026' by the proposal. These matters could have been dealt with as contemplated by the desegregation plan had the administration not sought to evade the Joshua Intervenors and had they not sought to denigrate Joshua's role in the desegregation process. Fifth, the Superintendent for Desegregation had a responsibility in the past for oversight of the Pupil Personnel Department and other departments, at least to the extent of identification of potential problems, which impeded desegregation and to make recommendations to the Superintendent directly. The current proposal is unclear, at the least, about what the duties of the position are or will be in the future. Sixth, the combination of the two positions will mean the elimination of two black - administrators from the major administrative hierarchy of the District. There is no reference to the process that the District will use to fill positions and it was, therefore, highly suspect that the District will fill the two vacated positions with white administrators who have already been selected. Seventh, to this date. Neither the Superintendent nor his major administrator, Dr. James Fox, have had any meetings whatsoever with counsel for Joshua Intervenors regarding any issue. As stated earlier, it is Joshua's opinion that they are uninformed and uncertain to the desegregation initiatives and commitments that have been in place in the District for years. (See Joshua's previous brief to the Court regarding the District's Motion to Approve Revised Desegregation Plan). Because of the uncertainties of the Defendants' proposal and how it will impact desegregation, and because Defendants' by p "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_329","title":"Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Communicating Best Practices''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998/2000"],"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","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance hearing exhibits, ''Communicating Best Practices''"],"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/329"],"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":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":["188 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\nCOMMUNICATING \"BEST PRACTICES IICommunicating Best Practices 1. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Sept. 18, 1998, establishing procedures for the publication of Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division. Literacy 1. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 26, 1998, on development of the literacy plan\nattached article, Urban School Development: Literacy as a Lever for Change. 2. Memorandum to middle school principals in Dec. 9, 1998, Learning Links with references to three books providing the research base for the middle school Reading/Writing Workshop program. w 3. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to principals in Jan. 6, 1999, Learning Links with suggested books that outline best practices in the development of literacy. ^25 4. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle school principals in Jan. 13, 1999, Learning Links advising them of multiple copies of books they will receive on best practice in teaching middle-level literacy. 5. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to principals in Jan. 21, 1999, Learning Links on potential programs to remediate reading problems. ^77 6. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals in July 21, 1999, Learning Links advising them they will receive an additional book on development of literacy. 7. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle and high school principals in August 4, 1999, Learning Links relating to remediating reading problems at the secondary level\nattached article from Harvard Education Letter. Johnny Still Cant Read? 8. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle school principals in Aug. 25, 1999, Learning Links on teacher participation in training and on strategies for developing vocabulary\nattached article, Six Whole Class Vocabulary Strategies for the Content Areas by Hanus, et al and Teaching Vocabulary in the Subject Areas by Karen Wood. 9. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle school principals in September 1, 1999, Learning Links on teaching reading to students performing at the lowest levels\nattached articles. A. A research synthesis on what works in restructuring urban middle school reading and writing programs.B. C. D. E. Reading Comprehension Instruction for At-Risk Students: Research-Based Practices that Can Make a Difference Teaching Them All to Read: Results of a Nationwide Study of Successful Literacy Programs for Young Adolescents Alternatives to More of the Same for Poor Readers Students at Risk: The Slow Reader in the Middle Grades 10. Memorandum to SEA principals from Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 15, 1999, on evaluation research on SEA\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations by Jeanne Weiler. 11. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links on early literacy\nsummary of research on what works in high-poverty schools\ncharacteristics of effective teachers\nattached article, Study Details Effectiveness of High-Poverty Schools in Reading Education During Early Grades from Michigan State University. 12. Memorandum to principals in Dec. 8, 1999, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley on how to teach vocabulary\nattached article, Making Vocabulary Development Manageable in Content Instruction by Katherine Misulis. 13. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Dec. 17,1999, requesting information on the implementation of Animated Literacy at the kindergarten level. 14. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to elementary and middle school principals, Jan. 11, 2000, with suggestions for the next years Title I budget\npotential changes in SEA. 15. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links with research on Direct Instruction and Success for All\nattached article, Prepackaged School Reform by Jay Mathews. 16. Memorandum to elementary principals and brokers in Mar. 22, 2000, Learning Links on research-based reading program\nattached research summary, Improving the Reading Achievement of Americas Children: 10 Research-Based Principles. 17. Memorandum to high school principals in Apr. 12, 2000, Learning Links on the research base for the ninth grade English I Workshop program\nattached chapter from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools. 18. E-mail from Kathy Lease to middle and high school principals. May 30, 2000, advising caution in using only one set of data to make decisions about program changes. 19. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to reading staff. Mar. 19, 2000, on evaluating the content of the professional development program for teaching reading. 20. Memorandum to Suzi Davis and Barbara Brandon, March 26, 2000, asking them to develop a program to address needs of middle and high school students with low performance in reading. 21. Research Report, Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide, November 2000 22. Research base for Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 23. Report: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas, General Information. 24. Research Report from Educational Research Service, How Children Learn: What Cognitive Research Tells Us About Effective Instruction. 25. Research Report from NCREL, Meaningful, Engaged Learning and Components of a Learner-Active, Technology Infused Classroom: What It Looks Like. 26. Research Report from National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. April 2000. 27. Whats the Big Idea? Integrating Young Adult Literature in the Middle School, from the January 2001 English Journal. 28. To Grammar or Not to Grammar: That Is NOT the Question, from Voices from the Middle: Contextualizing Grammar by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. 29. Just the Facts: Research and Theory about Grammar Instruction, from Voices from the Middle: Contextualizing Grammar by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. 30. Developing Students Textual Intelligence Through Grammar, from Voices from the Middle: Contextualizing Grammar by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. 31. The Evolution of Middle Schools by Paul George in December 2000 Education Leadership. 32. Holding Sacred Ground: The Impact of Standardization by Carl Glickman in December 2000 Education Leadership. 33. Response to Literature as a Cultural Activity, Reading Research Quarterly, January/ February/March 2000. 34. Reading AloudAre Students Ever Too Old? from Education World. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 18, 1998 TO: Division of Instruction Staff Dr, Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Carol Green Debbie Milam Pat Price Marion Woods Marvin Schwartz Catherine Gill Marian Shead-Jackson Leon Adams Paulette Martin Linda Young Marion Baldwin Dr. Patty Kohler Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson FROM: Dr. Bonnie LesleyyAssociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Learning Links\" Attached you will find a copy of \"Learning Links which list the definition, objectives, process, distribution, and archives of how Learning Links will work. The first publication of Learning Links will be sent out on Wednesday, October 7. This means that all information to be included in this first publication must be in my office no later than noon Tuesday, October 6,1998. Also, attached for your information is a copy of the Superintendents Cluster Groups that lists the meeting dates and times. Please distribute this information to your staff. Thank you all for the wonderful job that you are doing. BAL/adg Attachments Learning Links LRSD Division of Instruction Definition Learning Links is a weekly, consolidated mailing to principals that includes all communication from the Division of Instruction to the schools. The packet will include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. All memoranda to principals or groups of principals (e.g., high school, junior/ middle school, elementary school. Incentives schools. Magnet schools, clusters, etc.) Copies of memoranda sent to school-level staff, which are provided to principals for their information (e.g., memoranda to English teachers, first grade teachers, counselors, etc.) Information about professional development opportunities Information from federal and state officials relating to curriculum/instruction/ assessment issues Suggested readings Updates on our steps toward implementation of the Student Success Model (standards, assessments, professional development, personalized education, building community support, and communication) Objectives 1. To provide a higher quality of service to one category of primary customers, principals. 2. To improve communication from the Division of Instruction to principals. 3. To improve communication within the Division of Instruction through the distribution of  Learning Links to Instruction staff and members of the Superintendents Cabinet. Process All memoranda and other information to be sent to principals are to be delivered to Bonnie Lesleys office by noon on Tuesday of each week. These documents can be in the form of hard copies, faxes, or through attachments to e-mail. Confidential communication sent to individual principals or to a small group where there is no need for others to know should continue to be sent outside the packet. Each item must include at the top or in the subject line a phrase or sentence that describes the content. Examples follow\n Kathy Lease attaches a summary of the school climate survey responses.  Marion Woods provides information about a conference in Little Rock on school restructuring.  Vanessa Cleaver sets up meetings to organize Vertical Teams as a part of the NSF project. All Division of Instruction secretaries shall receive information on the deadlines for submission, the expectations for format, and on the requirements for describing the item.Items submitted past the deadline or that do not include the required information shall be returned to the administrator submitting the item. Principals shall be instructed to IGNORE any information from Division of Instruction staff sent to them outside the packet unless it contains the initials and approval of Bonnie Lesley or Kathy Lease (these approvals will be given for emergencies only). Principals receiving any communication from outside the packet from Instruction staff are requested to send the items to Bonnie Lesley so that the rules relating to communication from this Division can be reinforced. When Bonnie Lesley or Kathy Lease approve an item to be sent outside the packet, a copy of that item shall be included in the next weeks packet for everyones information. Staff from the Division of Instruction are NOT to duplicate through separate mailings to principals any communication included in the packet. Staff from the Division of Instruction are NOT to require principals to duplicate materials and distribute them to teachers. Rather, a copy of memoranda distributed to teachers or other staff shall be included for the principals information. The graphic used by the Superintendent in the 1998 Principals Institute shall be used on the cover sheet, and the color of the cover sheet shall remain the same throughout the year in order to give identity to the publication. An index of each packet shall be compiled on the second page that includes the one-sentence or phrase description of each item. This index helps people decide which items they must read and also facilitates locating an item in a past issue that needs to be referenced. Distribution Learning Links items shall be screened, organized, and indexed by designated staff, then copied and-distributed, as follows:  1 copy to each elementary school and each secondary school under 500  2 copies to each secondary school over 500  1 copy to each department head in the Division of Instruction  1 copy to each member of the LRSD Cabinet The packet shall be distributed on Wednesday afternoon of each week. It is the responsibility of each person receiving the packet to read it promptly and then to route it or pieces of it to other appropriate staff working in the school or in the department. Archives The Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Assistant Superintendent of PRE, and the Coordinator of Professional Development shall maintain a complete set of the packets for future reference. SCHOOL CLUSTER GROUPS A B C D E Central High Dunbar Jr. Henderson Jr. Pulaski Hts. Jr. Badgett Bale Forest Pk. Jefferson Fair High Mabelvale Jr. Southwest Jr. Booker Magnet Garland King Mabelvale Meadowcliff Hall High Forest Heights Jr. Brady Carver Magnet Fair Park Franklin Fulbright McDermott McClellan High Cloverdale Jr. Chicot Cloverdale Geyer Springs Rightsell Rockefeller Wakefield Parkview High Metropolitan ALC Mann Magnet Jr. Baseline Dodd Gibbs Magnet Terry Mitchell Otter Creek Romine Washington Western Hills Pulaski Hts. Administrators: Wilson Administrators: Williams Magnet Administrators: Watson Administrators: Woodruff Administrators: To be assigned. To be assigned. To be assigned. To be assigned. To be assigned. * * REVISED * * SCHEDULE OF CLUSTER MEETINGS A B C D E Monday, 09-14-98 1:30-3:30 p.m. Tuesday, 09-15-98 1:30- 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, 09-16-98 1:30- 3:30 p.m. Thursday, 09-17-98 1:30- 3:30 p.m. Monday, 09-21-98 1:30-3:30 p.m. Monday, 11-16-98 1:30-3:30 p.m. Tuesday, 11-17-93 9:30- 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, 11-17-98 1:30-3:30 p.m. Wednesday, 11-18-98 9:30-11:30 a.m. Wednesday, 11-18-98 1:30-3:30 p.m. Wednesday, 02-17-99 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Thursday, 02-18-99 9:30- 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, 02-16-99 1:30-3:30 p.m. Tuesday, 02-16-99 9:30-11:30 a.m. Wednesday, 02-17-99 9:30-11:30 a m Thursday, 05-06-99 9 30 - 11:30 am. Wednesday. 05-05-99 1:30 - 3:30 p m. Wednesday, 05-05-99 9:30-11:30 a m. Thursday. 05-06-99 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, 05-04-99 1:30-3:30 p m Cluster Assignments Cluster A - Area\nQuality IndexCustomer Service \u0026amp; School Climate Kathy Lease (Lead) Linda Watson Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Debbie Milam Pat Price Doug Eaton Darrel Paradis Mike Martello Morlin McCoy Terrence Roberts Cluster B - Area: Quality IndexStudent Achievement \u0026amp; Value Added Incentive Bonnie Lesley (Lead) Gene Parker Dillingham Marie McNeal John Ruffins Dick Hurley Stephen Ross Cluster C - Area: Quality IndexAttendance \u0026amp; At-Risk I Drop Out Sadie Mitchell (Lead) Jo Evelyn Elston Carol Green Lloyd Sain Bobby Jones Paulette Martin Valerie Hudson Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry Cluster D - Area: Campus Leadership Guidelines, Administrative Policy 4 Campus Report Card Les Gamine (Lead) Marion Woods Brady Gadberry Dennis Glasgow Patty Kohler Linda Young Mona Briggs Cluster E - Area\nCampus LeadershipPlanning \u0026amp; Campus Goals Marian Lacey (Co-Lead) Frances Cawthon (Co-Lead) Mable Donaldson Lucy Lyon Leon Adams Ed Williams Vanessa Cleaver TO\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S. PULASKI LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 26, 1998 Pat Price Gene Parker Dr. Patty Kohler Kris Huffman Judy Milam Judy Teeter Dr. Bonnie Lesley,Associate Superintendent for Instruction Urban School Development\nLiteracy as a Lever for Change See the attached ,nformation from the Internet. This program was the one I was trying to think of. It sounds exciting, doesnt it?! 20/20 Analysis sounds good too! Maybe we should create a LRSD literacy model that is a hybrid of the best from the best external models. BAL/adg AttachmentTools for Schools - Urban School D...nt\nLiteracy as a Lever for Change http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/usd.html Tools for Schools - April 1998 Urban School Development: Literacy as a Lever for Change What Is It? For the past 5 years, the Center for School Improvement has collaborated with a number of Chicago elementary schools on an initiative called Urban School Development: Literacy as a Lever for Change. Each school in the collaborative serves an impoverished community where student achievement is very low. The network includes two \"continuing\" schools that have been collaborating with the Center for several years, and five \"new\" schools (including two \"probation\" schools) that joined the network 2 years ago. The clustering enables schools to be a resource to each other. Additionally, to break down schools' isolation from outside expertise, the program also partners with the Martha L. King Early Language and Literacy Center at the Ohio State University. This is the National Center for Reading Recovery. Why Did It Get Started? The Center for School Improvement was initiated simultaneously with the enactment of Public Act 85-1418. This legislation sought to enhance children's learning opportunities in the Chicago Public Schools, and reconnect local schools with their communities. Toward these ends, principals were placed on performance contracts, each school elected a parent-dominated local school council, teachers' voices were amplified by virtue of their seats on the local school council and also by the creation of a professional personnel advisory committee, and local schools were given much more fiscal authority. As a university- based, external partner, the Center for School Improvement's mission is to promote each school's comprehensive development. How Does It Work? At present, all of the schools have made significant progress toward restructuring. They are deeply engaged in a comprehensive school development process that aims to:  Enhance the leadership capacity of staff and parents\nStrengthen school committees (the local school council, the professional personnel advisory committee and other committees) such that schools become responsive to the needs of their communities and self-guided\nDevelop professional expertise and practice such that a professional community develops, teaching and learning is enhanced, and all students have the opportunity to attain the highest academic standards\nand Build local capacity so that evaluation and accountability is rigorous, and decision- making is democratic, data-dnven, strategic, and focused on the needs of children. The Literacy as a Lever for Change initiative is organized around four programmatic areas: leadership development, literacy, social services, and building local capacity for strategic planning and evaluation. We summarize our strategies and core activities below. 1 of 4 8/25/98 5:25 PM Tools for Schools - Urban School D...nt: Literacy as a Lever for Change http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/usd.html Literacy Initiative At the primary level, the Center for School Improvement's literacy initiative is a collaboration with Ohio State University. At the intermediate and upper grades, we collaborate with the Chicago Area Writing Project and Writers in Schools. These partnerships enable schools to draw on the principles of literacy instruction and teacher professional development that have been evolved in these programs over more than two decades. The program aims to ensure the equity goal of success for all students by creating differentiated services that include intensive tutorials, small group instruction, and enriched literacy classrooms. Teachers are coiuiected with outside expertise and each other through a year-long workshop. Follow-up support is provided from Ohio State University, the Center for School Improvement, and the school's literacy coordinators. A local assessment system is also developed by teachers to ensure that assessment is authentic and always coimected to meaningful instruction. Family literacy programs round out the initiative. Through a home-book program and other parent education activities, the program seeks to meaningfully engage all parents as full partners in their children's education. Social Service Initiative The Center for School Improvement's social service initiative coordinates and develops services for children, and better connects each school to its community. Most importantly, it engages all of the adults in the school community in sustained discussion about the kinds of citizens they would like their children to become, the joint responsibility that parents and professionals must take fo\" children's well-being, and the norms of discipline and behavior that must be established to recreate schools as caring, personal environments that best promote children's development. Specific activities include the development of a social service team at each school. These teams meet and deliberate on a regular basis, visit community agencies, and problem solve across communities. The aim is for school decision-making to become deliberative, strategic, and fully inclusive. The social service aspect of the model is viewed as prerequisite to any meaningful academic change. It ameliorates parents' and professionals' isolation from each other, creates time and a safe environment for adults in the school community to discuss children's needs, and establishes a social service team whose job it is to coordinate and personalize services around those needs. Leadership Development The aim of the Center for School Improvement's leadership activities is to develop the capacity of the entire professional staff to work together and with parents. This is the only viable path toward creating school communities that can become self-guided and act in the best interests of children. Center for School Improvement senior staff mentor principals on a continuous basis. The program encourages the formation of a leadership team at each school. Staff from the Center regularly meet with this team to jointly evaluate school plans, budgets, programs, staffing, and ties to external expertise. The aim is to develop a team that broadly represents the school community and can share responsibility with the principal and local school council for budget and school improvement planning. Network schools are also asked to fund a role for at least two full-time, freed literacy coordinators. These individuals receive intensive training and mentoring from Ohio State University and Center for School Improvement staff. The job of these teacher leaders is to teach a small group of students, and individually mentor the efforts of classroom teachers as they implement the literacy framework. 2 of 4 8/25/98 5:25 PMTools for Schools - Urban School D...nt: Literacy as a Lever for Change http://www.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/usd.html Building Analytic Capacities The aim of these activities is that schools develop the capacity to collect good information, then analyze and use it for programming, planning, evaluation, and budgeting. Schools are encouraged to engage in self-analysis, and together with Center staff, surveys, needs assessments, interviews, and classroom visits are conducted. Feedback is provided to the schools by Center staff. Students' test scores are analyzed and findings are shared with school staff. Implications for staff development and strategic planning (school improvement planning, budgeting, and personnel selection) are also pursued. Additional documentation and evaluation activities include aimual testing of a sample of students engaged in the initiative and the development of a local assessment system for instructional guidance. These assessments provide the public evaluations that can document both progress and problems. Most importantly, substantive feedback to schools opens up discussion about what the tests are measuring, as well as the resources that teachers need in order to promote the kinds of quality instruction that will enhance student learning and performance. What Are The Costs? Network schools are asked to enter a cost-sharing arrangement with the Center for School Improvement. The bulk of this sum pays for the two literacy coordinator positions. Support for Center for School Improvement staff, research, and program development comes from the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, the Chicago Community Trust, the MacArthur and Joyce Foundations, the Annenberg Challenge Grant, and also contributions from two private philanthropists. How Is The Model Implemented In A School? Network schools must be amenable to a multi-year collaboration and be willing to allocate the necessary funding to support this comprehensive initiative. What Is The Evidence That The Model Is Successful? The Literacy as a Lever for Change initiative is in a pilot stage. To date, implementation of the program is showing classroom effects, that is, teachers who are actively implementing the literacy framework are showing statistical and educational improvements in student learning as measured on standardized tests and local assessments. In addition, there have been positive changes in school culture and climate, a pluralization of leadership, and enhanced parent involvement in both governance activities and support for children's learning. Where Can I See It? A limited number of site visits can be arranged by contacting the Director of Research of the Center for School Improvement. Whom Do I Contact? Sharon Rollow, Director of Research Center for School Improvement 1313 East 60th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 Telephone: 773-702-4472\nFax: 773-702-2010 E-mail: rollow@,consortium-chicago.org The Research Base 3 of 4 8/25/98 5:25 PM Tools for Schools - Urban School D.,.nt: Literacy as a Lever for Change http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/usd.html The Center for School Improvement's literacy initiative is grounded in more than 20 years of research on children's learning and teachers' professional development at the National Center for Reading Recovery at the Martha L. King Early Language and Literacy Center at the Ohio State University. The leadership initiative is based on theories of democratic governance. The literature on organizational development grounds the Center for School Improvement's work with schools around strategic planning and building analytic capacity. -###- [Urban Learner Framework] IF [Adaptive Learning Environments Model] 4 of 4 8/25/98 5:25 PM Tools for Schools - 20/20 Analysis\nA Tool for Instructional Planning http\n//www.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/20_20.html Tools for Schools - April 1998 20/20 Analysis: A Tool for Instructional Planning What Is It? 20/20 Analysis is a planning tool for developing an integrative service delivery plan that focuses on giving students who show the least and most progress on significant outcome variables intensive instruction and related service support. The goal of the program is to provide an analytic procedure for identifying students most in need of special help, based on student achievement and other outcome data routinely collected by schools and school districts. By identifying students in the lowest 20th and highest 20th percentiles, 20/20 Analysis pinpoints those students for whom the existing instructional and related service program delivery is least effective, so that it can be adapted to suit their individual needs. Why Did It Get Started? Current categorical programs designed to serve students with special needs are ineffective and cause a number of problems. In many schools, 50 percent or more of all students are placed in special categorical programs at some point between kindergarten and grade 12. The time and cost involved in such categorical evaluations and placements are staggering, and implementation of the categorical programs tends to be disjointed and ineffective in meeting students' needs. How Does It Work? 20/20 Analysis consists of a two-phase process: 1 of 4 8/25/98 5:30 PM Tools for Schools - 20/20 Analysis: A Tool for Instructional Planning http://wwi\\:-.ed.gov/pubs/ToolsforSchools/20_20.html Needs Analysis Administrators and educators select an area of learning outcomes such as reading, math, attendance, or disciplinary incidence and assess students' performance within that area. For example, using existing data from standardized achievement tests, and/or curriculum-based assessment and teacher evaluations in reading achievement, the school staff then examine grade- wide or school-wide achievement levels to identify students who require \"special' interventions. Achievement levels for students below the 20th percentile or above the 80th percentile are identified as \"low 20\" or \"high 20\" groups for whom curriculum adaptation and/or intensive instruction are needed. By focusing on both the lowest and highest ends of the achievement continuum, findings from the 20/20 Analysis provide a broad, systematic, outcome-based approach to identifying students requiring special educational and related service support. 20/20 Analysis provides an alternative to the current practice of identifying or \"certifying\" students for the existing narrowly framed (and mostly disjointed) categorical programs, which tend to result in child labeling and program segregation. Implementation Plan Phase two identifies and analyzes alternative ways to modify curriculum and instructional and related service delivery practices to the learning needs of individual students in the high- and low-20 groups. Emphasis at this phase of the analysis centers on programmatic implementation concerns that address the needs of the individual students and the development of individual program plans. What Are The Costs? The cost requirements vary, depending on the scope of analysis and need for follow-up activities (e.g., staff time to compile school district-collected data for analysis\nstaff time to develop an implementation plan for improving instructional and related service delivery\nand staff time for implementation training). However, a central premise of the 20/20 approach is that the starting point for improvement is more efficient and effective use of current resources and finding creative ways to redeploy existing resources, including personnel to support implementation. How Is The Model Implemented In A School? Implementation of Phase I, the Needs Analysis Phase, can be carried out by using school-collected data with very minimal staff time. This aspect of the analysis can be done by the district-level evaluators in the district's \"accountability\" or evaluation office. Phase n involves the thorough examination of Phase I findings and active participation of teachers, parents, and related service providers to develop an implementation plan. This plan calls for a collaborative and coordinated appeal to service delivery to enhance learning opportunities for each student, focusing particularly on those in the bottom and top 20 percent group for whom adaptations of the curriculum and instructional and related services support are needed. Specifically, 20/20 Analysis provides schools with the information necessary for developing service delivery plans that encompass a full range of coordinated approaches to meet the individual needs of all children, including and especially those at the margins of the achievement continuum. 20/20 Analysis is intended to facilitate program implementation efforts in integrated ways to reduce fragmentation and improve program effectiveness. What Is The Evidence That The Model Is Successful? 2 of 4 8/25/98 5:30 PMTools for Schools - 20/20 Analysis: A Tool for Instructional Planning http://www.ed.gOv/pubs/ToolsforSchools/20_20.htinl 3 of 4 20/20 Analysis has gained increasing support among schools interested in implementing comprehensive school reform, particularly in light of the Title I schoolwide program provisions of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IAS A) and the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B). 20/20 Analysis directly addresses many of the current problems in the delivery of special or categorical programs through a variety of vehicles, including those discussed below. Providing a reliable, accountable, and cost-effective process for identifying instructional and related service needs of the students in a given school or district. The current practice for identification and classification of students for special programs has become an increasingly costly venture. Program categories are ill defined, and classification is unreliable. The 20/20 procedure seeks to appropriately adapt school programs according to simple yet comprehensive and systematic procedures. This allows schools to quickly identify which students need extra support, without having to use costly and stigmatizing identification and classification methods in order to access services. Schools can then apply the money they would have spent on testing and categorization toward much needed services. Redesigning demeaning labels (e.g., learning disabled, attention deficient, or emotionally or educationally disturbed) that have no currency for instructional or learning improvement. The current classification and labeling system not only fails to provide any specific and practical interventions that can be used to meet the needs of the individual student, but is likely to generate resistance from parents and have deeply stigmatic effects on children. With 20/20 Analysis procedures, the first step in diagnosis is lot labeling, but direct assessment of the learning needs and progress. Focusing on individual needs of students, especially those whose learning progress is marginal. This adds important dimensions of student achievement in ways that are instructionally relevant. Implementation of the second phase of 20/20 Analysis has consistently brought about collaborative efforts among professionals with specialized expertise who sometimes operate in disjointed and competitive ways, and encouraging school- and district-wide coordination of programs. By concentrating on the important outcomes or goals of education and the basic components of student learning, such as reading, quantitative thinking, and classroom behavior, implementation of 20/20 Analysis has resulted in significantly improved student outcomes for children at the margins and students in the middle of the achievement distribution. In 20/20 Analysis learning difficulties are indicators of intervention needs rather than student deficits. Greater efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of special services can be accomplished through early detection, description of learning needs, and interventions. Where Can I See It? 20/20 analyses are being carried out in selected schools in a variety of settings. Contact the Laboratory for Student Success for schools and school districts using 20/20 Analysis as a planning- and instructional-related service delivery tool. Whom Do I Contact? Dr. Margaret C. Wang, Professor and Director Laboratory for Student Success at Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue Philadelphia, Peimsylvania 19122 6091 Telephone: 215-204-3000\nFax: 215-204-5130 Toll-free Telephone: 800-892-5550 E-mail: lss@,vm.temple.edu'. Website: http://www.temple.edu/LSS 8/25/98 5:30 PM Tools for Schools - 20/20 Analysis\nA Tool for Instructional Planning http://www.ed.gOv/pubs/ToolsforSchools/20_20.html The Research Base Approximately 80 percent of the students now served in \"special\" categorical programs such as Special Education, Title I, as well as others who are in a variety of remedial and compensatory programs, show poor achievement in basic literacy skills. Findings from research demonstrate quite clearly that these students do not need different kinds of instruction, but more intensive quality instruction. 20/20 Analysis is a planning and program monitoring tool. It provides a systematic way of developing informed decisions utilizing existing school data. 20/20 analyses have been carried out in schools varying in geographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Feedback from these schools has indicated that the analysis is a feasible process and provides useful indicators for identifying students whose needs require greater-than-usual instruction and related services. Furthermore, the school staff sees 20/20 Analysis as a useful process for fostering a non-categorical approach to achieving targeted learning outcomes for individual students. By assembling data over successive years, the 20/20 approach is useful in showing how successful individual schools are in improving the learning progress of low- and high-20 groups, as well as for average students. Longitudinal data show that some schools are consistently successfill in increasing the process of low-20 pupils (e.g., the data show low-20 pupils in first and second grades who rank significantly higher in terms of achievement by grades five and six). Data are also assembled to show characteristics of schools that are successful in increasing achievement at one or both margins (low-20, high-20, or both). Charting progress by various subgroups of students (e.g., Afncan- Americans, Latinos, Native Americans) has been greatly facilitated without the use of labeling or separations of students by category. IIIIII -###- [Introduction] PREV HEXT l[Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)] 4 of 4 8/25/98 5:30 PM BD % L- I. I 'I i f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 SOUTH PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 December 9,1998 TO: Middle School Principals FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley/Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Reading/Writing Workshop The two books most referred to for reading/writing workshop strategies follow: In the Middle: New Understanding About Writing, Reading and Learning by Nanci Atwell, Boynton/Cook. ISBN: 0867093749. Cost is $32.50. Seeking Diversity: Language Arts with Adolescents by Linda Rief and Nanci Atwell. Heinemann. ISBN: 0435085980. Cost is $25.00. I recommend also to everybody the second edition of Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, published by Heinemann, 1998. The chapters on \"Best Practice in Reading and Best Practice on Writing are both excellent, and they refer to Nanci Atwells work. BAL/adg I // 6/^^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 January 6, 1999 TO: Principals u FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for instruction Resources for Literacy Teaching Strategies Several of you have asked me about \"best practice strategies relating to literacy. Each school should have in its professional development library the journals published by the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. These organizations a so publish wonderful monographs and books, as well as newsletters of interest to teachers. Subscription information for NCTE and IRA are attached. One of my favorite publishers of books by teachers for teachers is Heinemann. I am attaching a copy of their catalog for ydur convenience. Youll see many books you want. Elementary principals - please note pp. 3, 4, 5, 9, 30, 35, 36, 37 - just to get started. Middle school principals - please note pp. 12, 13, 46, 47, 48, 49 - again just as a start! There are wealths of other books too that will help in social studies, science, and mathematics. f I I have seen teacher study groups work powerfully to change instructional practice. You may wish to consider such a strategy to support Campus Leadership. BAL/rcmL.L I /I 3/^ 7 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 i I January 11,1999 TO\nMiddle School Principals i FROM: SUBJECT\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction I Professional Development Resources So that you and your Reading and Writing Workshop teachers can get started in thinking about next years new course, we are sending under separate cover the following resources: 4 copies of 4 copies of 4 copies of In the Middle by Nancie Atwell Seeking Diversity by Linda Rief 1 set of Side by Side The Workshop Series by Nancie Atwell You may wish to begin study/discussion groups on these materials. Please call Gene Parkers office if you need assistance. BAL/rcm i j I j cc: Gene Parker L. Z_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 July 16. 1999 TO: Principals FROM: SUBJECT: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,\"Associate Superintendent, for Instruction Remediating Reading Problem Some of you have asked me about remedial programs for kids who cant read. At the elementary level we have recommended ResKting Recovery, Success for All, and the Reading Clinic. Two of our middle schools are implementing new programs this fall: Project Read at Mablevale and the Scottish Rite program at Pulaski Heights. You may want to take a look at the attached information on a program called Read Right. I am not recommending it because I have no first-hand knowledge about it, but the attached information certainly looks good! We are going to need an effective program if you are to improve your literacy scores. Well look into it some more, but in the meantime I wanted to share what I have. If you know people in any of the districts using the program, please give them a call. Attachments BAL/rcmLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 July 19,1999 TO\nJ -A'fe FROM\nSUBJECT\nElementary Principals Dr. Bonnie Lesiey.\\^sociate Superintendent for Instruction Intermediate Reading and Writing Ai' f Under separate cover I am sending you one copy of another book by Lucy Calkins called Living Between the Lines. Please make it available to your teachers. I think it will be helpful in creating a culture that supports the development of literacy. t. 4 BAL/adg 1' I fit ll 1 15a VO. . A little rock school district instructional resource center 3001 PULASKI STREET little rock, ar 72206 (501)324-2131 July 29, 1999 TO\nMiddle and High School Principals FROM: ichoo W( , MOOv Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT\nReading at the Secondary Level We all feel frustrated at the low reading skills of many of our secondary students. Please read the attached articles carefully. There are some ideas here that we should consider. Attachment BAL/rcm Published by the Harvard Graduate School of Education july/August 1999 Volume IS,Number4 HARVARD EDUCATION LETTER N S D E Reading Success at Boys Town 5 Johnny Still Cant Read? Why high school students arent developing the reading skills they need__ and what some researchers suggest to solve this growing problem By Peggy J. Farber Each fall Anna Lobianco, a reading specialist at Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School in New York Qty, gives a reading test to the 90 incoming 9th-gradeis. As part of the assessment, she inter-students are lagging. Fewer high schools today have reading support stafflike Lobiancothan at any time in the past to instruct students in advanced reading processes. In fact, experts say that secondary teachers views the students about their attitudes toward reading and should just assume that most of their students cannot how they handle problems that arise while reading I get the exact same responses from kids every year, says Lobianco. They hate reading. Its just a labor. Of the students Lobianco screens, almost one-third are identified for inclusion in her remedial reading class. A question I always ask kids is what do you do when you come to a word you dont know, she continues They all say the same thing: T look it up in the dictionary. They dont have any [other] strate-read at grade level In practical terms, they say, this means that high school teachers will have to train stu- A new survey shows only 40 dents in reading at the same time they teach content That challenge is especially fotmidible considering percent of adolescents read well fbat high schoolers enough to comfortably manage standard high school texts. gies for reading. They dont have the skip it, try to figure it out and come back to it later* type strategies Lobiancos observations are echoed by results of the with reading problems may have gotten sidetracked at different stages in their development. According to Catherine Snow, professor at the Harvard Graduate School What Secondary Teachers Can Do to Teach Reading 4 The Brain-Based\" Ballyhoo 5 Breakfast for the Brain 6 Segregation: Stepping Back in Time? 7 What Teachers Know and Dont Know Matters Dennis Sparks  8 -OurNew^ebsIte  www.edletteRorari^Q ____________________ ______ failed to learn fundamentals of reading in the primary -V- 3? nova-..fl. .. J , .L.-:yersfQns.ofo\u0026amp;Are^cte^ iireadingfinclU^fn^.uSeMlrnksitoT the researchers and programs A - : menoonedias^weH \u0026amp;addltfonal . links andiresourcesl^tfbcus.1%. .on seconA^,schook^dlng.A.  The Forum- Feature^^i-tife::, / V A transcnpt-ofrBoys to Mend an-HGSE.Forunj'dlscussion.y/itbi-.'  Carol Gilligan, James Garbarlno,: land James' Qlllgan about the . r emotional struggles and violence\n.'i\nln/boys.\n::\u0026amp;^X' of Education, some older students struggle because they 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) on but never progressed in fluency and comprehension in reading, released in March by the U.S Department of ~ Education. The new survey shows that although virtuaUy all adolescents are able to carry out simple reading tasks. sufficiently to read the texts encountered after 4th grade. Still others developed reading skills up to, say, a 6th-only 40 percent can read well enough to comfortably manage standard high school texts or 8th-grade level, but havent actually read enongi develop fee vocabulary or general knowledge that Ino more ____________ _ advanced reading requires Although most high school Only 6 percent of American 17-year-olds read at what ets may be able to read the words on the page, many ii .u..:----------- do not have the skills that allow them to synth^^^r summarize information, draw conclusions, make general- L izations, or relate information drawn from texts to their 1^ NAP designers deem an advanced levelthat is, can syn-thesize and learn fi-om specialized reading material. That age group is the only one showing lower scores today than when the NAEP was first given in 1971, which begs the question, Why are the reading skills of older students not showing more improvement? While the nation has concentrated much needed attention on beginning readers, efforts to help high school own knowledge. Secondary school students are expected to learn independently from print, but no one shows them how, says Arlene Barry, an assistant professor of curriculum and instruction at the University of Kansas We start to Also-visitounpase research ' features Jndndlng those on retention, successfufminontyL'/. students, and science\neducadonr -chi\u0026amp;mW work with kids on stories from the time I irvard Letter TOWAL DIRECTOR . ing you how to tangle with the text, how to construct meaning. Reading experts say another factor theyre infants. We read stories to them, and feev know the pattern\ntheres going to be an ending and a resolution. The kind is fee publics mispercepuons about of texts kids are reading at higher levels- literacy. Across the states, governors and teachers engage students in a dialogue (thus, reciprocal) at employs four thinking strat^ generating questions based on what the students already know, pre- I \u0026gt;? 4 -.5 J y- GrMS-OMi- 3 iOCIATt EDITOR MGonton 3DUCT1ON EDITOR dy.WalS.-. ... [TORIALASSISTAMT jIkednoand EB manager g) Goman  '*' the informational, technical textsthere are patterns in them, too, but the kids are not aware of that and nobody walks them through it, Common Mistakes Mature readers might find it perplexing ^ltyedtor . . that adolescents fail to stop reading and legislatures pour public resources into intervention programs for young children dBng what is about to happenjnthe text, summartTing what students have lUSt remand storing to clarify when students and fail to fund any literacy programs for hit confusing material. secondary students Their mistake: assuming that reading develops automatically once a child masters the fundamentals Were seduced by this notion that  if we could just teach the basics by 4th Another effort gets teachers them-chirdFBmora jrrORlALADVISORir BOARD Diracton Priraa^ eftwf.HGSfe Katherine C Boies, jcorenHGSUnda Dariing-jntnoftd. Professor. Columba achera College\nSaly Dias, jperintendent'Afetertown (MA) ubScSchoolsHaroldHowB ll, - ecturer. Emeritus, HGSE\nSusan - loora Johnson. Professor and academic Dean, HGSfc Robert :epivProfes$or.HGS\u0026amp; eegy Kemp. Office of School irtnenhips, HGSE Marya  jverson. Superintendent. North _ Colonie Central Sdiool District. Mewtonvile. NY\nDeborah Meier, , MndpaL Mission HUI School. 8\u0026lt;t\u0026gt;n. MA: John Merrow. Presi-dentlhe Merrw Rexxt Jerome T Murphy, Profesiorand Dean, HGSEAnhuf-J. RosenthaL PubBsh-l  Cowutant\nCadierine Snow. Professor,HGSEJay Sugarman., Teadw. Riride School BrookAne. MAiArtadneVabamis, Diractor of take Stock when they become confused, . grade kids would be able to handle the but reading specialists report that this is complex demands of literacy that are one of the most common mistakes young required of middle and high school s^ adults make Teachers dont realize that kids can read something and say the words okay, but not understand what theyve reada^not even know th^ dont undead, Barry saya In secondly sdiool, teaching shifts from the process of learning to the content students should learn, leaving teachers with little time to address reading. Even teachers who know how to teach reading in their content areas rarely do so. Thirty-seven states require second-dents, and thats just not going to happen, ary school teachers to take at least one Governors and legislatures pour public resources into intervention programs for young children and fail to fond any literacy programs for secondary students. Pu^ WonTBOon,HGSE Htfvod Eitonon Later (ISSN 87SS-37I6) b pufaitfitd bffwmWy b)f Hvwd Graduate School of Education. 6 Appan*^. Canixidjt. MA 011 38-3751 Sccond-daa poR\u0026gt;|* Boston, MA. and addtional mailing oAces. Posonaster Sand address dwi|(s) to Harvard Eduadon Lkct. 8 Appiw Vfey, Cambridge. MA 02138-3751 Slpied articles in Horvord EiAMOtion - Later raprasenc the views of the uxhorsJMkirass editorial corra-jpondance to effitora. Harvard . E****^?^ Lcoer, Gutman Library. 6 Appian Cambridge, MA 011 3^3752: phone 617-495-3431\nfex817496-35B4: emal edicor^edieoerorg\nweb: www,cdlcter.orx. I W by the President and FeBowi Harwd Coll^ PuUislwd as a non-profit service. ' Al rights reserved. Special permission is required to reproduce in any manner, n whole or in part\n. die rraterial herein contained.\n',,Cal 617^95-3432 fer reprint. ^'penmslon infonnatiork HOWTO SUBSCRIBE  - Send $32 for in^viduab. $39 for * s bwitutions ($40 (or Canada/Mex- C0b$49 other fereig^ In LLS. finds  hfervarti Uuation Letter. Appan VWy, Cambfk^ MA\n.01I3^3752\norallusat8l7-495- 'i-f3432 h Manachusets or' f,.''^flpO-5I3-O7i3 outside Massachu- A sitt Subscription prices subject ^*^Co dngi without notice. Siri^ edpiat $5.00. Back issues and bulk ^:.\"ajbeaiptiora available at spedal \". nnc oil 800-513-0763. course in reading, yet studies show that only a small percentage of teachers actually use the strategies they leam. And recent sure trends are making it tougher for teachers to stray from content instruc-tion. Thirteen states have recendy instituted exit exams that require students to meet high standards that emphasize selves to think about how they read and then try to pass those skills on to kids. Cynthia Greenleaf director of research at the San Francisco-based WestEds Strategic Literacy Initiative, and her colleague, Ruth Schoenbach, are collaborating with secondary school teachers to bring insights from cognitive research into classrooms. Greenleaf says fee first stepjn^r work with high school teachers is always to get them to recognize what they do when feev read. We have groups of social studies teachers sit together and read a history analysis, and chemistry teachers read a Scientific American article, Greenleaf says. And we have them list their reading moveswhat they pay attention to. Inevitably, teachers discover feat advanred reading in one disaplirie is nothing likeTt is in another.Teachers need tn unrover such hidden, or veiled. Richard Vacca says. We have 30 years of procesvss and make them apparent to statistics that show the problem isnt only with beginning literacy, yet we front load everything and then the funding just stops. students, says Greenleaf We need to try to figure out ways of helping our kids into 1 content knowledge, and more states are in the process of rolling out such exams. Teaching adolescent literacy is not supported from the top down, says Richard Vacca, former president of the International Reading Association and co-author of a respected textbook on secondary school reading. The oidy thing Thinking About Thinking There is a considerable body of experimental research demonstrating that when that masked world of how you do literary readings, science readings, historical readings, she says. Next Greenleaf and Schoenbach introduce teachers to research-based tech- adolescent students are shown how to tTuiqiquueess ssuucchh aass_ rreecaipprroocaarl, tteeaacchnmingg tmhadti \n^\nrimreir own thinking, they able help students expandto^epertoue of ____ \"* ' . . - -  J__ flAvCKililn to get more from their texts and to per-fotm mote complicated operations with the information.Thinkingabout think-ing or metacognition is a hallmark of thats important is a score on a state profi- ea^dolescent developmenUn^e dency t,estt, aAnndd tthhaattss ccoonntteenntt ddrriivveenn..  backboned adolescent readingexpen- Harvard lecturer Vicki Jacobs says secondary school teachers who neglectto address literacy explicitly may be add^ to the problem by sending stud^an inaccurate message about how mature 'reading works IflMy to students, Go home and read a book chapter and come meats Several experimental regimens train students to think while they read. However, little work has been done to move these protocols out of laboratories and into secondary classrooms back tomorrow and Ill give you a quiz, says Jacobs, then Im implying that good Developed in the early 1980s by reading is like a fairy landing on your researchers Ann Brown and Annemarie shoulder and you just get it Im not show- Palincsar, this approach has content-area thinking strategies and develop flexibility in using them. They also urge teacheg_to make use of the developmental strengths of adolescents At Thurgood Marshall Academic High School in San Francisco, Greenleaf and Schoenbach developed a mandatory literacy course for all incoming 9th-gtaders in 1996 that emphasizes adolescents Amerging abilities to think about thinking and to be retrospective about themselves One model feat has been tried in I-n the first unit. Reading Self and Society, classrooms and is favored by several read- students explore their own readmg iden-ing experts is^pro^ teaching''! hues, including their histones as readers - and what kind of problems they have experienced, as well as what kind of role reading will likely play in their intended career goals During the course, which met for two Furthermore, when the same students were tested again at the end of 10th 90-minute block periods and one 50-minute grade, a year after the course had ended, period per week, students also read narra-rives from authors such as Malcolm X, Explaining the results of her work with the San Francisco 9th-grade teachers, Greenleaf voices a complaint heard their gains not only held but even acceler- repeatedly in conversations with literacy Qaude Brown, Frederick Douglass, and oers. They read silently in class for 20 to 25 minutes each block period, kept, logs describing e reading problems they encountered, and got explicit instruction in self-help cognitive spategies, such as predicting questioning and clarifying At the end of the 1996-97 academic year, students showed significant gains in ated. By the spring of 1998 the group had gained approximately four years reading ability in two academic years. More significantly, perhaps, is at students perceptions about reading, as measured by open-ended surveys conducted at the beginning and end of the year, changed dramatically. More students not enough  reported that they liked reading, that they purposefully decided which books to reading achievement, moving from the 47th read, had favorite authors, and understood to the 50th percentile in national ranking. what they read. experts. This is exactly why we need to do e work at the secondary level, she says, why we cant just say, Oh. e kids got it in K through 3. they know how to decode and they know how to approach words that are unfamiliar, and how to chunk text and read fluently. That is Peggy J. Farber is a freelance educarion reporter based in New York City For Further Information Notfiihg^SwesB KidsiF^I Better than Learning* KiRi^ihBSbccess'^^iB6]^TGwhW^^|'5SgO^\u0026lt; ..... Mi't -IJhffieETilana^'s^q^^^inN^i\u0026amp;a\n. X- '3' __________ ifmiQfmtoe^bhis\u0026amp;tic^lsiie'Mj^AfBd^^TO^ Boys Town Reading Center, Fadier Ranagans Boys' Home, Boys Tosvn. Nebraska 68010:402-498-1155 M Cums and AM. Longo. When Adoiescens Cant ReodrAlethocis ok Matends that VMxk. Cambriage. MABrooldine Books, 1999. C. Czfl\u0026lt;a \"Reading Happens in Your Mind. Not Your Mouth.\" CoSfijma EngSsb 3. no. 4 {Summer 1998): 6-7 R Donahue, K.VoelW,J. Campbell, and J. Maneo. NAEP 1998 Rep^ Card for dK Notion and [he States. V^^ngion. DC US. Deoarnnenc of Education. Office o' Educational Research and Improvement. March I999\nwww.nces. ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs /mainl998/l999S003html. Guide to the Reading Wars, a collection of documents and articles on the MiddlcVYeb site. Funded By the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, MiddleWeb provides information on middle school r^orm. www.middleweb.com /Reading.htmi. D. G OBrien. R. A Stewart, and EB. Moje-'Why Content Literacy is Difficuit to Infuse into the Secondary Schooh Complexities of Curriculum. Pedagogy, and School Culture.\" Reading Research Quarurfy 30, no. 3 (Juiy/Augusi/' September 1995): 442-463. Project WebSIGHT provides a practical introduction to reciprocal teaching, and includes sample lessons and researcn results. The site was created by the Miami-Daae County Public Schools, tne University of Miami, and the Florida Department of Education, www.miamisci.org/tec /indexhcml. The Strategic Literacy Initiative, WesiEd, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107:415-565- 3000: www.westedxrg/stratiic: send e-mail to Ruth Schoenbach at r5choen@wested.org or Cyndnia Greenleaf at cgreen@wes^.org. R.T, V^cca-'tet's Not Marginalize Adolescent Literacy.\" Jqumol of Adolescent and Adult Liieracy 41, no 8 (May 1998): 604-609. '7:1/is event iitndenty\nhob^^^MStf^ :'seyereeinoB6^:Mi^riaafe^^l^^@^^Mlm\u0026amp;s4|J^.h^SMnfehyjiS^terii^td'B^:r^^na\nt^ng#Ji: .yeaiSfofkfi\u0026amp;^eS^^roaBu\u0026amp;^Sbys^^'^^ral^'^ tt severe eniQtioM^4soaan^^^0^ei^pjdent^^ 'iii ^t\u0026amp;e^^5^.^^n^ou3Egetlriils^o:i^^ ^^^^Mfc\u0026amp;old^adoi^n^^fSiriisSa^g^^^^^^liJ' ^edmtoffiifrisen^tdp)^^ Isfoaehts in.her,p'rt^i7injljgOTng hdtttSSfowibeM^^^de. * ft tll ft - ytrJtH .t Ifanaawve\nSO*J J-W: fei -^-3y:We^canft,afi - -. ___________________________ i_______________ ........ Ml level wtGk^e'StruggfingMti^\n3S iffijgmdelCTbVftiGUse^ 3\ni*Smgfie^Teafing$bfweSi'fiie6ffi-5i\u0026amp;\u0026amp;@ffi^ w^tem^Jioving'fiiOTkno^^ iffEj^tetit^\nsriidenfa a^vifittgradd iwel^fe^^ lihfemtifigSormatiori\u0026amp;uhdmtiejS, '' \u0026lt;uyW\nkevs fo'-the progranis siicceaafeits highlyvfiS\":\n{StriiSiir^ criuises pt^ctablfton^aapd'hhilfe grni^j ifjfcmBSysjCiiifejThe-ygmflenfagmt^ \"\nt^SmiSw^^cld^fqqiari^nl^pnf\u0026amp;^51alls~ifiafiyieariij^pnfi^sa^f9SiS:ffi6Westj^t^^ larejiecessaEigf^riwistudegtjft^eirn|g[tktgge:aOj6^^8f^^eyare^atje^^iear^gfsfQge^ SaeveIopm^beeaoseStl^MevfccatcliSRiif7^onli\u0026lt;^O^i^M-jMcfa\u0026amp;^bi^fhm^1he\n^ffi^ j\u0026amp;uaallfii5t5te{frss^giiflSs:^^g]adgm^ j^^wjth^ja^ieadmg-iKoass^JllS^ i^' i dentsinifaeEiirogramgaitLabotititwD\n-37\u0026lt; 5-1^3 k'la'iv. j.^wsK^m sir yeais foreveiv^ear of ipsEactionrand^jtfreag^ave? WfebeenfrepiieaSd-iri'sav^idc^isecim^ ^'ftaroiihdtlieicdiaf^tTlie-B^Tliwri^R^ain^C^^\ni\u0026amp;cuirently\nl3e^iuSy^S!(iffifrafts^^i^^msl?S\nj jCiiiS S S- .elX, -.t- -i- ^gideasiFl^istifets?^^\n^^^^ii!\u0026amp;e^^sSS^yel^ ssounds and gomgifinotigfi^^ortsto construdtoowledge\n\u0026gt;!ye ti,hJs=X!it Harvard Education Letter July/August 1999 3 What Secondary Teachers Can Do To Teach Reading A three-step strategy for helping students delve deeper into texts By Vicki A. Jacobs e You want me to teach reading? But I'm a content teacher. I don't have time to stop and teach reading. Besides, I wouldn't even know how to begin. by providing them wi\u0026amp; means to preview ry blossoms or whether there is a national 1 fe- T1 hese are typical concerns of secondary teachers when asked to take more responsibility for their students reading. One reason for their concern may be confusion about what secondary reading is and anticipate the text. Such preparatory activity is critical for comprehension to occur. the monuments or government buildings For example, a 9th-grade social stud- that a tourist would be interested in seeing, ies class may be planning to read about cemetery near Moscow as there is near Washington, DC They might also consider Moscow as an introduction to a unit on As a result, the students build on the knowl-edge they bring to a text while beginning to Russia. Depending on the purpose of the anticipate and pose questions about that text, reading (and it is important to be explicit to students about purposes), the teacher might have students brainstorm individually about what they already know about Simply put, if reading through grades a national capital that is more familiar to 3 or 4 is about learning to readacquiring them: Washington, DC Most likely, the the skills needed to decode the written word automatically and fluentlythen reading from about grade 4 on is about using those skills to comprehend what is writtenthat is, using reading to leam. Texts used in subject areas often employ language, syntax, vocabulary, and concepts that are specific to a particular field of study. Merely assigning reading does not help students leam how to tangle with these specialized texts to construct meaning teachers must help prepare students brainstorm will spark both common associations (such as the president, the Capitol, cherry blossoms, or Arlington Pre-reading requires considerable time but is a wise and critical investment. In addition to brainstorming and graphically organizing information, teachers can also instruct students to ask and answer questions before reading. These questions which can be supplied by the teacher or developed by students through directed writing or interactive discussion, might include, What do I already know and what do I need to know before reading? and What do I think this passage will be about, given the headings graphs or pictures? Teachers can also make use of clozethat is deleting important words or concepts from a passage and having students guess or choose the word that would best fit the blank. Pre-reading activity requires considerable time, for and guide them through the texts so that National Cemetery), as well as less com-they will learn from them most effectively, mon associations certain students might but that time is a wise and critical investment, for it prepares students to actively engage with the text Pre-Reading To avoid feeling that they have to stop have because of theirpwnknowledge and Guided Reading experience (say, the Holocaust Museum, or an anecdote about a visit to Washingteaching content in order to teach reading ton, DC). The class could then compile secondary teachers might think of reading and share their brainstorms, which the The second stage of the reading process is called guuied reading. During this stage, stu-dents need structured means to integrate the knowledge and information that they bring as a comprehension or understanding teacher can use to help the students grasp to the text with the new that is provided process that involves three stages. (These particular concepts or vocabulary that will by the text. Guided-reading activities should stages are derived from a model of learning be important to understanding the text teacher can use to help the students grasp called schema theory.! The first stage is The class might then organize their called pre-reading. One of the purposes of brainstorms into categories (such as mon-pre- reading is to acknowledge the different contexts, experiences, biases, and background knowledge (often called the given) of students that will influence how they read and learn from a text (the new). By knowing what students bring to their reading teachers can provide em with bridges, or scaffolds, between the given and the newclarifying unfamiliar vocabulary and concepts, and offering other necessary information in uments, government buildings, a tourists engage students in probing the text beyond its literal meaning for deeper understanding They should include multiple points of view, which is a requirement of higher stages of view of the city), or into webs, outlines, or reading Students should have the opportu-cluster sgraphic organ_iz_e_r_s _t_h_a_t _v_is_u_a lly nhy to revise their preliminary questions, illustrate the relationships among vocabu- search for tentative answers, gather, organ-lary or concepts The teacher could then divide the class into small groups and assign each group a category from the brainstorm, asking em to use the Wash-ington, DC, examples as a way to think ize, analyze, and synthesize evidence, and begin to make generalizations or assertions about their new understanding. A simple way to lead students beyond surface understanding is to reword the factual about Moscow. For example, a group that questions that texts characteristically pro-________________ __ _ is assigned a tourists view of the dt.y  videat the end of a chapter into questions theprgggs Pre-reading activities also pro- might consider whether there are gardens that ask how or why. Such questions ask mote students eng-a -gement and inter estI it* Moscow that equal the beauty of cher- students not only to locate information, but J i also to apply that information in some sub- stage, teachers give students ways to artic-stantive way. For example, a social studies ulate their understanding of what they text mieht ask, What three rivers that flow through Russia are connected by canals? Only surface comprehension is required for students to find and copy the pie, students might be asked to discuss answer from the text (the Don, Dneiper, and Volga Rivets). In contrast, a guidedreading question, such as How would Russias transportation and trade be affected if there were no canals to link e transportation). They then might be asked Don, Dneiper, and Volga rivets? requires students to consider how facts from the text inform each other and help answer the question. Other common guided-reading activities include reader-response journals and study guides 1 i Post-Reading Stage three of the secondary reading process is called post-reading. During this ulate their undeisianding of what they have read, and then to test its validity, apply it to a novel situation, or argue it against an opposing assertion. For exara-how the United States and Russia are similar and different, given one aspect of Russian culture that they have studied (e.g, the people, geography, industry, or to argue what impact these similarities and differences might have when Russia and the United States need to come to some agreement of international consequence, such as the war in Kosovo. By engaging students in pre-, guided-, and post-reading activities, teachers not only support students understanding of content, but also provide them with opportunities to hone their comprehen-sion, vocabulary, and study skills without interrupting content learning. Teachers should make decisions about how they will use such activities, depending on their purposes for teaching, the difficulty of the For Further text, and how well their students can read Information the text Most teachers already employ H many of the principles and practices asso-  dated with the reading process However, j. chait Stages of heading Develop-by becoming more aware of how they use them and to what end, teachers can become more confident about whether students comprehend both the word and the spirit of their texts.  Mcfa' A. Jacobs is a lecturer on education and associate director of Teacher education Programs at the Harvard Graduate School Education. This article dransfrom her book. Secondary Reading and Writing: Issues and Opportunities, which will be published by Brookline Bodes later this year ment New Yoric McGnw-Hiil, 1983, D.W. Moore, j.E Readence. and R.J. PJekeJman. Prereoding Acwoej far Content Anw Heading and Learning (2nd ed.). Newark DE intemanon-al Reading Association, 1969. B.D. Roe, B.D. Stoodt, and PC. Bums. Secondary Schoo/ Reading InanjcDonilhe (^teni Areas (6ch ed.). Boston, MA\nHoughton Mifflin. 1998. I The Brain-Based Ballyhoo New research on the brain may shed light on how kids leam, but should it change the way theyVe taught?The debate simmers... By Millicent Lawton j when Sarah Jerome, a Wisconsin says John Bruer, president of the James school superintendent, and her S. McDonnell Foundation in St Louis, colleagues read about a brainI 1 1 research study connecting keyboard music lessons to improved-skills in spatial and abstract reasoning in preschoolers, they didnt wax philosophic about the potential benefits of such research. They pul the new information into practiceand fast In 1996-97, Jerome and company added keyboard lessons to the elementary music curriculum in the 4,200-sludent Kettle Moraine school district in Wales, WI. When kindergartners showed better puxzle-solving aria block-building skills, Jerome plowed about $40,000most of it donatedinto buying 120 electronic keyboards for all grade levels in the districts four elementary schools. Today, teachers say the students who take keyboard lessons ence and the media hype surrounding have better concentration and discipline in them. Proponentsby and large consult-I the classroom. Are Jerome and others like her read- research about the brain can help K-12 ing too much into early results from brain  research, a science still in its infancy? Fd be reluctant to invest substantial resources in a curriculum based on a single study, which funds research in neuroscience and psychology. Such reactions highhght the current the truth probably lies somewhere in tug-of-war over so-called brain-based education, a pedagogical bandwagon set Are Jerome and others reading too much into early results fixim brain research, a science still in its infancy? in motion by recent advances in brain sci-ants, not brain scientistsargue that educators know what and how to teach. But critics, mostly in the scientific commu-nity, question the accuracy of some of the and classroom practice. Education con-movements claims and argue that the breakthroughs it touts are little more than longstanding educational philosophy and common sense repackaged under a new, faddish name. As in many debates, the middle. One supporter of brain-based education, Eric Jensen, says learning about the brain can help educators make better decisions. Jensen, a staff developer and author of Teaching with the Brain in Mind, says he doesnt want brain biology to drive school policy and practice exclusively. StilL he says, there are a lot of important findings in the field of neuroscience that have some direct classroom applications Educational consultant David A. Souza, author of How the Brain Learns, agrees: Teachers are trying to change human brains every day. The more they know about how [the brain] works, the more likely they are to be successful. The secret, according to brain-based advocates, is in making the tight connections between new laboratory research suitants Renate and Geoffrey Caine, l-L LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 24, 1999 TO: FROM\nSUBJECT: Middle School Principals Dr. Bonnie Lesley,'Associate Superintendent, for Instruction Reading and Writing Workshop and Vocabulary Development We were generally delighted with teacher responses to the eight days of training we offered during the summer to prepare teachers to teach the grades 6-8 Reading and Writing Workshop. I know that Suzie Davis has already met with your teachers as well, and I know that she has scheduled a meeting with you soon to help you know what to expect when you visit those classrooms. So - we are off to a good start! Learning how to teach in this new way, however, will be difficult for some, so we want to ensure that the teachers are continually encouraged and supported. Meetings and additional training will be set up throughout the year. To assist all your teachers, not just the English teachers, in teaching vocabulary - one of our weakest areas on the SAT9 -1 am attaching copies of two articles you may find helpful. Teaching Vocabulary in the Subject Areas\" by Karen Wood, Middle School Journal, November 1987, \"Six Whole Class Vocabulary Strategies for the Content Areas by Karen Hanus, et al. Middle School Journal, January 1991. Vocabulary development is a great topic for team collaboration. Ill send other articles frequently that you can simply pass along\nuse in faculty, department, or team meetings\nor simply read for your own use. Please feel free to let me know if there is something specific that you need. BAL/rcm cc\nSuzi Davis Pam Persons - Cloverdale IiDULE School Journal f i Six whole class vocabulary strategies for the content areas Karen Stinson Hanus Margaret Mary Sulentic Richard Rebouche Sharon Smaldino S i I Middle School Journal . As students enter and progress through the Techiuque is one method to help students 'middle and secondary school, they face the efficiently preview their textbook for important increasingly more difficult task of bringing vocabulary prior to reading a unit or chapter, special reading skills to content area subjects. First, have students survey the unit and identify The reading skills learned in elementary grades -u/nrHs that- a written in italirc nr offer no guarantee of successful skill application in history, science, or any other field. In the upper grades, students must use the fundamental vocabulary and reading comprehension abilities already learned and apply them to increasingly more difficult materials. In addition, students must (a) learn the specialized vocabulary of vocabulary words that are written in italics or content areas, (b) find definitions of these specialized words in their text, and (c) be able to select and learn new words and meanings on their own in order to become independent bold face. Second, have students try to locate the definitions of the words from context in the text. Some texts define a specialized vocabulary immediately preceding the italicized word, others provide definitions in the margin or include a separate section on vocabulary. Have students go back through the text locating additional important vocabulary words and explain how the words were identified. Point out any additional vocabulary words and clues to locating them in the chapter. Third, let students learners (Readence, Bean, \u0026amp; Baldwin, 1981). Most examine the visuals and predict from the pictures students do not automatically acquire new and graphs what information the chapter will concepts and the ability to identify words that include about the vocabulary terms that have represent new concepts on their own. Therefore, been located. Fourth, determine the purpose attention must be paid to the special vocabulary and value of specialized vocabulary. Point out anH reading skills required in subject matter that the specialized vocabulary generally areas or students will fail to~~achieve as'they contains the major concepts of the unit or chapter. should (Herber, 1970\nManzo, 1980\nOlson \u0026amp; Fifth, from the information already generated in (Ames,\" 1972\nRobinson, 1975). Failure to teach the survey of vocabulary, conduct a class specialized reading could lead to frustration and discussion of the important points of the chapter. decreased student motivation and achievement Next, help students ^oup the vocabulary terms JCleweU \u0026amp; Haidemos, 1983\nMoore \u0026amp; Readence, into logical categories (Ausubel, 1968). Some B981). J Students learn in a variety of ways\ntherefore. specific categorization procedures will be explained later in this article. Finally, as a whole {successful vocabulary instruction calls for a class group, generate a phrase or sentence that {repertoire of activities including personal explains what the author was trying to say about {experiences with the word, categorizing words, the subject. (oral and silent reading of material containing the ------------------------ ----------- [words, and direct vocabulary practice (Moore. (^Z^emantic webbing Keadence, \u0026amp; Rickelman, 1982). Content area teachers need to teach (a) the specialized Also called mapping, semantic webbing is a yocabulary of their subject area, (b) techniques to popular content area reading strategy to help earn new vocabulary, and (c) the special features students learn vocabulary and relationships jf the textbook such as the glossary, italicized between concepts (Sinatra, Stahl-Gemalke, \u0026amp; words, and index. The following six strategies Berg, 1984). Whole class mapping requires ire intended for busy, content area teachers, students to interpret pre-exiting knowledge and These strategies will provide practical activities expenence while helping them recall and retain i :o use with the whole class to improve students' text information. In addition, maps help students :ontent area vocabulary and reading skills. extend vocabulary comprehension and expand 1. Survey texts ? students' intuitive notions about similarities and differences among concepts. A web or map is a graphic arrangement showing the major ideas I Students need to become familiar with their aanndd rreellaattiioonnsshhiippss aammoonngg wwoorrdd rmneeaanniinnggss.. FFiinrs t, :extbooks. Early in the year ask students all the important vocabulary of the unit needs to questions aimed at helping them remember how be identified by the teacher or the students. Then the index, glossary, typographical formats and a large circle is drawn in the center of the j^ther salient features of the textbook can help chalkboard or transparency. Students can then Sem learn (Maring \u0026amp; Furman, 1985). Regularly discuss and determine the vocabulary word main - 'eview with students the major features of the idea in the passage or unit. This vocabulary f xts as new chapters or units are begun. Give word is then written in the center circle. Second, ^dents practice in identifying and locating lines are drawn outward from the center pecialized vocabulary words in the text and in attaching circles to the end of each of these me glossary. spokes. Third, students locate related, I A modification of Aukerman's (1972) Survey subordinate vocabulary words to fill in the circles. January 1991 37 toDLE School Journal Continue this strategy until all ideas, space or need on their copy. Second, these words are time is exhausted. The final display will be in the presented one at a time to the students. Aseach shape of a spider web. It does not follow any word is presented, students discuss any rigid conentions and is formed as concepts are definitions or associations they have with the discussed. Arrows, shaded lines, squares or word. Students provide examples and try to rectangles can be used to illustrate special relate the word to previously discussed terms, relationships vyith the terms (e.g., cause and Third, the teacher adds information about the effect, comparison) in the text. If webs are written word and uses the word in spoken context, on transparencies and stored, they can be used to modeling vocabulary usage for the students, help students who have been absent from class This helps students infer meanings associated discussion and for reviewing at the end of a unit, with the word. This process is continued until aU Reviewing with the web will help students the words have been introduced. Fourth, prepare for tests by providing a visual students are paired and given a limited time representation of the important vocabulary and (three to five minutes) to use the words in concepts.  conversation about the topic in which the words --------------------------------------- are related. Using a timer helps students stay on CX-The structured overview_J) task. Students can take turns recording the number of words that are meaningfully used in The structured overview (Dupuis \u0026amp; Snyder, conversation. Fifth, a brief discussion about the 1983\nVacca \u0026amp; Vacca, 1986) is one prereading uses of the vocabulary can ensue, or students can activity that can help students leam content area be instructed to immediately write a short vocabulary. It involves teaching new content paragraph using as many capsule words as area wc rds before the student is asked to read possible in five to ten minutes. Again, the use of them inTheir textbook (Tierney, Readence, \u0026amp; the timer helps students summarize and keeps Dishni \", 1985). the vocabulary lesson within available time Tc prepare a structured overview, first, locate constraints for the content teacher. Finally, the aU of the important vocabulary from a utut and teacher selects two or three paragraphs to read prepare them in chart form as a teacher's guide aloud to the class. Capsule vocabulary uses both for the lesson. Second, write each word on a the receptive and expressive modes to teach new separate sheet of paper asking students questions vocabulary and the relationships between these about each word as it is written. Ask questions vocabulary words. In addition, the word lists so that the words are defined individually and in provide excellent student references and review, relation to other words. Third, after all of the and involve students actively in the learning words have been written onto the sheets, process. encourage students to help construct a wall chart -------------------------------- by arranging the vocabulary sheets to show the 5. List, group, and label relationships of the words to each other. The chart of relationships can be left taped to the This is a classic strategy from Taba (1967) in wall, or can be thumbtacked to a bulletin board which students categorize vocabulary words for as graphic representation of the important a specific topic. Students can first orally read a concepts of the unit. The chart can also be typed passage or unit using an Oral Languaging and copied as a study or test aide. The advantage Strategy (Manzo, 1980) or discuss a silently read of this strategy is that students are provided an passage using a Questioning Strategy (Vacca \u0026amp; overview of what they are going to study and Vacca, 1986). Second, students brainstorm a list 4. Capsule vocabuL their active participation in building the overview of vocabulary words related to the topic area, will generate interest and tap their prior The brainstorming can be specific to a particular knowledge of the subject. passage or unit or can be used for a general overview of a topic This brainstorming is usually done with a whole class, but can also be conducted January 1991 38 ' in small groups. Disabled readers and The capsule vocabulary (Crist, 1975\nmainstreamed students can be successful if the Cuimingham, Cunningham, \u0026amp; Arthur, 1981) is a teacher calls upon them first to suggest some of strategy in which students read, recite, and vyrite the words for the brainstormed list (Maring \u0026amp; important vocabulary words from their content Furman, 1985). As the vocabulary words are area. First, the teacher selects twelve to fifteen generated, the teacher or a student writes the specialized vocabulary words from the passage terms on the chalkboard, transparency, or a large or unit. These words are typed on a list and sheet of paper. Third, after twenty-five or thirty copied so that each student will have a vocabulary words are generated the students are instructed list. Students are given the list and instructed to to list the words into groups of four to six words write down any notes or definitions that they that they think go logger in some way. StudentsMiddle School Journal an be timed. Three to five minutes should be References ufficient. After students have formed their Au.'k.oTman,R.C. {WTr). Reading in the secondary school .... classroom. New York: McGraw-Hill. an ocabulary word groups, instruct them that they ave several minutes to devise a label or name Ausubel, DP. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitine view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Clewell, S.F., \u0026amp; Haidemos, J. (1983). Organizational strategies to increase comprehension. Reading or each group. Fourth, the teacher leads the tudents in sharing their groups and labels, writing some of them on the chalkboard as _______ xamples of vocabulary categories. Students are Crist, B.I. (1975). One capsule a weekA painless ncouraged to explain why they grouped and  ...................................... .. ibeled the words as they did. A variety of World, 22,314-321. remedy for vocabulary iUs. Journal of Reading, 19, 147-149. jsponses need to be encouraged and regrouping Cunningham, J.W., Cunningham, P.M., \u0026amp; Arthur, xplored. The advantage of this strategy is that -------- udents will come up with many of the important rords associated with a particular topic and will DuPis, M.M \u0026amp; Snyder, SU. (1983) Developing , . . T'l  rnnronK khpoiicrh vnranillflrv A cfraMcru Hr xpand their associations for termmology. This m also be used as a prereading diagnostic S.V. (1981). Middle school and secondary school reading. New York: Longman. concepts through vocabulary\nA strategy for reading specialists to use with content teachers. Journal of Reading, 26,297-305. rtivity. Important vocabulary words about the Herber, H.L. (1970). Teaching reading in content areas. ipic that were not generated by brainstorming - *...........  - - - re probably not well known. These identified rords can then be directly taught to the students.\n. Words on the wall Visual representations of vocabulary are very ' elpful for students, but it is time consuming to i se transparencies or write words on the 5 lalkboard every day. Words on the wall Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Manzo, A.V. (1980). Three \"universal\" strategies in content area reading and languaging. Journal of Reading, 24,146-149. Maring, G.H., \u0026amp; Furman, G. (1985). Seven \"whole class\" strategies to help mainstreamed young people read and listen better in content area classes. Journal of Reading, 28,694-700. Moore, D.W., \u0026amp; Readence, J.E. (1981). Accommodating individual differences in content classrooms. High School Journal, 64,160-165. Zunningham, Cunningham, \u0026amp; Arthur, 1981) Moore,D.W.,Readence,J.E.,\u0026amp;Rickelnian,R.J. (1982).\nroo vides a visual representation of important j OCi dn :abularv terms. Words on the wall visually iinforces the key vocabulary terms, and allows Prereading activities for content area reading and learning. Newark, DE\nInternational Reading Association. le teacher to point out the terms as the Olson, A.y., \u0026amp; Ames, W.S. (1972). Teaching reading xabulary surfaces in discussion or lecture. First, skills in secondary schools. San Francisco: Intext. : le teacher previews the chapter or unit and lentifies the important vocabulary terms. :cond, each term, is written on a half sheet of mstruction paper. A picture, synonym. ntence, or some other aid to memory is included 1 the card. Third, before the term is discussed  included in the assigned readmg material, the rm is presented to the class. Terms are defined Readence, J.E., Bean, T.W., \u0026amp; Baldwin, R.S. (1981). Content area reading: An integrated approach. Dubuque, lA: Kendall/Hunt. Robinson, H.A. (1975). Teaching reading and study strategies: The content areas. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sinatra, R.C., Stahl-Gemake, J., \u0026amp; Berg, D.N. (1984). Improving reading comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The Reading ecifically to the topic, in relation to other words Teacher, 37,22-29. 1 the wall and in context. The half-sheet with Taba, H. (1967). Teacher's handbook for the elementary le term and any added information is then social studies. Palo Alto, CA\nAddison-Wesley. ped to the wall. Fourth, when the unit is Tierney, R.J., Readence, J.E., \u0026amp; Dishner, E.K. (Eds.). mcluded, label the list by the chapter name, tit heading or topic, and begin again with a (1985). Reading strategies and practices: A tw list. Students can use the wall list as a ference in writing assignments and in taking compendium (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Vacca, R.T., \u0026amp; Vacca, J.L. (1986). Content area readmg (2nd ed.). Boston: Little Brown. Sts. Fifth, as new terms are added, update and Karen Stinson Hanus is on leave from the Cedar :pand the vocabulary on the wall This provides Falls, Iowa school system. excellent specific content area vocabulary ictionary for your specific class syllabus. t These six whole class strategies will not Margaret Mary Sulentic teaches at West Intermediate School, Waterloo, Iowa. gvide all the vocabulary instruction needed in Richard Rebouche is Principal at Castle Hill in content area. They are intended as a practical Waterloo Iowa. \u0026amp;rtmg point for busy classroom teachers in the needs of teaching specialized Sharon Smaldino teaches at the University of gcabulary of a content area to an entire class. - - - - January 1991 39 Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa. fest- MIDDLE SCHOOL Journal- Teaching vocabulary in the subject areas Semantic mapping uses students background in learning new vocabulary KAREN D. WOOD i write down the first, or the shortest. TIhink back to teacher x whose primary approach to teaching science vocabulary was to list prior knowledge, including an captured or lost. Also, in this phase, thirty words on the board and have the class look them up in the dictionary.\nRecall, too, how you and your partner divided the list in half and proceeded to  definition available. Whether it fit the i context in which the word would appear was unimportant. Like most middle level : age students, the main concern was to get\nthe assignment finished.\nUnfortunately, teacher x was probably taught using a similar method - more , evidence that poor teaching methods tend to perpetuate themselves. Such methods do : little to give students a conceptual  understanding of subject matter : vocabulary. j Any go^ teacher is aware that students who know the vocabulary of a course tend to understand the content of the subject i matter as well. In fact, as early as 1944, Davis found that word knowledge is the most potent contributor to overall\ncomprehension. More recent research also supports this finding (Hayes and Tierney, 1982). Along with word knowledge, prior knowledge and experiences in general have also been proven essential to the comprehension process (Spiro, 1977\ni j Rurnelhart and Ortony, 1977). In essence. O yocabulary is a means for labeling these I^Sxperiences stored in our minds^ ^^^^ccording to Johnston and Pearson (1982), understanding of the significant vocabulary background information for 'he selection in a lesson, is the best predictor of is presented, key concepts an introduced, comprehension - more powerful than prior knowledge is elicited and assessed, measures of reading ability or purposes for reading are determined. achievement. In the reading phase, purposes are Described in this column is a strategy followed as readers merge their precalled semantic mapping (Johnson and existing knowledge with the new Pearson, 1984) which uses students knowledge presented in the text. The background in the learning and retention postreading, or follow up, phase is the of new vocabulary. Semantic mapping has vehicle for thoroughly synthesizing the appeared under various names in the new with the known. Here, key terms are literature, for example, semantic webbing reviewed, major concepts are discussed (Freedman and Reynolds, 1980) and fact and summarized, and additional questions analyzer or FAN (Swaby, 1984), to name are raised. Further, the lesson may be a few. Regardless of the label enjoyed, it extended to include writing, illustrating. is essentially a representation of the key concepts in a unit of instruction. Semantic mapping can be used throughout diagrammatic developing or researching relevant topics. Prereading Phase Begin by asking students to contribute the three major phases of the instructional all they can about the given topic. This can lesson: prereading, reading and be accomplished by focusing their postreadmg. t he prereading phase of an instructional lesson may well be the most probes. For example, on the topic of associations through the use of question important phase of all for it is here that volcanoes, the teacher may write students interest in the material is either categories on the board such as Word knowledge is the most potent contributor to comprehension. Characteristics, Effects, Places Most Often Found or Names. Map categories, as supplied by the teacher, can often be derived from the headings given in the textbook selection to be read. These categories can be highlighted with a circle (see Figure 1). Then students can volunteer information from their background knowledge for each category shown, contributions are subsequently written on the board in NOVEMBER 1987 / 11 Vi _____ _ ________ _______ o -. Questions can be asked to determine the Another very thorough, but more time depths of the students understanding. To  relation to the major categories. onsuming alternative is to list all of the further extend the activity, have the tudent contributions on the board in any students pose research questions which  \u0026gt;uUUCUt CUilti iUUUVOia order given. Then the students can be may lead them beyond the information asked to group these concepts based on presented in. the selection read. For their common elements. The students example, questions may arise such as how do barnacles attach to ships? (see Figure 2) or  What other mountains are in Alaska? (see Figure 1). Such probing can provide the impetus for interesting projects for library or community research. II I themselves come up with the categories or labels for the terms given. These labels and their corresponding terms can be arranged in a map or web like manner as decided by both teacher and the class. In either of the two alternative methods shown, the teacher may intervene by terms not high, steep lands . preteaching significant, mentioned by the students. After feeling comfortable that the class has adequately displayed their pre-existing knowledge on the topic, they can be assigned the reading of the selection. Reading Phase During the reading, the students should i h\u0026lt;. insfnictfid to use the map as their guide to the major concepts. They may be asked to make either mental or graphic notes of information relevant to the categories Mt. McKinley is highest longest chain is die rocides top is flat high area of land Plateaus Mountains Colorado Plateau body of land\ndisplayed on the map. In this way, they KrToundedby know what to focus on while reading and what information is not pertinent to their purposes for reading. IPostreading Phase Direct the attention of e class to e semantic map by asking them what new knowledge they gained about each of the categories. This new information should be added to the map until each major heading or category contains a cluster of topically related associations. The teacher may choose to use different shades of chalk or, if an overhead projector is used, different colors of transparency pens to illustrate the growth in knowledge before and after the reading. Note the changes in the students knowledge base for the following example\nPostreading Types of Volcanoes ! active extinct water  .1  Islands Manhattan s presently erupting no longer erupts active 1 canenipt at any time Figure 1 Social Studies Landforms of the U.S. Ceonl Plains largest Hains CeotnJ wide area of flat land U.S. Landforms X Great I Coastal Peninsula Florida bamer coral Common Trails exoskeletoa jointed openings Crustaceans  5 prs. tegs 2 prs antennae crab, lobsters shrimp barnacles Prereading Types of Volcanoes intermittent 1 occasional eruptions dormant from French Word dotniir-to sleep-may eniptorbe donnant for many years volanic Figure 2 Science Arthropods Arthropods extinct I no longer dangerous  land almost completely bound by water Continental Arachids 4 prs. leg* mites, tteks parasite scorpions spiders predaton Millipedes eat roots, stems baitnless 2 prs. legs pet segment Centipedes front claws poisonous predators 1 pr. legs per segment Insects Social insects butterflies, moths beetles 2 pn. wings 3 pn. legs I i i I i j I I S iI I : 1 j As a Stimulus for Writing Because semantic mapping presents the key concepts of a selection in an organized display, it is an excellent framework for 'a writing assignment. Working in pairs nr small groups, students can be asked to choose a cluster of information on which to write. Or, they may be instructed to write about the overall topic (Landforms of the U.S., Arthropods, etc.), merging the concepts for each of the subcategories into separate paragraphs. equal t not equal symbol As with any new lesson, it is imperative i that the writing assignment be thoroughly modeled at the onset. This can be accomplished by showing a completed paragraph and then enlisting the aid of the class in the composition of one or more ' sample paragraphs. Thus, the teacher is gradually releasing responsibility to the students before assigning independent practice. i As a Review Process t Semantic mapping can also be used 3 exclusively in the postreading phase  rriMnc fnr rAuiMutnir as a I means for reviewing the content of lettm for numbers Figure 4 Algebra Variables and Equations Variables values of variable expression parentheses Qumerical expression numerals ! simplifying the _____ expression I evaluating or finding the value of grouping symbols I brackets fraction bar  an instance, the class is actively involved i II ji i material just read or learned. Figure 3 shows the strategy as it can be applied to a math review lesson on variables. In such semantic mapping, the cliche we teach Spiro, Raad J. Remembering information from text: as we were taught* may soon become 'state of schema approach. In Schooling and positive one. aeguisirion of knowledge, edited by R.C. Anderson, K.J. Spiro and W.E. Montague. Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. taught a REFERENCES Davis, F.B. Fundamental factor of comprehension Swaby,B. FAN out your facts on the board.\" The Reading Teacher, 1984, 37, 914-16. in the review process by contributing what _ . __ Dr. Karen D. Wood is in the Department diey remember a^ut a recent passage read Lding.\"Instruction, College of or a lesson taught. The teacher aids this Freedman, F.G. and Reynolds, E.G. Enriching Education, University of North Carolina process by arranging the students* webbing.\" ot in reading.\" Psychometrika, 1944, 9 185-187 contributions in an organized manner. 5 Summary basal reader lessons with semantic webbing. The Charlotte. This column which presents Reading Teacher, 1980, 33, 677-684. InstTTictional Strategies based on research T* ,1^'ioping waders firuiings ig a regular Journal feature kknnoowwlleeddgcee throuegh aannaalloofgfvy..  RReeaaddminge RReesxneaarrechh  ' I Semantic mapping represents a concept development approach to teaching vocabulary. Because students are actively Quaterly, 1982 , 77, 256-280. Johnson, D.D. and Pearson, P.D. Teaching reading vocabulary, second edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984. it involved in the process by contributing Pearson P.D. Prior knowledge their pre-existing knowledge on given connectivity and the assessment of reading topics, their interest is heightened, their comprehension. Technical Report No. 245. Urbana,  * ' -------------------  -Q.-wwwu XILX*.. Uwanuivrvexrosikitjyr yojif iIUllJinLUoUisia,, 117908.26.. : knowledge base broadened and their Rumclhart, D.E. and Ortony, A. The representation comprehension enhanced I Perhaps by including in our repertoire of teaching strategies methods such as of knowledge in memory. ' In Schooling and she acquisition ofknemdedge, edited by R.C. Anderson, K.J. Spiro and W.E. Montague. HiUsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977. I e TJie Idea Factory (Sm p. 10) also includes a column Short Stuff editor, Joel Turvey, presentea this example. successful practices in 75 words or less. The i My students keep Teaming logs to practice writing skills across the curriculum. The tooic Describe the frog that youth pAr efproarrte tdk otof iidzxitsi sejc:t_ in l*i fe sictj?ie* nc_ e yesterday...). ..i.s.. ..o..n.. e overhead classroom. Precious class time is saved as students begin to write while I take roll or question (for example, as they walk in the as soon as the bell rings.  Joel Turvey NOVEMBER 1987 / 13 L-L ^Itl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 September 1, 1999 J TO: Middle School Principals FROM\nDr. Bonnie Lesley, AAssisociate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Teaching Reading I Several of you have indicated your interest in knowing more about how to teach reading to the students who are performing at the Below Basic or lowest quartile. I am attaching some articles that I hope will be helpful. 1. A research synthesis on what works in \"restructuring urban middle school reading and writing programs. 2. Reading Comprehension Instruction for At-Risk Students: Research- Based Practices that Can Make a Difference by James Flood and Diane Lapp, Journal of Reading. April 1990. 3. Teaching Them All to Read: Results of a Nationwide Study of Successful Literacy Programs for Young Adolescents by Judith Davidson, Middle School Journal. May 1989. 4. Alternatives to More of the Same' for Poor Readers by Marjorie Wuthrick, Middle School Journal. January 1990. 5. Student at Risk\nThe Slow Reader in the Middle Grades by Leslie Ann Perry, Middle School Journal. January 1990. BAL/adg Attachments ISSUE 32  FALL 1994 Integrate Reading and Writing And Focus on Early Adolescent To Improve Urban Middle School Restructuring urban middle school reading and writing programs to capitalize on the unique abilities and perspectives of adolescents has paid off in higher student achievement, according to two separate studies by researchers at the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students. The researchers, Robert J. Stevens and Scott Durkin, found that students in a program called \"Student Team Reading\" and Student Team Writing\" had higher reading comprehension scores than students in control groups. In one study, reading vocabulary and language expression scores were also higher than among control groups. The Hopkins researchers note that several strategies contributed to these results. First, an emphasis on cooperative learning, such as pairing students for reading activities, takes advantage of the influence of peers on early adolescents. Integrating readingjind writing instruction to make it more meaningful for adolescents is another key component of the program. Having e same teacher for both subjects riiakes ifeasier to ensure that writing and reading Activities are linked. The atmosphere is also more personal when students have the same teacher for both subjects. This relaxed setting is especially important for middle schoolers, who often feel alienated by the impersonal atmosphere of the traditional middle school. Stevens and Durkin stress the importance of using good literature that interests . students for instruction instead of basal readers, following up with activities where students apply new knowledge, and providing instruction on reading comprehension strategies to develop students higher order thinking skills. Source Using Student Team Reading and Student Team Writing in Middle Schools: Two Evaluations is available from the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, The Johns Hopkins University, 3505 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218 (cite Report no. 36, 21 pages, $3.95 prepaid). NCREL Clipboard  Page 23 I I I 490 1 Elood and Lapp are professors of Reading and Lan- wh2! State University f^here they vrork with preservice and in^^rvif^a preservice and inservice teachers (Coiiege of Education, San Diego CA 92182 USA) The^ research interests include effective comprehen- Sion instructional practices for dents. at-risk and reguiar stu- Reading comprehension instructiorr.for at-risk students\nResearch-based practices that can make a difference James Flood Diane Lapp  In \"statP n^fTJ ^htten about ^Jja^-of-the-art rearijng^comprehension instruc- tional practices for at-risk students in middle and students as well as regular secondary schoojmn?^ Durkin, 1978-79- Flood 1984a, 1984b\nGuthrie, 1981\nPearson, son, Faraone, Hittieman, \u0026amp; Unruh JareeSS\n.'?\"'  M-cators agree that effective comprehension 1984\nRobin- 1990\nTierney \u0026amp; a ciiBciive comprehension results from the interaction of four sets of important variables z^aier vjvab/es (age, ability, affect, motivation), text varie- bles (genres, type, features, considerateness)\neduca- lanal context variables (environment, task, social grouping, purpose)\nand teacher variables (knowledge, experience, attitude proach). and pedagogical ap- Eacfi of these variables plays \" ^htical role in the successful acquisition of comprehension anri Comprehension strategies ^'scussed as it relates to effective teaching practices for at-risk students. Two major questions will be discussed-in this article: (1) What do henders read texts?_(2) What do we know about teac^ ing at-risk students to comprehenders? become competent Journal of Reading April 1990 Competent comprehenders competent comprehenders exhibit a set of discernible characteristics. Research- st?u^r competent readers actively con- \" meranT^^T-?  they .^eract and transact\" with the words on the oaoe^ integrating new information ---------on the page vyith preexisting knowl- edge-^wEt^Anderson^ieb-\n^:^i7Wi-^ 1986\nRosenblatt, 1938, 1982). Further found that a readers 1986\nParis, it has been prior knowledge, experience titude, and perspective determine the lat- ways in which 77.i 5 I J f 5 J u J V 4 I I3 I information is perceived, understood, valued, and stored (Anderson et al.. 1985: Flood. igfl4a. i9R4h: Holbrook, 1987\nPearson, 1984\nRumelhart, 1981\nSquire, 1983). The competent comprehender: A strategic reader Good readers are strategic readers who actively construct meaninq as they read\nthey are selfmotivated and self-directed (Paris, Lipson, \u0026amp; Wixson, 1983)\nthey monitor their own comprehension by questioning, reviewing, revising, and rereading to enhance their overall comprehension (Baker \u0026amp; Brown, 1984). Good readers have learned that it is the reader in the reading process who creates meaninq, not the text or even the author of the text. There is some consensus among researchers that competent readers have a plan for comprehending\nthey use their metacognitive knowledges in an orderly way to implement their plan (Flavell, 1981). While each readers plan varies for each text and task, the following steps seem to be part of the competent readers generalized plan for many different kinds of texts: A PLAN FOR READING Before reading, the strategic reader\nx Previews the text by looking at the title, the pictures, \\ and the print in order to evoke relevant thoughts and memories Builds background by activating appropriate prior knowledge through self-questioning about what he/ she already knows about the topic (or story), the vocabulary and the form in which the topic (or story) is presented Sets purposes for reading by asking questions about 3 what he/she wants to learn (know) during the reading episode During reading, the strategic reader:' Checks understanding of the text by paraphrasing the authors words Monitors comprehension by using context clues to figure out unknown words and by imaging, imagining, inferencing, and predicting Integrates new concepts with existing knowledge, continually revising purposes for reading After reading, the strategic reader\n- Summarizes what has been read by retelling the plot of the story or the main idea of the text Evaluates the ideas contained in the text Makes applications of the ideas in the text to unique situations, extending the ideas to broader perspectives , Teaching at-risk students If the preceding remarks accurately reflect the processes that the competent comprehender engages in, one might wonder: Is there a role for the teacher or does comprehension ability merely occur as a result of practice, of extensive and frequent reading? Are at-risk students at risk because they have not been taught how to comprehend or because they do not practice reading? Can comprehension be taught? Although some educators have suggested that the controvysial question Can comprehension be taught? is no longer a burning, lingering issue (Pearson, 1984\nTierney \u0026amp; Cunningham, 1984) it seems to have been re-ignited recently in both its old form and in a newer form. Carver (1987) in his article entitled \"Should Reading Comprehension Skills Be Taught? argues that the evidence for teaching comprehension is \"weak, nonexistent, or directly counter (to the data). He states: The evidence presented to support the case for teachers spending more time teaching reading comprehension skills is frail at best. Too often the Easiness Principle and the Reading Time Principle are not accounted for in research, and there is no solid evidence that gains due to the Reading Practice Principle will transfer to reading ability in general. It makes more sense to regard comprehension skills as study skills in disguise, and teaching them to unskilled readers is a questionable practice. However, Haller, Child, and Walberg (1988) in their article entitled Can Comprehension Be Taught? A Quantitative Synthesis of Metacognitive Studies\" examined the results of 20 seminal studies (that included 1,553 students) on the effects of metacognitive instruction on reading comprehension performance. Although the exact nature of metacognition is still being debated, it was defined in their study as three mental activities that constitute metacoqnitipn: being aware, monitoring, and regulating in order to faltering understanding. Their results strongly suggest that comprehension v - can be taught. They found that there was ample evi-dence to encourage teachers to instruct students in reading comprehension from a series of research studies that were rigorously conducted. Three specific findings were highlighted in their analysis: (1) there were age effects especially for seventh/eighth grade and second-grade at-risk students: (2) reinforcement was the single most effective part of reading comprehension instruction\nand (3) the more instructional features involved in the learning episode, the significant the results.' ' more It seems that the real answer to this question must be a qualified one in which definition and purpose are Reading comprehension instruction for at-risk students 491 -r: 78. 3 3 1 ii I i clearly explained. In asking the question Can comprehension be taught? one has to be careful to add Comprehension of what, by whom, under what conditions, and for what purposes? Although one has to attend to the possibility that the question is still open, there is ample and ever increasing evidence that comprehension instruction has been effective for many at-risk students. The purpose of this article is to review representative samples of these studies to determine elements of comprehension instruction that seem general and useful for teachers working with at-risk students at various grade levels in various settings. Naturally not all relevant studies can be included in this paper\nrather only a modest number will be included as illustrations of what we currently know about comprehensign instruction for this population. their own experiences, knowledges, and valiiea , -Geven practices that hava haan proven to be si,r. ces^ in helping at-risk students develop their com-^ prehension abilities will be discussed. These include: /i\\  z -wwu. I ucoe incluae: n^parmg for reading practices. (2) reciprocal ^aclTing practices. (3) understanding------------- knowledge of text structum practices, (5) information and using practices, (4) questioning processing practices. (6) reading practices. (1) Preparing for reading practices Two activities that help at-risk t .wu auuvu.es tnat help at-risk students ready themselves for reading are PReP and Previewing. s f I An instructional approach: Constructivism in practice J I } In recent years it has been argued that students develop comprehension skills and strategies most successfully through a process approach that emphasizes the underlying cognitive and linguistic skills that are prerequisites for understanding and appreciating texts. Just as has been the case for some time in writ- Prereading Plan (PReP). Langer (1982, 1984) proposed an activity that pre- pares students for reading by activatinq their prior knowledge through a series ' There are three stages to PReP: reflections about initial associations: and (3) series of prompt questions- (1) initial associa- i I mg instruction, reading instruction is u.\nJ^,..,uiim g rgfound change in its theoretical orientation and ensuing pedagogy. Educators are moving away from fragmented component skills approaches iFvB underqoinq a reformulation of knowledge In the initial association stage, the teacher selects a word, phrase, or picture about the key concept in the text and initiates a discussion related associations. For to induce concept- example, in teaching a les- - J . --in wnicn reading is taught as a series of subskills to a holistic _approach in which comprehension is vieweri a\u0026lt;\na nan. Prativo /P^u\n____________- ___ erative process fRohingnn at ai igon) As a result, contemporary comprehension instruc- .. , . - I-------- J 'h*'jmiI tipn for at-risk students needs to be based on con- jy^truchvist principles that acknowledge role as tho t -- ---------- role as the meaning-maker 'S ____________ in the reading act.JDon- structivism calls for an understanding and implementation of the notion that the student takes for learning and the teacher provides appropriata di- rection and support. It requires a form of collabor^n between teachers and students in which teachers and students work toqether to ensure that students internalize rules and strategies for making meaning. ownership Seven practices that foster constructivist principles _ There are many teaching and learning activities that foster constructivist notions and lead to the development of comprehension abilities. These activities based on the premise that comprehension is cnn. are in which students grow in comprehension abilities bv processing texts in a generative manner, building on 492 Journal of Reading April 1990 American Revolution, the teacher might ask What comes to mind when you hear the words Revolutionary War? During the reflection stage students .. .y rerieciion stage students are asked to ex- plain their associations, e.g.. \"Why do those ideas come to mind?\" Langer (1984) found that the , udnger (iaa4) found that the social context of this activity advanced students understandingthey expanded or revised their knowledge through listening to and interacting with their peers. In the final stage, reformulation of knowledge students might be asked Have you gained any new in- .. , -------yameu any new in- formation about the Revolutionary War? She found that students knowledge was expanded through the generative processes in which they were engaged She found that students responses changed frorn remotely related personal experiences to an understanding of relations between pieces of knowledge. to an underPreviewing. Many researchers and educators have used pre- Graves, Prenn. and Cooke (1985) tested a specific procedure dents listened to a lengthy preview of text. in which stu- an assigned The preview was prepared by the teacher and its 79.t i i I i ( I i i purpose was to motivate students. It had three parts: (1) the activation of prior personal experiences that were relevant to the text\n(2) the building of necessary background knowled^ for the text: and (3) the establishment of an organizational framework for the text that was consistent with the framework the author used to present information. Students who listened to the previews before reading the text significantly outperformed students who did not have previews on multiple measures of comprehension. i 1 i ! 5 ! I ! (2) Reciprocal teaching practices Palincsar and Brown (1985) and Palincsar (1984) have developed a paradigm that has been effective for developing constructivist, process-oriented reading comprehension abilities. In their methodology, students take turns assuming the role of the teacher through a structured dialogue. The teacher models four distinct comprehension strategies and the students have opportunities to practice these strategies. Students are asked to (1) summarize in a simple sentence the paragraph that was read, (2) generate a question about the paragraph that was read to ask a fellow student. (3) ask for clarity (or resolution) of anything in the text that was unclear, and (4) make a prediction about what will happen next in the text. In their studies, students were shown how to do this by teacher modeling. Adult support was withdrawn gradually as students exhibited their ability to perform the task independently. Palincsar (1984) reported gains of 35% and more on comprehension assessments after 20 days of instruction. Palincsar and-Bjown's original formulation was based on(yygotsky)s^1978) notions about the zone of proximal development which he described as: (3) Understanding and using knowledge of text structure practices Narrative texts Some researchers argue that explicit instruction of story structure is unnecessary because students will automatically acquire this knowledge indirectly as a by-product of story listeningZviewing (Moffett, 1983). Schmitt and OBrien (1986) argued against instruction in narrative structure, suggesting that this form of instruction was both unnecessary and counterproductive\nit emphasized only one piece of a story and deemphasized story content. However, there are other researchers who have found that instruction in narrative structure positively affects student reading (Fitzgerald \u0026amp; Spiegel, 1983). Further, Buss, Ratliff, and Irion (1985) found that students who had little knowledge of story structure benefited considerably from direct instruction in text organization, specifically in story grammars. Information /expository texts Many researchers have reported that students at all grade levels can be taught the structures that underlie expository texts (Berkowitz, 1986\nPeabody, 1984\nSlater, Graves, \u0026amp; Piche, 1985\nTaylor \u0026amp; Beach, 1984) and that the consistent use of this knowledge enhances recall and comprehension (Armbruster, Anderson, \u0026amp; Ostertag, 1987\nBaumann, 1984), Further, students who had the knowledge but did not use it were more negatively affected when reading texts with unfamiliar material than texts with familiar material (Meyer, Brandt, \u0026amp; Bluth, 1980\nTaylor \u0026amp; Beach, 1984), At-risk students particularly benefit from instruction in text structure because it becomes a useful aid when the content is unfamiliar (Palincsar \u0026amp; Brown, 1985). s J The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or In collaboration with more capable peers. t Reciprocal teaching is highly dependent upon discussions between students and teachers. Alvermann, Dillon, and OBrien (1987), Duffy and Roehler (1987), and Palincsar (1986) explain that discussion is a critical component of effective comprehension instruction because it is through discussion that the teacher learns what is in the students minds, and thereby can 'estructure the situation to aid the student in understanding. (4) Questioning practices Ouestion/Answer Relationships (QARs) In several studies, Raphael (1982, 1986) demonstrated that at-risk as well as regular students were capable of generating and answering questions that enhanced their comprehension and led to independent processing. She designed four tvoes of QARs: (1) text-based QARs in which the answers are right there,\" i.e., explicitly stated in the text\n(2) text-based QARs in which the student has to think and search\" for relevant information throughout the te^t: (3) knowledge- based QARs in which the reader has to read the text to understand the question, but the answer is not in the text\nand (4) knowledge-based QARs in which the student can answer the question without reading j i ! Reading comprehension instruction for-at-risk students 493 ) i 80. I f j I I the text. In the beginning stage of this process, the teacher accepts total responsibility for the five key elements of the activity: (1) assigning the text, (2) generating the questions, (3) providing answers, (4) identifying the QAR, and (5) providing a justification for the QAR identified. Eventually, control is released to the student after guided practice is offered to the student Students who were trained in the QAR activity dem- ^onstrated significant gains in comprehension. Aimiu^s Sawisal i'\u0026amp;sarchers have demonstrated the effectiveness or' tusing analogies to enhance comprehen- (Hayes \u0026amp; Tierney, 1982\nPeabody, 1984) Bean' Singer, and Cowen (1985) developer Study Guide to help students 40 Analogical 'understand the concepts that they were learning. In their study they used jhe analogy of a functioning factory to un^ ^er^,d the working of cells in the human hTrty -V. Students who were given the analogical guide signifU ~ candy outperformed students who were taught theV formation in more traditional ways. ID- (5) Information processing practices KWL: What we know, what we want to find out, what we learn and still need to leam The KWL procedure, developed by Ogle (1986), rests upon constructivist rincioles- it is the reader who ultimately must seek and find meaninn Initially, the student is shown how to use the guidethis is followed by the teacher's question How do you know that?\" which reminds the student to seek evidence from the text or from previous knowledge. This procedure is intended to activate, review, and develop background knowledge and to set useful purposes that will enable the student to be an active, independent learner. (6) Summarizing practices Summary writing Concept- Task-Application (C- T-A) Wong and Au (1985) found that the asking of focused prereadinq discussion questions about critical concepts contained in the text enhanced students' background knowledge before reading During this first phase, students set purposes tor reading and the goals of the questions were twofoldto find out what students already knew about a topic and to determine what they still needed to know. . ^-[snswed interest in summarization as a means for\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_461","title":"Green factors","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1995"],"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":["Green factors"],"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/461"],"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":["182 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\nRE: MEMORANDUM April 10, 1992 Supreme Court Decision Concerning Desegregation of DeKalb County, Georgia Public Schools.________ On March 31, 1992, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Freeman v, Pitts, a school desegregation case from DeKalb County, Georgia. The Freeman decision reaffirms seve-ra-t-impOLr.arLt_s.choo.l-deseg.rega-t-ion principles set forth in prior Supreme Court opinions. including that sehoo-1dis-fer-icts operating under -court- supervision -have an aff-i-rmatiwe-duty-ho- eliminate-all vestiges- of illegal segregation to the extent practicable and to comply-in- good faith with--a-l-l cou-rt- orders\nthat, when evaluating whether a school district should be declared unitary, the district court should review the six so-called \"^reen^ factors student assignments, faculty, staff, transportation, physical facilities. and extracjurricular^achivrties  to ensure the effects of prior discrimination have been remedied\nni that the quality of education for minority students is an important ----T- r-.i n, I. . . - . .. __   -lit,. MM II and relevant ^r^uiry_ when^^detejinji^ng whether a school district, or aspects of its operations, should- herelea.sed from c 0 ux-1spe^w.i s i o n. At the same time, the Court ruled that school districts are respons-ib-lef-or~remedying resegregation that results from- demographic- conditrons-thafct h eydrd- \"not'cause. and that court-ordered school desegregation plans are not perpetual, but rather are \"intended as a temp5jLaj:y_measure.\" Specifically, the Court's holding in Freeman reject^d the Elevenths Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the-DeKalb County School System (\"DCSS\") could not be declared with respect to some areas of its operations-while unitary the court maintained supervision of other aspects of its- administration which still were not free from the ef-feets of prior -de-wr-e segregation. Instead, the Court held that the transition from a coxrttsupervisedr- segregated- school system, to a \"unitary\" system free of court scrutiny may beaocorap-lished incxementally, in a series of steps, where the trial court finds that to be an appropriate process. It ruled, however, that prior to releasing particular areas of a school district operations from court supervision, a district court must ' s- consider ^hree factor'^\nGwhethex_tbe-sehoel-dist-rict-has comp.lied_ f u 1 ly ,wi.th. the^ court-o-rdered- deseg-regationp-1 ainthe a reas of sChoo 1' administration- to- be-'re-tingu-Mhed-f-ronj-fehe '^o^^-tjA-juxi-Sdiction\n^^ether judieia 1\" supervistoni-sneeded in an_.axea--thatotherwise could~be- released, to-bring-about compliance with the plan in other areas of the school -a- district's operations\nand,'-Tihether the_achoo-l-district-has demonstrated~agood faith commitment-to- the- court' s desegregation orders and the U.S.-eonstitntron. 2Although the Supreme Court generally affirmed existing desegregation principles, the Freeman decision could have an impact on current desegregation cases. The precise impact, however, will \\ay from district to district depending on the facts of the case and the status of desegregation. I. The Court's Decision The DCSS is located in a suburban county east of Atlanta. It serves approximately 76,000 students in over 90 schools. In 1969, a federal district court approved a desegregation plan developed by DCSS which was designed to remedy the effects of prior jure segregation. Under this plan, DCSS closed several historically African-American schools, implemented a neighborhood school student assignment policy, and established programs to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. Between 1969 and 1986, the demographics of the school district changed dramatically, as migration by African-American families -into DeKalb County caused the African-American student population to rise to a level of 47%, with most African-American students attending predominantly African-American schools in the southern portion of the County. Most white students in DCSS went to predominantly white schools in the northern portion of the County. In 1986, DCSS sought an end to court-ordered desegregation. The District Court found DCSS-had-eliminated 3 w he vestiges of segregation in student assignments, physical f aciLi-ties, extracurricular activities, and transportation. In particular, the court held DCSS had no. role in bringing about resegregation of the county schools or related population shifts. The court found DCSS had fulfilled its constitutional Obligation to achieve maximum feasible desegregation in this area and the three others, and that DCSS should be free to manage these operations on its own. The court retained jurisdiction over DCSS, however. because it foi^d that additional measures were^necessary to-..integ.tate-facxiLty and staff _and .-tO-\u0026amp;giLa.l-ze ,,resQurrAs . Itfll The U.S. Court of Appeals for the E1 eye^nth Circuit reversed, holding that release_from_a^desegreg-ation order cannot-be achieved incrementally. Only after a school district has eliminated discrimination simultaneouslyin-a-1-1areas identified as appropriate by the-trial court can a school district become unitary, the Court said. It added that all tinges of discrimination ^ust be eliminated simultaneously for a period of not less than thr.ee-years. so as to_d.emo.nstrate both a district's good-f-aith- and a likelihood that ..the. district will not regress once court monitoring ends. The Court of Appeals declared DCSS had an aftirmativecdiuty to take all steps necessary to eradicate segregation including segregation solely attributable to demographic changes. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that \"a federal ^^y-^court in a school desegregation case has the discrAti nn to 4order an incremental or partiaL-withdrawal-of its supervision andcontrol. \" The Court rej,ected as \"formalistic\" the notion that a district CQiii_mu.s.t_ma_i.nt.ain,actiy_e. supervision over every aspect of school operations unti_l_a school district has become unitary in alL.respects. It ruled that a district court choosing to approve incremental withdrawal of its supervision must consider three questions before issuing such an order: (1) \"whether there h^s t^en complete and satisfactory pt^e^/M^dLcomplijn^ the court-ordered desegreqatioD_p_Lan in the rea ,.of schoo.]operations where-supervisien-wi-l-l-be-w-tthcdrawn\nf (2) whether...iudic_ial control in the area to be released \"is necessary or practicable to -achieve compliance.' with the plan in other areas of school district-operations\nand (3) whether^ the school district has demonstrated a good faith commitment tc^ court's decree, and to its duties under the Constitution,* which were the basis for the Court's intervention in its affairs. Regarding the District Court's findings that DCSS was once desegregated, and that its resegregation resulted solely from demographic changes, the Supreme Court declared: \"Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under..no. duty.to. remedy imbalai^e_jcaused-by,demogr-apiiio\u0026lt;-feaGfeors.\" The school_di.strict had- met-its burden, the Court said, to show that \"current [conditions of racial] imbalance [were] not traceable . . [its] prior violation.\" . to 5The Supreme Court sent the Freeman case back to the Court of Appeals to consider further proceedings to resolve at least two issues: i_rs^, whethe-r .rniirtQj.dered rslipf in t-h? 6 ( a ^e_a. o^taLtieii,t_aasi9nmen.ts_is_need.e\u0026lt;i_.in-..o-rdeE=^.to.- cu re-other 1 the-jCQurt' s desegr-ega^ionplan\nand s. , whetherDGSS-.has .[made] an affirmative commitment to comply in good faith with the of [the] desegregation-pTsn-so-ihat-parent s-r-atudents and the public.have_assurance-aganstfurther~TiT5ir]ries' or stigma. \" II. Freeman's Implications As noted above, the precise impact of the Freeman decision will vary from district to district depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We can, however, provide some general guidance regarding the meaning and possible impact of the case. Set forth below are answers to some frequently asked questions. (1) Did the FtegmgQ decision change the law of desegregation? Answer: While it clarified some new issues, the Freeman decision reaffirms basic desegregation principles established since Brown. First, the Court reaffirmed the principle that school districts that once operated racially dual school systems have \"an affirmative duty\" to-e-liminate the vestig_es.r_.of segregation \"to the extent practicable.\" Second, 6the Court reminded lower federaL .courts that in determining whether a school system is unitary. it is to review all \"facets.\" of district operations, including student assignments, faculty, staff, physical facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities. And finally, the Court reiterated'' what it said last year in Board of Education of Oklahoma Citv Dow'^1, namely, that court-ordered desegregation plans are not perpetual and that, in order for school systems to be relieved of federal court supervision, they must demonstrate \"a good faith commitment to the entirety of a desegregation plan so that parents, students, and the public have assurance against-further injuries or stigma.? While the Court previously had not addressed the issues of incremental unitariness and demographic changes, these holdings were foreshadowed in the Court's 1976 decision in Pasadena Board of Education v, Spangler and already had been stated as the law in some federal courts of appeals. (2) Does the Court's ruling regarding \"incremental\" unitariness mean that districts can be relieved more easily from federal court jurisdiction? Answer: Possibly. It is certainly true that the V , Court held that the Court of Appeals' blanket rule that school systems must eliminate all vestiges of segregation in all the so-called \"Green* factors simultaneously was wrong as a matter of law, and this could mean that some school systems could be relieved of federal court supervision more readily, on a 7step-by-step basis. without ever simultaneously satisfying all of the Green factors. However, the Court also ruled that the Gre^--factors-are \"interrelated,\" and that federal courts cannot withdraw theix. supervision, of. school, districts in one Green area if continued supervision is required to ensure compli^ce_ in_other areas. school system of supervision Also, whether a court can relieve a . regarding one Green factor depends upon whether the school system can satisfy the court of \"its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" (3) Does the Court's ruling regarding demographic changes in DeKalb County mean that school systems are no longer responsible for residential segregation that occurs implementation of a court order? after the Answer: The answer to this question depends upon the facts of each case. In Frogman, the Court ruled that the DeKalb school system, which it noted achieved desegregation in the area of student assignments in the first year of the remedy, was noJi- responsible for racial segregation that occurred since the entry of the decree because- there was no' Xi^?,^ce that the school system\"'IraTd 'caused thedemogr-a-phic changes--or contributed to* the-'reseqreq3ti\"on''b'f\"''its'\"s'ch'ooIs The Court made it clear, however, that such evidence does exist, the school systenL,Md-LU-he.~hA.T-d- responsible-unle^s-'it carries the burden of showing that it did not-cause'that 3resegregation. This point was made particularly clear in the con,qurring opinions of Justice Souter (\"[rjacial imbalance in student assignments caused by demographic change [residential segregation] is\nnot insulated from federal judicial oversight where the demographic change..i,s_jLtseLf-caused---by_past segregation) and Justice Blactoiun (\"[i]t is not enough. however, for DCSS to establish that demographics exacerbated the problem\nit must prove its own policies did not contribute\") . (4) Does the Court's reference to the quality of education expand school district responsibility under desegregation plans? Answer: It has been clear since the Supreme Court's 1977 decision in\nMilliJ\u0026lt;en,' v. Bradlev that. in addition to correcting the racial isolation that results from past segregation, school systems a.re..required .to_correct.^the \"educationaL deficits,\" as well. By \"educational deficits,\" the Court was referring to inadequacies in the education provided to minority children that are inherent in a dual system. Speci-f rc~educa-tional_ programs ..a.nd...jsurr iculum..of f erings may be required to remedy these \"inadequacies\" or \"deficits.\" Since Ml1liken. the-dower federal court^'have ordered school systems and state governments to fundatvariety-of*educational programs, such as early childhood education, smaller classes. etc., to correct educational deficits flowing-from past segregation. 9It was on the basis of these well-established principles that the Freeman Court ruled that,[when a federal court considers whether__t_o_relinquish ^supervision over all or part of a school district' s.-operations ,-\"quality of education [is] a legitimate inquiry in determining-[a school district's]* compliance with the desegregation decree.\" It was for this reason that the Freeman Court pointed with approval to the district court's order requiring DeKalb County to equalize the allocation of resources between predominantly African-American and predominantly white schools. (5) What does a school district have to prove to be unitary? Answer: As the Supreme Court said in its Oklahoma City decision last year and reiterated this year in Freeman. in order to be nitar a school_ system iSu^ demonstrate that it. has_ eliminated thg.^es.tj.ges^f-seg-geg-a-t-jon^-to the- eafae-nt P^spfe.icable, that it will nut rotti-rn tVTftS\" 'foiiiitfr discjriminatocy ways, and that it has compliad with- oou-rt-egder s in good faith. With respect to the demonstrating ^ood fai^, * the Court added in Freeman that J_'B.ystpm has* tin bad.,aitb'*.ti,ft=Ju3drr-STrf^ci?gnt. Instead, a schooli system must demonstrate \"jwa affi-gfliafc-ive ommi-bmen'\u0026amp;^o-'compf'ry ini go In order for a district court to find a school* district unitary with respect to one of the Green factors. the 10Court established a three-part test, specifically: \"whether there- hasbeen~f tri-l-a-nd~s-afe-irS-f-ac-to-E.y~GorapJ-Lan.cg_wiiiL-_tlie_iecree in thos-easpeets_athesystem-where-superv-i-s-ienis te-Joe withdrawn\n\" (2) whether retention of judicialcontro-t-is necessary or practicable to- achieve-comp-l-ianee~withthedec-ree in nf thp.-5w^hnn1-\u0026lt;\nyrt-pTn-\n\" and (3) \"whether the school district-h-asdemonstratedto--thepub-l-ic-and*tcthe paren-t-s-andstirdent3~of~the once disf avored' race\", 'its'good  aith-eommitme\u0026amp;ttote-he-who-leo-ftheGou-rt-'-sdecree^.and to tho5.ep-r-ovisions of the law and the constitution -that, were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" (6) Does the Freeman case mean that school systems which are receiving state desegregation aid for plans including educational components will lose that support? Answer: The Freeman decision signals strong support for those court orders that have required state governments to provide support for educational programs as part of a desegregation decree, since the Court emphasizes in Freeman the importance of ensuring that the \"educational vestiges\" of segregation have been eliminated. It is these \"vestiges\" that state governments have been ordered to help correct, and the Freeman case reaffirms the appropriateness of this approach. School districts that are examining their position under Freeman should pay particular attention to this aspect of the case. 0326m 11 Op E  391 U.S. 430 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. 1689 ! 11 1 1 t rr 1 391 U.S. 430 Charles C. GREEN ct al. V. Cite as 88 S.Ct. 1089 (1968) den of establishing that additional time to abolish segregated public school systems is necessary to public interest and 1 c f I 1 j f 1, rs )- is i- )- tr t. d IB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA et al. No. 695. Argued April 3, 1968. Decided May 27. 1968. Proceeding attacking as deprivation of constitutional rights a freedom of choice plan allowing each pupil to public school he would attend. TThhee is consistent with good faith compliance at earliest practicable date. Const. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. 3. Schools and School Districts =13 In context of longstanding state-imposed segregated public school system. fact that in 1965 school board opened doors of former white school to Negro children and of Negro school to white children under its freedom-of-choice plan permitting each pupil to choose :tul o ino United Eastern States District Court for the District of Virginia entered judgment adverse to plaintiffs. The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 382 F.2d 338, affirmed in part and remanded and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brennan, held that where in three years of operation of freedom of choice plan, not a single white child had chosen to attend a former Negro public school and 86% of Negro children in system still attended that school, the plan did not constitute adequate compliance with school board s responsibility to achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on nonracial basis and board must formulate new plan and fashion steps promising realistically to convert promptly to desegrated system. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated insofar as it affirmed district court and case remanded to district court for further proceedings. 1. Schools and School Districts \u0026lt;^13 Unitary, nonracial system of public education is the ultimate end to be brought about under Supreme Court de-i : - I*! ''\u0026gt;w Si school he would attend did not establish board had taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. U.S. cisions declaring unconstitutional segre- C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 4. Constitutional Law =220 School boards operating state-com-pelled dual systems of public education\n,,e affirmative duty of taking whatever steps might be necessary to convert have to unitary system in which racial dis-crimination would be eliminated. U.S. C.A.Const. Amend. 14. .5. Schools and School Districts =13 In determining whether respondent school district by adopting its freedom-of- choice plan met its obligation to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert from dual system to unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated, it was relevant that adopting of freedom of choice plan did not come until ten years after second Brown decision directing prompt and reasonable start of desegregation. 6. Schools and School Districts G=13 Governing constitutional principles precluding dual systems of segregated public education no longer bear imprint TH n c: irvTi O rriI cn gated school systems established under compulsion of state laws. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 2. Schools and School Districts =13 Constitutional rights of Negro chil-dren require school officials to bear bur- 88 S.Ct.106Va i of newly enunciated doctrine and delays elimination of unconstitutional dual system are no longer tolerable. 1. Schools and School Districts =13 Public school plan failing to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and 3 II jiii k' Sil! * h I I'flj lil'ii' 1.1 If\n1-' i 1690 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER effective disestablishment of dual system of segregated schools is intolerable. 8. Schools and School Districts =1.3 Time for mere deliberate speed in elimination of segregation in public schools has run out. 9. Schools and School Districts =13 Burden on school board today is to come forward with plan that promises realistically to work to eliminate segregation in public schools and promises realistically to work now. ence method. 391 U.S. 430 for the apparently less effective 15. Scliools and School Districts =13 Any plan adopted to disestablish state-imposed segregation in public schools must be evaluated in practice and federal district court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. lol it- - 10. Schools and School Districts \u0026lt;=13 Federal district courts have obligation to assess effectiveness of proposed plan to achieve desegregation in public schools. h\n 11. Scliools and School Districts ==13 Effectiveness of proposed plan to desegregate public schools must be assessed in light of circumstances present and options available in each instance. 16. Schools and Schixil Districts =1.3 In desegregating a dual system of public education, a plan utilizing student \"freedom of choice is not an end in itself but is only a means to constitutionally required end, the abolition of system of segregation and its effects, and, if it proves effective, it is acceptable, but, if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve that end. i W.f  12. Scliools and School Districts @=13 It is incumbent upon school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation in public schools. 17. Scliools and School Districts \u0026lt;5=13 School officials have continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary nonracial public school system. i is! t ( It b l' \u0026lt;1 . sb -1, I .-J 13. Scliools and School Districts =13 Federal district court in assessing effectiveness of proposed plan to desegregate public schools must weigh claim of school board in light of facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. 14. Scliools and School Districts =1.3 Where federal district court finds school board to be acting in good faith anj its proposed plan has real prospects for dismantling state-imposed dual system of segregated education at earliest 18. Schools and School Districts =13 Where freedom of choice plan offers real promise of converting state- imposed dual system of segregated public schools to unitary nonracial system, there may be no objection to allowing such device to prove itself in operation, but if there are reasonably available other ways, such as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, \"freedom of choice must be held unacceptable. 19. Schools and Sclrool Districts =13 Where in three years of operation of \"freedom of choice plan, allowing each pupil to choose public school he would attend, not a single white child had chosen to attend former Negro public school and 85% of Negro children in system still attended that school, the practicable date, then plan may be said to provide effective relief, but if other plan did not constitute adequate compli- more nromising courses of action are ance with school board s responsibility to promising open to the board, that may indicate lack of good faith or at least place heavy burden upon board to explain its prefer- achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on nonracial basis and board must formulate new plan and t I I I I .  t. te-. r-i  ''1^: . 1 391 U.S. 433 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. cite as 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1988) 1691 fashion steps promising realistically to convert promptly to desegregated system. 4k i? 431 Samuel Tucker, Richmond, Va., for petitioners. Frederick T. Gray, Richmond, Va., for respondents. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D. C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 740 and 805) the \"school system serves approximately 1,300 pupils, of which 'i40 are Negro and 550 are White. The School Board operates one white combined elementary and high school [New Kent], and one Negro combined elementary and high school [George W. Watkins]. There are no attendance zones. Each school serves the entire county. The record indicates that 21 school buses11 serving the Watkins school and 10 serving the New Kent schooltravel overlapping routes throughout the county to transport pupils to and from the two schools. HJIi 4 li W-'i  - - S Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question for decision is whether, under all the circumstances here, respondent School Boards adoption of a \"freedom-of-choice plan which allows a pupil to choose 432 his own public school constitutes adequate compliance with the Boards responsibility to achieve a system of determining admission to the non-racial basis \u0026lt; public schools on a  * * \" Brown v. Board of Education * \" of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294, 300-301, 75 S.Ct. 753, 756, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (Broum //). Petitioners brought this action in March 1965 seeking injunctive relief against respondents continued main- The segregated system was initially established and maintained under the compulsion of Virginia constitutional and statutory provision.s mandating racial segregation in public education, Va. Const., Art. IX,  140 (1902)\nVa.Code  22-221 (1950). These provisions were held to violate the Federal Constitution in Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, decided with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 487, 74 S.Ct. 686, 688, 98 L.Ed. 873 (Brown /). The respondent School Board continued the segregated operation of the system after the Brovm, 433 decisions, presumably on the authority of several statutes enacted by Virginia in resistance to those decisions. Some of these statutes were held to be unconstitutional on their face or as applied.* One 51 r tenance of an alleged racially segregated statute, the Pupil Placement Act, Va. school system. New Kent County is a rural county in Eastern Virginia. About one-half of its population of some 4,500 are Negroes. There is no residential segregation in the county\npersons of both races reside throughout. The school Code  22-232.1 et seq. (1964), not repealed until 1966, divested local boards of authority to assign children to particular schools and placed that authority in a State Pupil Placement Board. Under that Act children were each year automatically reassigned to the school previ- system has only two schools, the New Kent school on the east side of the county ously attended unless upon their applica- and the George W. Watkins school on the tion the State Board assigned them to west side. In a memorandum filed May another school\nstudents seeking enroll- 17, 1966, the District Court found that ment for the first time were also as- I. E. g., Griffin v. County Scliool Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 81 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256\nGreen v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 304 F. 2d 118 (C.A.4th Cir. 1962)\nAdkins v. School Board of City of Newport News, \u0026gt; 148 F.Supp. 430 (D.C.E.D.Va.), affd, 240 F.2(l 325 (C.A.4th Cir. 1957)\nJames V. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (D.C.E.D.Va. 1959)\nHarrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 100 S.E.2d 030 (1959). \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; ITI SITI  nr5 o s 3 I it fe- 4 d ! i!  '11  I5\n U! IL 1692 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 391 U.S. 433 I I f- f  i\u0026gt; signed at the discretion of the State Board. To September 1964, no Negro pupil had applied for admission to the New Kent school under this statute and no white pupil had applied for admission to the Watkins school. The School Board initially sought dismissal of this suit on the ground that petitioners had failed to apply to the State Board for assignment to New Kent school. However on August 2, 1965, five months after the suit was brought, respondent School Board, in order to le- main eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a freedom-of-choice plan for desegregating the schools. Under that 434 plan, each pupil, except those entering the first and eighth grades, may annually choose between the New Kent and Watkins schools and pupils not making a choice are assigned to the school previ- i\" * ously attended: first and eighth grade * * * also to set up procedures for pupils must affirmatively choose a school, periodically evaluating the effectiveness After the plan was filed the District choice Court denied petitioners prayer for an injunction and granted respondent leave to submit an amendment to the plan with respect to employment and assignment of teachers and staff on a racially nondis- criminatory basis. The amendment was duly filed and on June 28, 1966, the District Court approved the freedom-of- choice plan as so amended. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en 382 F.2d 338, affirmed the F banc, District Courts approval of the freedom- of-choice provisions of the plan but remanded the case to the District Court for entry of an order regarding faculty 435 which is much more specific and more comprehensive and which would incorporate in addition to a minimal, objective time table some of the faculty provisions of the decree entered by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, affd en banc, 380 F.2d 385 (1967). Judges Sobeloff and Winter concurred with the remand on the teacher issue but otherwise disagreed, expressing the view that the District Court should be directed * * * of the [Boards] freedom of choice' [plan] in the elimination of other features of a segregated school system. Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, Va., 382 F.2d 326, at 330. We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 1003, 88 S.Ct. 665, 19 L.Ed.2d 598. i*\u0026gt; J ^4 i I' IP. 11/ \u0026lt;  : . - p- -i  A*.?.I 2. Congress, concerned with the lack of progress in school desegregation, included provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with (he problem through various agencies of the Federal Govern- in ent. 7S Stat. 246. 252, 266, 42 U.S.C. 2(X10c ct seq., 2000d et swp, 200011-2. In Title VI Congress declared that No person in the United Stales shall. on the ground of race, color, or national origin, he excluded from partieipatiou in, he denied the benefits of, or be subjected to diseriinination under any program or .activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C.  2000(1. The Dciiartruent of Health, 3^r1u\u0026lt;.'ation, and Welfare issued regulations covering racial discrimination in federally aided school systems, as directed by 42 U.S.C.  2000(1-1, and in a statement of policies, or guidelines, the Department s Office of Education established standards according to which school systems in the process of desegregation can remain qiinlified for federal funds. 45 CFR  80.1-80.13, 181.1-181.70 (1067). Free- dom-of-choice plans arc among those considered acceptable, so long as in oper- ation such a plan proves effective. 45 CFR  181.54. The regulations provide that a school system subject to a final order of a court of the United States tor the desegregation of such school * * system with which tlie system agrees to comply is deemed to be in compliance with the statute and regulations. 45 CFR See also 45 (IFR  181.G.  .80.4(c). See gcncrnlly Dunn, Title VI, the Guide- lines and School Desegregation in the South, 53 Va.L.Rev. 42 (1067)\nNote, 55 Gco.L.J. 325 (1066)\nComment, 77 Yale L.J. 321 (1907). 3. This case was decided per curiam on the basis of the opinion in Bowman v. County Scliool Board of Charles City County, 382 F.2d 326, decided the same day. Certiorari has not been sought for the Bowman case itself.391 U.S. 437 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO.. VA. Cite fts 88 S.Ct. 1089 (1908) 1693 ti j  bii The pattern of separate white and \"Negro schools in the New Kent County school system established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern OIVU Vi OV14VW of segregation to which Broivn I and Brown II were particularly addressed, and which Brown I declared unconstitu- tionally denied Negro school children equal protection of the laws. Racial identification of the systems schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operationsfaculy, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities. In short, the State, acting through the local school board and school officials. or- ganized and operated a dual system, part ............ . .J__*.  white and part Negro.' [1,2] It was such dual systems that 14 years ago Brown Z held unconstitu- tional and a year later Brown II held must be abolished\nschool boards operating such school systems were required by Brown II to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. 349 U.S., at 301, 75 S.Ct. at 756. It is of course true that for the time tern.  i school problems. Id., at 299, 75 S.Ct. at In referring to the personal in- 756. terest of the plaintiffs in admission to immediately after Broion II the concern was with making an initial break in a long-established pattern of excluding 436 practicable on public schools as soon as nondiscriminatory basis, we also noted a that [t]o effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of ob- stades in making the transition * * \u0026gt;\u0026gt; Ne- gro children from schools attended by white children. The principal focus was on obtaining for those Negro children courageous Yet we Id., at 300, 75 S.Ct. at 756. emphasized that the constitutional rights of Negro children required school officials to bear the burden of establishing that additional time to carry out the ruling in an effective manner i.s necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. Ibid. We charged the district courts in their review of particular situations to consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a -n  * enough to break with tradi- tion a place in the white schools. See, ., Cooper V. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 e. g., Under Brown S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5. // that immediate goal was only the first system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the 437 defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. Id., at 300-301, 75 S.Ct. at 756. [3, 4] It is against this background that 13 years after Brorm II commanded the abolition of dual systems we must n J Ci. TU ni inra 52 Jf \u0026lt;3 J A * The transition to a uni- step, however. tary, nonracial system of public education was and is the ultimate end to be brought about\nit was because of the \"complexities arising from the transition measure the effectiveness of respondent School Boards freedom-of-choice plan to achieve that end. The School Board contends that it has fully discharged its obligation by adopting a plan by which i student, regardless of race, may svstem of public education freed of every -------- , ................. .... freely choose the school he will attend. to a X------ , racial discrimination that we prtivided for \"all deliberate speed in the imple- The Board attempts to cast the issue in its broadest form by arguing that its X 7 \\ r^rinpinlpq of Brown 1. its broadest form by arguing mat ns ST^ffsT at 299-301, 75 S.Ct. at 755. freedom-of-choice plan may be faulted Thus we recognized the task would neces- aarily involve solution of varied local ment as only by reading the Fourteenth Amend- universally requiring compul- g ,1 I 4-1 iw I: 1694 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 391 U.S. 437 Bl a I 'LW, - - \u0026gt; it I I sory integration, a reading it insists the wording of the Amendment will not support. But that argument ignores the thrust of Brown //. In the light of the command of that case, what is involved here is the question whether the Board has achieved the racially nondiscrimina-tory school system Brotm II held must be effectuated in order to remedy the established unconstitutional deficiencies that Brown II commanded school boards to bend their efforts.'* [5-9] In determining whether respondent School Board met that command by adopting its freedom-of-choice plan, it is relevant that this first step did not come until some 11 years after Broivnl was decided and 10 years after Brown II directed the making of a \"prompt and reasonable start. This deliberate per- I i 39 of its segregated system. In the context petuation of the unconstitutional dual of the state-imposed segregated pattern system can only have compounded the of long standing, the fact that in 1965 the Board opened the doors of the former white school to Negro children and of the Negro school to white children merely begins, not ends, our inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. Brown II was a call for the dismantling of well-entrenched dual systems tempered by an awareness that harm of such a system. Such delays are no longer tolerable, for the governing constitutional principles no longer bear the imprint of newly enunciated doc-trine. Watson V. City of Memphis, supra, 373 U.S. at 529, 83 S.Ct. at 1316\nsee Bradley v. School Board, City of Richmond, Va., supra\nRogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265. Moreover, a plan that at this late date co th at U1 di p! T tl ti i) li i d t c i t I 1 complex and multifaceted problems would fails to provide meaningful assurance of 1 arise which would require time and flexibility for a successful resolution. School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual system.s were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to 438 prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is also intolerable. The time for mere deliberate speed has run out, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 256, the context in which we must interpret and apply this language [of Brown II] to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered. 3 -i Si, Ft if.'? , I - : 7  \u0026lt; I it. t i . .. : t.i pv *f4 convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. See Cooper v. Aaron, supra, 358 U.S. at 7. 78 S.Ct. at 1404\nBradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Va., 382 U.S. 103, 86 S.Ct. 224, 15 L.Ed.2d 187\ncf. Watson V, City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 83 S.Ct. 1314, 10 L.Ed.2d 529. The constitutional rights of Negro school children articulated in Brown I permit no less than this\nand it was to this end 439 Goss V. Board of Education of City of Knoxville, Tenn., 373 U.S. 683, 689, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 1409, 10 L.Ed.2d 632. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now. ^13 \"i S 4 5 S i 4. We bear in mind that the court has not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimina-tion in the future. I^)iiisinna v. United .States. 3S0 U.S. 145, 154, 85 S.Ct. 817, 822, 13 L.Ed.2d 709, Compare the remedies discussed in, e. g., NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding \u0026amp; Ury Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, GO S.Ct. 203, 84 L.E'(U219\nUnited States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 0,5 S.Ct. 254. 89 L.Ed. IGO\nStandard Oil Co. v. United States. 221 U.S. 1, 31 S.Ct. 502, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 834. See also Griffin v. County Scliool Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 232-234, 84 S.Ct 122G, 1233- 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 25G. Ai .jt 1- 1   1 ? 5 *5 - V\n4 37 591 U.S. 440 GREEN v. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. Cite ns 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968) 1695 Is [10-15] The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in d 1, \u0026gt;t I / d achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation\nthere is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the op- lions available in each instance. It is tion of Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443, at 449, 88 S.Ct. 1697, at 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 727. [1618] We do not hold that freedom of choice can have no place in such a plan. We do not hold that a freedom- of-choice plan might of itself be unconstitutional, although that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, 440 it g HI 61 tv 11 e e ? r 4 - incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system at the earliest practicable date, then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith\nand at the least it places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less all we decide today is that in desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing freedom of choice is not an end in itself. As Judge Sobeloff has put it,  Freedom of choice is not a sacred talisman\nit is only a means to a constitutionally required endthe abolition of the system of segregation and its effects. If the means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end. The school officials have the continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary, nonracial sys- tem.  Bowman v. County School  effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state- Board of Charles City County, 382 F. 2d 326, 333 (C.A. 4th Cir. 1967) (concurring opinion). Accord, Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F.2d 178 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1968)\nUnited States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, supra. Although the general experience imposed segregation has been completely been such under freedom of choice to date has removed. See Raney v. Board of Educa- ness as a as to indicate its ineffectivetool of desegregation, there tl :ti \"n pl .ij \"Th 3- Sil cj:\u0026gt; M 52 co wl j- i,'. .'*1 fj IS*.' (SO 5. Tlie views of the United States Commission on Civil Hights, which we neither adopt nor refuse to adopt, are as follows: Freedom of choice plans, which have tended to perpetuate racially identifiable schools in the Southern and border States, require affirmative action by both Negro and white parents and pupils before such disestablishment can be achieved. (b) During the past school year IlOOi!10(i71, as in the previous year, in some areas of the South, Negro families with children attending previously all- white schools under free choice plans wcre targets of violence, threats of vio- Tliere are a nnnihcr of factors which have prevented such affirmative action hy substantial numbers of parents and pupils of both races: (a) Fear of retaliation and hostility from the white community continue to deter many Negro families from choosing formerly all-white schools\nlence and economic reprisal by white persons and Negro children were subjected to harassment by white classmates notwithstanding conscientious efforts by many teachers and principals to prevent such misconduct: (c) During the past school year, in some areas of the South public officials improperly influenced Negro families to keep their children in Negro schools and excluded Negro children attending for- I  7^]9 \u0026lt; '9  *1 ! I 1! Si i\n! ,1 f 1 f I S- A \u0026lt; is\nHl 1696 may 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER well be instances in which it can serve as an effective device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation 441 program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, non-racial system there might be no objection to allowing such a device to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, freedom of choice must be held unacceptable. [19] The New Kent School Boards \"freedom-of-choice plan cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to effectuate a transition to a unitary system. In three years of operation not a single white child has chosen to attend Watkins school and although 115 Negro children enrolled in New Kent school in 1967 (up merly all-white schools from official func- tiun.s\n(d) Poverty deters many Negro families in the South from choosing formerly nn-white sebools. Sonic Negro parents are embarrassed to permit their children to attend such schools without suitable clothing. In sonic districts special fees are asae.sse\u0026lt;l far cauraes which arc avail- ai)lc aniy in the white scliaols\n(e) Irnproveinonts in facilities and equipment * * have been instituted in nil-Negro .scliools in some school districts in a manner that tends to discon rage scdiools. Negroes from selecting white Southern School Desegregation, 19G6- 1907. at 88 (1907). Sec id., at 45-09\nSurvey of School Desegregation in the Southern and Border States 1965-19G0, at 30-44. .51-52) U. S. Commn on Civil Rights J9CC). 6. In view of the situation found in New Kent County, wh^re there is no residential segregation, the elimination of the dual school system and the establishment of a unitary, non-racial system could be readily achieved with a minimum of administrative difficulty b.y means of geographic zoningsimply by assigning students living in the eastern half of the county to the New Kent School and those living in the western half or the county 391 U.S. 440 from 35 in 1965 and 111 in 1966) 85% of the Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Watkins school. In other words, the school system remains a dual system. Rather than further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents 442 with a responsibility which Brown // placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a white school and a Negro school, but just schools. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it affirmed the District Court and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. to the Watkins School. Although a geographical formula is not universally appropriate. it is evident that here the Board, by separately busing Negro children across the entire county to the Negro school, and the white children to the white school, is deliberately maintaining a segregated system which would vanish with non-racial geographic zoning. The conditions in this comity present a classical case for this expedient. Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, supra, n. 3, at 332 concurring opinion). Petitioners have also suggested that the Board could consolidate the two schools, one site (e. g., Watkins) serving grades 1-7 and the other (e. g., New Kent) serving grades 8-12, this being the grade division respondent makes between eleinen- tary and secondary levels. Petitioners contend this would result in a more efficient system by eliminating costly duplication in this relatively small district while at the same time achieving immediate dismantling of the dual system. These are two suggestions the District Court should take into account upon remand, along with any other proposed alternatives and in light of considerations respecting other aspects of the school system such as the matter of faculty and staff desegregation remanded to the court by the Court of Appeals. I I 391 U. Artli The GO c of m schoo Court sas d appea F.2d grant tice I deseg sistir and 1 in di. quatc syste estab erati' in a Negr at al verse Cour 1. Aj choic prop issue plaii dent boar gate was cidei peak 1?Statement of Intention to Establish Green Factor Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9, 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. Establish committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas: 1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement FEB 9 1995 Ofic3 QI Oe\nicC. The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. B. C. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April.Statement of Intention to Establish Green Factor Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9, 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. B. C. Establish, committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas: 1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. pzy'CMvmztlti. fTimpfrnmp. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April.! Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1995 I Itu Copyrigw O Uttle Hock Newspaoera. '\"O- I Long negotiations end as district, NLR teachers agree on contract BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Education Writer North Little Rock teachers finally have a tentative contract, five months into the school year. The Classroom Teachers Association settled for a 2,9 percent raise with conditions in a meeting with North Little Rock School District negotiators Wednesday, Im pleased with the settlement and I think the teachers will be, too, said Louene Lipsmeyer, the unions president and chief spokesman for its negotiating team. The two sides began negotiating the one-year contract last summer in what Lipsmeyer said was the longest process she could remember. The contract still must be ratified by the school board and union membership to take effect, Lipsmeyer declined to reveal the teachers original salary proposal, but she said the unions last offer was a 4 percent raise. The teachers group accepted a 2.9 percent increase, retroactive to the start of the school year in August 1994, with the stipulation that teachers will make more money if additional revenue is collected. For each $82,500 collected above revenue projections, another $50 will be added to each teachers annual salary. The contract contained a similar arrangement for the last three years, Lipsmeyer said. Other sticking points involved extra pay for teachers who spend extra time at work. While most teachers salaries are based on 187 workdays, some teachers, such as athletic coaches, receive supplemental pay because they come to school early for practice or stay late, or both, Our policy says those positions had to be negotiated, Lipsmeyer said. We had asked for a list of those positions but were never able to get it or find out the number of extra days pay they were getting. The most contentious point, however, was the school boards proposal to increase the stipend for high school drama teachers from 4 percent to 15 percent. Board members felt those teachers give much more of their time than others. We felt that was way too much of an increase over what was proposed for other teachers, Lipsmeyer said. But the union agreed to a one-year-only 15 percent stipend for the drama teachers, on condition that the next contract be more equitable for all.\\ I, f \u0026gt; (L^tzx Ji (rfc^ Jrs hVl Jt Mj JUcv c bb n* 9 ' 5*  b a s k - i * . \u0026lt;' f'?\n,'1 - i : J ' t ij J Ms J ^1 . -^1 'M tj :t L-! /'Mii   V j fl i J? \u0026gt;f \u0026gt;' ^5 rs .:3 .i I 'liI Arkansas Democrat 7^ ((jazelk FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1995 iZCtk Williams proposes 7 panels to assess integration advance DY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democraf-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams proposed Thursday calling OU committees of em- ployee.s and community members to research how well the school district meets its desegregation obligations. Under Williams plan, the district would establish seven committees of 10 to 15 teachers, ad- niinislralors and residents. Those panels would assess the district's progress in eliminating all vestiges of what was once legal racial segregation and dis- crimination schools. in the public That work will help the district identify what must be done before it can ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to release the district from federal court supervision, Williams told members of the school board Thursday night. Wright is presiding in the district's I2-year-old school desegregation lawsuit. She monitors the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Committee members would be paid for the extra work, William.s said. That would cost the district from $12,000 to $15,(X)0 per committee, or as much as $10.5.000 overall. 'rhe committees would be given six weeks to conduct research and submit reports to the board. Dr. Russ Mayo, the districts comniitlee plan on the U.S. Supreme Courts so-called Green factors. The high court has said in other desegregation cases that federal courts must consider a districts efforts in those ar- ea.s before releasing the district from supervision. The school board is considering paying Williams a bonus of 5 percent of his annual base salary of $115,(X)0 for each area in which the district is released from court supervision. For example, if Wright finds that the districts staff is racially balanced. Williams would get a bonus of $5,750. Achieving all the proposed goals would net him more than $50,000 in bonuses. The board delayed voting Thursday on the superintendents incentive pay until possibly the Feb. 23 board meeting, Board member Katherine Mitchell said she disagreed with a proposed incentive to give the superintendent a 5 percent bonus for every 5 percent increase in white students in the district, up to 50 percent white. District enrollment is 35 percent white and 65 percent black. Mitchell said she didnt think the goal was attainable, and she would rather pay Williams for closing the disparity gap in test scores for black and white students. In other business Thursday, the board:  Voted to rebuild Chicot El- associate superintendent for de- ementary School, damaged by ar- segregation, would oversee the son last year. The school will be committees. Each would be co- rebuilt with walls dividing the chaired by a district adminis- classrooms at a cost of about Irator and someone selected by $150,000 to the district. Except Williams. for the walls, insurance will pay to replace the school, where fur- The committees would research, respectively: niture and book shelves once  Student assignments to separated classrooms. schools.  Faculty hiring and job assignments.  Listened to a presentation from a representative of Ser- viceMaster, a Chicago-based pri-  Support staff hiring and job vale company interested in con- assignments. trading with the district to pro-  Transportation  making vide custodial and maintenance sure that the burden of mandatory busing doesnt fall disproportionately on one race.  Student participation in extracurricular activities. services. The company would manage, train and equip current employees to do the work more efficiently at a cost to the district ___ similar to whats now spent.  The physical condition of They would remain district em- school buildings in various neighborhoods.  Student achievement.  Delayed action on an ad- Williams generally based the ministrative proposal to elimi- ployees and there would be no layoffs. nate the Learning Foundations class at four junior high schools starting next year. The mandatory course was designed to help students develop strong study skills.  Reviewed a proposed code of conduct obligating board members and the superintendent to conduct business in an open, constructive and positive manner.\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_166","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-09-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"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/166"],"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":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","reports"],"dcterms_extent":["55 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA September 24, 2013 I. Call to Order II. Reading of the Minutes of August 13, 2013 Ill. General Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Discussion and Approval for Stipulation Magnet Schools BudgetKelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer, LRSD B. Discussion of Job Description and Selection Process for Executive Director Position C. Discussion of Magnet Schools Evaluation Report - New Submission D. Discussion of Sibling Preference Policy for Middle School Students E. Set Next Meeting Date V. Adjournment DRAFT MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES August 13, 2013 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, August 13, 2013. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Members Absent: Micheal Stone, NLRSD Guests: Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer - LRSD Margie Powell, ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of July 10, 2013. Joy Springer offered one correction to the minutes. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, and Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved as corrected. Copies of an e-mail received from Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD MRC representative, were given to Committee members. Dr. Clowers provided information that Dr. Janice Warren is now the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, as well as continuing as the Director of Elementary Education. Dr. Clowers also provided contact information for Dr. Warren. No action was required by the MRC. -!JRAFT DRAFT An e-mail was sent to all Student Registration Offices to notify them of the scheduled date for the annual SWAP meet, planned for Monday, July 29, 2013, in the MRC Office. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Dr. Sadie Mitchell provided MRC members with a copy of an e-mail she sent to a parent concerned about her student's acceptance to Central rather than Parkview. No action was required by the MRC. Bills in the amount of $174.78 were presented for payment. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to pay the bills, and Dr. Clowers seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously to pay the bills. With regard to newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting, two e-mails were given to MRC members for their information. These articles came from the office of Hogan Lovells and related to Civil Rights issues. When talking about a recruitment update, it was noted that several contacts have been received from parents regarding their children's assignment for the new school year. The MRC Office has been answering their calls and following up on information at their request. An ad has been placed with the Metro Little Rock Magazine, which has a shelf-life of one year and is given to new families moving into the area. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Vacancies and new hires at the Stipulation Magnet Schools include a new Principal at Mann Magnet, Keith McGee, and an Assistant Principal at Booker, Charlotte Cornice. Dr. Mitchell has requested that her secretary compile a list of all support staff and custodians who also have been hired, and she will have that available for the next MRC meeting. Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer at Little Rock School District, came to the table to present preliminary budget information for the Stipulation magnet schools. The average in the schools for the previous year is the basis for the -2- DRAFT DRAFT new budget. The  average is down in all schools except for Gibbs, with the total  average now at 3,371.88. Dr. Mitchell noted that the MRC used to submit the budget in July of each year, but now the timeline is set for a September submission. She called the Committee's attention to a Court Order received from Judge Price indicating that a September submission was in order. Mr. Bailey also noted that Arkansas is behind time in providing their indirect costs rates, and no information was received from the State until April, 2013. It should have been received in October, 2012. Mr. Bailey further explained that indirect costs are costs that are not used for student services. Ms. Springer asked Mr. Bailey if LRSD is going to continue with the magnet schools when 50% of the funding is not there anymore. Has it been discussed how LRSD will be funding the schools? Mr. Bailey said it all depends, but it has been discussed. They may have to re-do attendance zones. It all depends on the judge and whether he will want the schools to stay in existence. Dr. Mitchell noted that LRSD is trying for the MSAP Grant for Stipulation magnet schools. They had this grant before and, hopefully, will be selected again. Dr. Clowers said that PCSSDis talking about a phase-out if funding is stopped for magnet schools. It will depend on the judge. Ms. Springer asked if all the districts are all planning for the ending of funding for magnet schools. Mr. Bailey said thinking is that there will be a five-seven year phase-out. But, you still have to see if districts will allow students to cross district lines. Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Bailey for coming before the MRC and told him they are looking for his budget submission in September. -3- DRAFT A draft copy of a Job Description for Director of the Magnet Review Committee Office was given to all Committee members for their review. Ms. Springer wants to give it consideration and talk about it at the next meeting. She will need at least a day or two to go over it. Dr. Mitchell said she didn't know if there was an urgency for the posting. Danny Reed asked who does the interviewing and hiring. Dr. Mitchell said that LRSD does so in accordance with their guidelines, but with the input of the MRC. Dr. Clowers asked about the oversight of curriculum requirement. Dr. Mitchell that Donna Creer did a lot of work with the schools as the oversight of curriculum requirements. With regard to the Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report, MRC members were given a packet of correspondence which occurred recently with Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, External Evaluator. In the end, Dr. Dreyfus felt it was a lot larger than she had expected and suggested that a new evaluator be hired. Dr. Mitchell said that she would talk to Dr. Karen DeJarnette, in LRSD, to see what could be done. Dr. Mitchell will report back to the MRC in September. A discussion was held with regard to Mann Magnet's discipline program. A copy of the report prepared by Cassandra Steele was given to each Committee member. Ms. Springer noted that she had asked if this discipline program was placed in all the middle school magnets, and the answer is yes. Ms. Springer is pleased that students will be able to access the program from their area school. Dr. Clowers complimented Ms. Springer about a great job she did recently for PCSSDd iscussing the deseg plan with school personnel. Dr. Mitchell said that all Business and Action Items, with the exception of Mann's discipline program will remain as agenda items for the next MRC meeting. It was agreed by consensus that the next MRC meeting will be held in the MRC Office on September 17, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. -4- DRAFT When no further business was brought before the Committee, Joy Springer made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m. -5- Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: customerservice@arkansasonline.com Thursday, August 22, 2013 10: 11 AM Magnet Review Subscriber transactions Thank you for contacting the ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE! MAGNERTE VIEWC OMMITTEE, Your newspapers will be donated to Newspaper in Education. Thank you. We value you as a subscriber. Please call our customer service department should you have any further questions at 1-800-482-1121 or 501-378-3456 during normal business hours which are: Sunday: 6:45 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday: 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday: 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6596 - Release Date: 08/21/13 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Subscription Renewal) American Home Life (MRC's Office Rent for September, 2013) American Home Life (Communications Expense for August, 2013) Capital Business Machines (Monthly Charge for Maintenance Contract for the MRC Office Copier) Staples (Supplies for the MRC Office) CompSys (Monthly Billing to Act as Host for MRC's E-Mail) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID 60.00 825.00 182.50 78.12 120.56 48.33 $1,314.51 ,S tays oughti n LRs chools uit Attorneys say pending appeals will factor into hearings EVIE BLAD ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the little Rock School District and an intervenor group asked a federal judge Monday to delay a December trial to determine whether the state should be released from a desegregation settlement agreement that requires it to pay about $70 million in annual aid to Little Rock and two other central Arkansas school districts. The same attorneys previously made a similar request to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr., asking him for a continuance, which would have stalled the trial while the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis considers whether the state's authorization of independently run charter schools in Pulaski County violated that settlement agreement. Marshall denied that motion. On Monday, the attorneys moved for a stay, a different legal mechanism that would also delay the court proceedings. The request was made by attorneys for the state's largest school district and the Joshua intervenors, which represent black students in the decades-old case. Marshall previously ruled against the Little Rock School District in the charter school matter, disagreeing with its claim that the state approved open-enrollment charter schools without regard for their effects on district magnet schools and other court-approved desegregation efforts. The district has asked the appeals court to overturn that ruling. The state - represented by the attorney general's office - has argued previously that any delay in the December hearing could be costly because it pays the desegregation aid to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts monthly. But the appeals court's decision in the charter school issue will be a factor in the December hearings, attorneys for the Little Rock district and the Joshua intervenors wrote. That's because the state's argument in its motion for release from the agreement is that it has complied \"in good faith\" with the terms of the settlement. \"The question of whether the State is currently violating the 1989 Settlement Agreement with respect to charter schools cannot be separated from the question of whether the state has generally complied in good faith with that same agreement,\" wrote Chris Heller on behalf of the Little Rock School District and John Walker on behalf of tl1e Joshua intervenors. If the district court sides with the state and grants it a release from settlement obligations before the 8th Circuit rules, it risks legal confusion and a rehearing of the issue if the appeals court rules in Little Rock's favor on the charter school issue, the attorneys wrote. Little Rock filed the original lawsuit in 1982, arguing that the state and two other school districts had fostered segregation between the three Pulaski County school districts. That suit led to a 1989 settlement under which the state pays about $70 million a year to help finance Little Rock's six 01iginal magnet schools and all three districts' majority-to-minority interdistrict student-transfer programs, some employee healthcare and retirement costs, and general operating expenses. Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good Afternoon All, Curtis, Kimberly D.H. [kimberly.curtis@hoganlovells.com] Wednesday, August 21, 2013 11 :39 AM Donna Creer\nMagnet Review\nKeisha Crowder-Davis (keidavis@dallasisd.org)\nAmaila Cudeiro (cudeiroa@bsd405.org)\nArthur Culver (culverar@champaignschools.org)\n(Jack.Dale@fcps.edu}\nDaniel Harrell\nDavid Duff, Duff, Turner, White \u0026amp; Boykin\nDavid Peterson, Super, No. Suburban Spec.\njohn.davis@dougherty.k12.ga.us\nMichael Davis (madavis@philasd.org)\nSandra K. Day (sandy.day@ops.org)\nSandy Day\nexecutive.director@magnet.edu\nDC Public Schools - Jim Sandman\nDCPS - Harriet Segar (GC's ofc)\nDCPS - Kevin Clinton, BoE Staff\nDCPS - Peggy Cooper Cafritz\nDCPS - Robert Board - Board\nDCPS - Robin Martin\nDCPS - Sara White (CG's office)\nDeidra Honeywell\nDelaware - Mary Cooke (mary.cooke@state.de.us)\nDenver - John Kechriotis, General Counsel\nDenver - Lorna Candler - Deputy General Counsel, Denver Schools\nDenver - Michael Bennet - Supt.\nDetroit - General Counsel's office\nDetroit - M.B. Farrell, Thrun Law Firm\ndicaprioj@schenectady.k12.ny.us\noliver.dillingham@arkansas.gov\nDon Kennedy\nmdonalds@aldine.k12.tx.us\nDonna Elam\nDr. Jill A Shackelford\nDurango School District - Mary Barter - Superintendent (mbarter@durango.net)\nMartha M. Durkin (martha.durkin@tusd1.org)\nPia Durkin Ph. D. (pdurkin@attleboroschools.com)\nDuval - Board - Brenda Priestly Jackson\nDuval - Board - Kris Barnes\nDuval - Board - Nancy Broner\nDuval - Board - Vicki Drake\nDuval - Dr. Joseph Wise, Supt.\nDuval County- Super - Joey Wise\nEarnest Washington, Jr.\nEast Baton Rouge -- Interim Super -- Charlotte Placide\nEast Dubuque Unit SD - Donald Kussmaul, Super.,\nEileen Baker\nElaine Feese\nElaine Ranieri (eranieri@tampabay.rr.com)\nDonna! Elam (dkelam@aol.com)\nElgin - BOE - Amy Kerber\nElgin - BOE - Dale Spencer\nElgin - BOE - Donna Smith\nElgin - BOE - Joyce Fountain\nElgin - BOE - Karen Carney\nElgin - BOE - Ken Kaczynski - President\nElgin - BOE - Maria Bidelman\nElgin - GC - Pat Brancato\nElgin - Superintendent - Dr. Jose Torres\nmaryellen.elia@sdhc.k12.fl.us\nMaryEllen Elia (maryellen.elia@sdhc.k12.fl.us)\nWA- Susan Enfield (saenfield@seattleschools.org)\nEquity Assistance Centers - Dr. Bradley Scott\nEquity Assistance Centers - Dr. Charles Rankin\nEquity Assistance Centers - Jerry Graniero\nEquity Assistance Centers - Joyce Harris\nEquity Assistance Centers - Percy Bates Dr.\nEquity Assistance Centers - Ramon Villarreal\nEvergreen School District - Victoria Bradford\nRonald Felger (rdf@skbw.com) FW: Office for Civil Rights Issues Notice Requesting Public Comment on Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection OCRdatamemo.docx Per John Borkowski and Shannon Hodge. Kimberly Curtis Assistant to John W. Borkowski, Partner Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel +1 202 637 5600 Direct: +1 202 637 7269 Fax: +12026375910 Email. kimberly.curtis@hoganlovells.com www.hoganlovells.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoqanlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6596 - Release Date: 08/21/13 2 Hogan Lovells To FROM School District Clients and Friends John W. Borkowski Shannon T. Hodge DATE August 21, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T + I 202 637 5600 F +I 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT Office for Civil Rights Issues Notice Requesting Public Comment on Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection On June 21, the Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\") at the United States Department of Education (the \"Department\") issued a notice requesting public comment on proposed changes to the Civil Rights Data Collection (\"CRDC\"). 1 This memorandum summarizes the key changes the Department has proposed for the 2013-14 and 2015-16 CRDC. Since 1968, OCR has used its statutory authority2 to require the biennial reporting of civil rights data on schools, including information on school demographics, student outcomes, and programs and services available to students. OCR relies on this information when it identifies enforcement priorities, investigates alleged violations of federal civil rights laws, initiates compliance reviews, and provides guidance and assistance to school districts, parents, students, and the public. OCR usually draws upon a sample of 6,000 to 7,000 local education agencies (\"LEAs\" or \"school districts\") to provide data for the CRDC. However, it occasionally collects data from all school districts, which it did most recently in 2011-12. Participation in the CRDC is mandatory for all LEAs receiving federal funds. OCR redesigned its CRDC in 2009, adding new requests for data on college- and careerreadiness, student discipline, teacher equity, third-grade retention policies, access to prekindergarten programs, bullying and harassment, and school-level expenditures. In addition, the 2009-10 CRDC requested data disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, disability, and English learner status. OCR built on the 2009 changes in 2011-12 by taking steps designed to improve the integrity of the data and by consolidating its fall and spring data collection periods. Notice, 78 Fed. Reg. 37529 (June 21, 2013). Under 20 U.S.C.  3413(c)(l ), OCR has the authority to collect data to ensure compliance with civil rights laws. \\\\DC 704749/000300  4952303 v1 The proposed changes to the upcoming CRDC are intended to build on the changes implemented during the two most recent data collections. According to OCR, the proposed changes \"reflect the need for a deeper understanding of and accurate data about the educational opportunities and school context for our nation's students.\" The new proposed CRDC questions fall into several categories: school and district characteristics, discipline, harassment and bullying, early childhood education, pathways to college and career, school finance, and teachers. In addition, OCR also proposes to stop collecting some information that it has previously requested. This memorandum summarizes the proposed additions and deletions to the CRDC in each of these categories. The new school and district characteristics about which OCR proposes to collect information include whether a school that does not classify students by grade level has mainly elementary-, middle-, or high-school age students or a combination of those students and whether an LEA has a civil rights coordinator for discrimination against students on basis of sex, race, and disability. The proposals also include new items about juvenile justice facilities, such as the type of facility, the number of days in the facility's regular school year, the total number of hours per week that the facility offers educational programs, and the number of students who participated in such program for specific numbers of days. In addition, OCR proposes to revise existing data items by defining \"preschool\" as programs and services for children ages three through five. One proposed addition to the discipline questions is an item requesting the number of students with and without disabilities removed from school for disciplinary reasons, disaggregated by race, sex, English learner status, and, where applicable, disability. The proposed CRDC would also request disaggregated data on the number of preschool students who received corporal punishment (by race, sex,.disability, and English learner status), the number of instances of corporal punishment (by students with disabilities and students without disabilities), and the number of school days missed by students who received out-of-school suspensions (by students with disabilities and students without disabilities). OCR also proposes to require school districts to report the number of documented incidents that occurred at the school that trigger discipline. The revised data collection also would include inquiries into whether the school experienced at least one incident that involved a shooting and whether any of the school's students, faculty, or staff died as a result of a homicide committed at the school. OCR also proposes to add harassment and bullying on the basis of both sexual orientation and/or religion to its inquiry into the number of reported allegations of harassment and bullying. The proposal does not require schools to report demographic data on the complainant or alleged harasser, nor does it authorize schools to inquire about the sexual orientation or religion of students. Instead, the proposed question directs school districts to examine the likely motives of the alleged harasser rather than the status of the alleged victim. The proposed changes to early childhood education data items would allow OCR to learn more about how programs serve young children. Specifically, OCR intends to ask whether an LEA provides early childhood programs for children from birth through age two\nthe cost of preschool and kindergarten\nthe number of students served by the school district in preschool 2 \\\\DC - 704749/000300 - 4952303 v1 programs in both district and non-LEA facilities, disaggregated by age\nwhether the preschool program includes students not eligible for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act\nand whether a state statute or regulation requires the LEA to provide full-day or part-day kindergarten. According to OCR, the proposed changes to data items on pathways to college and career would \"provide a more accurate accourit of course taking and passing opportunities.\" The proposed questions ask whether and how many students are enrolled in distance education courses and dual enrollment/dual credit programs\nwhether the school has students who participate in credit recovery programs to graduate from high school\nand the number of student absent fifteen or more school days. OCR would also require school districts to report the number of students enrolled in Algebra I in grade seven and Geometry in grade eight, in addition to the number of students who passed Algebra I in grade seven. Under the proposal, LEAs would indicate whether they have a policy that allows retention of third grade students who are not proficient in Reading. Under the proposed changes to school finance data items, school districts would report the number of full-time equivalents (\"FTEs\") and the amount of the salaries of personnel funded with state and local funds, including instructional staff, support services staff for pupils, support services staff for instructional staff, school administration staff, and non-instructional staff. Under the teacher data collection category, OCR proposes to inquire about the number of FTE psychologists, social workers, security guards, school resource officers, and sworn law enforcement officers funded with federal, state, or local funds. The new CRDC would delete or modify a number of other prior questions. Deleted questions include how many students await evaluations for special education services and whether schools group students by ability in English and Mathematics. In addition, the new CRDC would no longer collect separately the number of students enrolled in Advanced Placement (\"AP\") foreign language courses ( disaggregated by race, sex, and disability and English learner status). Rather, the new proposal is to include AP foreign language students in the \"other\" category. Finally, the proposal includes a major technical change in the CRDC process. In school years 2009-10 and 2011-12, the CRDC was a part of the Department's EDFacts information collection. Under the Department's proposed changes, however, the CRDC would become a separate information collection process. As in prior years, the 2013-14 and 2015-16 CRDC would use a Web-based system in which users could upload data files, enter the data in response to questions displayed on the screen, or use a combination of the two methods. The Department, which has received public comments on the proposed CRDC, will revise the proposal and provide an additional public-comment period. * * * * * * 3 \\\\DC 704749/000300 -4952303 v1 As you start a new school year, we hope this information gives you a sense of the type of information OCR is likely to be collecting in its next two CRDC cycles. If you have any questions about the June 21 notice or OCR data collection more generally, please contact John W. Borkowski at 574-239-7010 or john.borkowski@hoganlovells.com or Shannon T. Hodge at 202-637-5792 or shannon.hodge@hoganlovells.com. 4 \\\\DC - 704749/000300 -4952303 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: Subject: Gibbs, Leslie E. [leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com] Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:24 AM Hogan Lovells US LLP Clients and Friends Memorandum Attachments: Hogan Lovells Client Advisory- Title IX - Gender Discrimination - FINAL.pdf Attached is a memorandum prepared by Maree Sneed and Esther Haley Walker. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page. If you have a new e-mail address or would like to be removed from the mailing list, please let me know. Leslie Gibbs Assistant Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel +1 202 637 5600 Direct +1 202 637 7121 Fax +1 202 637 5910 Ema,I lesliewelch-gibbs@hoganlovells com www.hoganlovells.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is www hoqanlovellsa nc oinmt.e rnational legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If yreocuer ivseydst einm e. rror, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG- WWv\\.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 I Virus Database: 3211/6596 - Release Date: 08/21/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date. 1 Hogan Lovells To School District Clients and Friends FROM Maree Sneed Esther Haley Walker DATE August 28, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT Office for Civil Rights Signs Resolution Agreement Addressing Title IX Protection for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students On July 24, 2013, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\") and the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (\"DOJ\") entered into a Resolution Agreement with Arcadia Unified School District (\"Arcadia\"), which required Arcadia to implement districtwide measures to better protect transgender and gender nonconforming students from discrimination. 1 The Resolution Agreement resulted from an investigation by OCR and DOJ of a complaint alleging that the school district prohibited a transgender boy, who had \"consistently and uniformly presented as a boy at school and in all other aspects of his life for several years,\" from accessing sex-specific facilities designated for male students at school and at an overnight academic camp. 2 Although the Resolution Agreement only imposes requirements on Arcadia, other school districts across the country may view such requirements as reflective of what OCR and DOJ consider to be best practices. This memorandum (I) briefly places the Resolution Agreement in context based on past OCR statements about gender discrimination and (2) summarizes the actions Arcadia agreed to perform-and other school districts may consider adopting-in an effort to prevent discrimination of trans gender and nonconforming students. Placing the Resolution Agreement in Context OCR is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based on sex (among other protected categories), in See U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, and Arcadia Unified School District, Resolution Agreement, July 24, 2013, available at: http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Arcadia Resolution agreement 07.24.2013.pdf. 2 Resolution Agreement, at 1. \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1 accordance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (\"Title IX\"). Although Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, OCR has taken the position that Title IX protects all students from sex-based discrimination and harassment.3 As a result, OCR concluded that sex discrimination may occur \"if students are harassed either for exhibiting what is perceived as a stereotypical characteristic for their sex, or for failing to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity.\"4 OCR and DOJ's July 2013 Resolution Agreement with Arcadia more fully explains the steps that OCR and DOJ believe a school district could take to prevent such discrimination. Also, the Resolution Agreement defines key terms (such as gender-based discrimination, gender identity, and gender expression) so that important discussions surrounding these issues can begin to utilize a common vocabulary. Taking Action to Protect Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students From Discrimination In order to comply with OCR and DOJ's view of Title IX's protections, Arcadia agreed to take certain steps to protect transgender and gender nonconforming students from discrimination. As part of this process, Arcadia agreed to hire one or more third-party consultants with an expertise in child and adolescent gender identity to support it during implementation of the Resolution Agreement. Also, Arcadia agreed to send annual reports to OCR and DOJ detailing its compliance with the Resolution Agreement, including a description of relevant training events for school district employees. As described further below, Arcadia agreed to take two main steps in the Resolution Agreement: (1) better serve the student whose complaint initiated the OCR and DOJ investigation and (2) implement district-wide measures that aim to benefit all similarly-situated students. Because OCR and DOJ may view some of the specific steps Arcadia agreed to take as best practices, other school districts may want to consider revising their own policies in light of the Resolution Agreement. Specific actions Arcadia agreed to take to better serve the original complainant:  Provide access to sex-specific facilities designated for male students at the school and district-sponsored activities (such as extracurricular activities) consistent with the student's gender identity, and (if requested by the student) access to private facilities based on privacy, safety, or other concerns\n Treat the student as other male students are treated in education programs and activities offered by the district\n Ensure the student's birth name and assigned sex are treated as confidential, personally identifiable information\nand OCR, Dear Colleague Letter, Harassment and Bullying 7 (October 26, 2010), available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20 IO I 0.pdf. 4 Id. at 7-8. 2 \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1  Advise the student that he may request a \"support team,\"5 which would include his parents, himself, an advocate of his parents' choice (if any), a medical professional of his parents' choice (if any), and relevant district personnel, to help ensure that he has the access and opportunity to participate in all programs and activities at school. District-wide measures Arcadia agreed to implement to better serve all of its students:  Revise all policies, procedures, regulations, and related documents (such as complaint forms, handbooks, notices, and websites) so that they: o include explicitly \"gender-based discrimination as a form of discrimination based on sex \"6 ' o state that \"gender-based discrimination includes discrimination based on a student's gender identity, gender expression, gender transition, transgender status, or gender nonconformity,\" 7 and o ensure all students are provided with equal access to programs and activities offered by the school district\n Develop a \"comprehensive gender-based non-discrimination policy\"8\n Develop an implementation guide for administrators, faculty, and staff addressing the gender-based non-discrimination policy\n Inform students who are undertaking, planning to undergo, or who have completed gender transitions that they have a right to request a support team that will help ensure equal access to and equal opportunity to participate in school district programs and activities\n Provide annual training to all certificated district-level and school-based administrators about: o the school district's \"obligations to prevent and address gender-based discrimination, \"9 o implementation of policies, procedures, and regulations, and o best practices for creating a nondiscriminatory school environment\nand  Provide age-appropriate instruction to students about gender-based discrimination, accompanied by examples of prohibited conduct. While the Resolution Agreement does not set any new legal standards for school districts, it does illustrate that OCR and DOJ view protection of transgender and gender nonconforming students as falling within the scope of Title IX and that they are prepared to enforce Title IX accordingly. As a result, school districts should review their policies and procedures to ensure that they have Resolution Agreement, at 3. lg_. at 4. Id. at 4. The Resolution Agreement provides detailed definitions for each of these tenns. See j_g., at 1-2. lg_. at 5. lg_. 3 \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1 taken steps to prevent discrimination against this particular student population, and that they are providing training for administrators and age-appropriate instruction for students. Finally, although the Resolution Agreement focuses on the K-12 environment, best practices for preventing discrimination of transgender and gender nonconforming students apply to postsecondary institutions that receive federal funds as well. * * * We hope this information is useful to you as you consider your schools' discrimination policies and procedures. If you have questions about the Resolution Agreement or Title IX more generally, please contact Maree Sneed (202-637-6416 or maree.sneed@hoganlovells.com) or Esther Haley Walker (202-637-5764 or esther.walker@hoganlovells.com). 4 \\\\DC - 700999/000060 - 5109447 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Gibbs, Leslie E. [leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com] Thursday, September 12, 2013 2: 11 PM Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - US DOE ELL Developments Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - US DOE ELL Developments.pdf Attached is a memorandum prepared by Maree Sneed and Chris Lott. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page. If you have a new e-mail address or would like to be removed from the mailing list, please let me know. Leslie Gibbs Assistant Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Tel: +1 202 637 5600 Direct: +1 202 637 7121 Fax: +1 202 637 5910 Email: leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com www.hoganlovells.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information, see www.hoganlovells.com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed\nit may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system. No virus found in this message. Checked by A VG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6654 - Release Date: 09/10/13 Hogan Lovells To School District Clients and Friends FROM Maree Sneed Chris Lott DATE September 12, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT U.S. Department of Education English Language Learner Developments Two recent U.S. Department of Education (\"Department\") developments highlight the growing challenges school districts face in educating English Language Learners (\"ELL\") and an opportunity school districts and other stakeholders have to shape Department ELL policy and technical assistance going forward. First, in June 2013 the Department published The Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program: School Years 2008-2010, available at http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/3/Biennial Report 0810.pdf. (Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides funds to states and school districts to support the education of limited English proficient (\"LEP\") students\nin tum, recipients of Title III funds must meet annual progress goals with respect to LEPs.) The report highlights the growing LEP population in U.S. schools: between 2002-03 and 2009-10, the number ofK-12 LEP students identified for services increased by 7%, and the number of K-12 LEP students served under Title III increased by 22%. The report also details states' mixed progress in achieving annual goals under Title III. Of note:  In terms of the percentage of LEP students making progress in learning English, states ranged from 18.4% to 68.3% in 2008-09, and from 19.5% to 97.6% in 2009-10.  In terms of the percentage of LEP students scoring at or above proficient in reading or language arts, in 2008-09 states ranged from 5.3% to 84.8% in reading or language arts and from 1.7% to 84.9% in mathematics. In 2009-10, the range for reading or language arts was from 8.6% to 81.9%, and the range for mathematics was from 11.5% to 86%.  In 2008-09 and 2009-10, 55% of local education agencies met their targets for the three annual measurable achievement objectives-increases in the number of students (1) \\\\DC - 700999/000060  5156377 v1 making progress in learning English, (2) attaining English proficiency, and (3) scoring at or above proficiency in reading or language arts and mathematics Second, on September 9, 2013, the Department published a request for information in the federal register asking school districts and other ELL stakeholders to provide \"information on priorities for future evaluation and research studies needed to inform effective instruction, assessment, and professional development that is responsive to the needs of English learners.\" 78 Fed. Reg. 55,068 (Sep. 9, 20 I 2), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-09/pdf/2013- 21767 .pdf. The notice is an opportunity for school districts to help guide the Department's future ELL policy and technical assistance. The Department has identified the following topics and requested information regarding in which of these areas or others it should conduct new studies:  Identification, screening, and assessment practices of ELLs\n Strategies for data collection, data analysis, and data-based decision-making\n Alignment of English-language proficiency (\"ELP\") standards with college- and career-ready standards and alignment ofELP assessments with ELP standards\n Key features of instruction for ELLs that promote language acquisition\n Technology-based instructional strategies that promote ELL achievement\nand  Professional development. Responses must be submitted by September 25, 2013. Interested parties may submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail. We hope this information is useful to you as you continue to address the challenges of educating ELLs. If you have questions about this information, please contact Maree Sneed (202-63 7-6416 or rnaree.sneed@hoganlovells.com) or Chris Lott (202-637-5877 or christopher.lott@hoganlovells.com). 2 \\\\DC - 7009991000060 - 5156377 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: Subject: Attachments: Gibbs, Leslie E. [leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com] Monday, September 23, 2013 2:32 PM Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - Bullying Hogan Lovells Client Advisory - Bullying.pdf Attached is a memorandum prepared by Maree Sneed and Esther Haley Walker. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact the attorneys listed on the last page. If you have a new e-mail address or would like to be removed from the mailing list, please let me know. Leslie Gibbs Assistant Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street. NW Washington DC 20004 Tel +1 202 637 5600 Direct +1 202 637 7121 Fax +1 202 637 5910 Email leslie.welch-gibbs@hoganlovells.com www hoganlovells com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail About Hogan Lovells Hogan Lovells is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP. For more information. see www hoganlovells com. CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential, except where the email states it can be disclosed, it may also be privileged If received in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments} from your system. No virus found in this message Checked by AVG - www avg com Version 2013 0 3408 I Virus Database 3222/6692 - Release Date 09/23/13 Hogan Lovells To School District Clients and Friends FROM Maree Sneed Esther Haley Walker DATE September 20, 2013 MEMORANDUM Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 T +1 202 637 5600 F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com SUBJECT Students With Disabilities: Legal Issues Surrounding Being Bullied and Being Bullies On August 20, 2013, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (\"OSERS\") issued a Dear Colleague Letter1 addressing school districts' responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.  1400 et seq. (\"IDEA\") when students with disabilities are bullied or engage in bullying. If a student with an individualized education program (\"IEP\") is bullied or is engaging in bullying behavior, the school district should provide any support and/or services needed to address inappropriate behavior because it has a responsibility under the IDEA to ensure that each student is receiving a free appropriate public education (\"FAPE\"). This memorandum (1) briefly places this Dear Colleague Letter in context based on past OSER guidance and (2) summarizes the requirements for school districts serving children with disabilities who are bullied or engage in bullying behavior. Placing the Dear Colleague Letter in Context OSERS is responsible for working to ensure school districts across the country provide children with \"positive, safe, and nurturing school environments in which they can learn, develop, and participate.\"2 The August 20, 2013 Dear Colleague Letter from OSERS supplements the July 25, 2000 Dear Colleague Letter that OSERS and the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (\"OCR\") jointly released to address disability harassment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (\"Section 504\"), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (\"Title II of the ADA\"), and the IDEA.3 Although not all bullying constitutes harassment under Section 504, Title II of the ADA, and the IDEA, the Dear Colleague Letter issued in 2000 acknowledges that bullying can be one of the many forms of harassment that disabled students may face.4 The August OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Bullying of Students With Disabilities (August 20, 2013), available at http/ /www2. ed. gov/pol icy/speced/g uid/idea/memosdcltrs/bul lyi ngdcl-8-20-13. pdf. 2 .!,Qa.t 1. 3 OCR and OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Reminder of Responsibilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (July 25, 2000), available at http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/disabharassltr html. 4 lg_. \\\\DC - 703633/000410 -5135795 v1 20, 2013 letter focuses specifically on bullying (not just bullying that constitutes harassment), a school district's obligations to respond to bullying, and discusses evidence-based practices for preventing and addressing bullying. Requirements for School Districts Defining \"Bullying\" Bullying can involve \"physical behavior or verbal, emotional, or social behaviors (~, excluding someone from social activities, making threats, withdrawing attention, destroying someone's reputation) and can range from blatant aggression to far more subtle and covert behaviors.\"5 Cyberbullying is a type of bullying that uses technology (such as texting or electronic mail messages).6 The focus of the bullying need not be related to a student's disability in order to trigger a school district's obligations to a bullied disabled student under the IDEA. Although students with disabilities are \"disproportionately affected by bullying,\" some disabled students may not understand the extent to which bullying behaviors are harmful.7 Bullying Can Result in a Denial of FAPE Any bullying that results in a disabled student \"not receiving meaningful educational benefit\" from the services provided by the school constitutes a denial of FAPE under the IDEA.8 Schools have an obligation under the IDEA to ensure a student receives FAPE in accordance with his or her IEP, which should be revised as needed to ensure the student's needs are met. The Dear Colleague Letter cautions school districts, however, regarding changing the placement of children who have been bullied. The letter states: \"While it may be appropriate to consider whether to change the placement of the child who was the target of the bullying behavior, placement teams should be aware that certain changes to the education program of a student with a disability (~, placement in a more restrictive 'protected' setting to avoid bullying behavior) may constitute a denial of the IDEA's requirement that the school provide FAPE in the\" least restrictive environment. 9 School Districts Must Meet the Needs of the Bullied and the Bullies School districts have an obligation to disabled students who are bullied and those who are bullies. Although sometimes the focus is on the students who are bullied, school districts must ensure that IEP teams review the IEPs for bullies \"to determine if additional supports and services are needed to address the inappropriate behavior.\"10 Also, bullying may trigger a school's \"child find\" obligations under the IDEA\na bullying incident may cause a school to identify a child who is in need of special education and related services. 11 OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Bullying of Students With Disabilities 2 (August 20, 2013), available at http://www2 edgov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/bullyingdcl-8-20-13.pdf. 6 Id. 7 11- 8 )_g_. 9 )..Qa. t 3. 10 )_g_. 11 )_g_a.t 2 (citing 34 C.F.R.  300.111, 300 201). 2 IIDC - 703633/000410-5135795 v1 Policies and Practices Addressing Bullying OSERS invites all school districts to reevaluate their policies and practices in light of the July 25, 2000 Dear Colleague Letter, and the August 20, 2013 Dear Colleague Letter and its enclosure: \"Effective Evidence-based Practices for Preventing and Addressing Bullying.\"12 OSERS posits that there is no \"one-size-fits-all\" solution to bullying.13 Instead, it suggests that schools adopt a \"comprehensive, multitiered behavioral framework\" that can be used to \"establish a positive school environment, set high academic and behavioral expectations for all students, and guide delivery of evidence-based instruction and interventions that address\" all students' needs (not just those with disabilities).14 Such an evidence-based framework would include: (1) teaching students and personnel what behaviors are expected and how to respond appropriately when bullying occurs\n(2) providing active adult supervision of students, (3) providing training and ongoing support to school personnel and students, (4) disseminating anti-bullying policies to school personnel, parents, and students, in a form accessible to those with disabilities, and (5) collecting data about instances of bullying. We hope this information is useful to you as you consider your schools' compliance with the IDEA. If you have questions about the August 20, 2013 Dear Colleague Letter issued by OSERS or the IDEA more generally, please contact Maree Sneed (202-637-6416 or maree.sneed@hoganlovells.com) or Esther Haley Walker (202-637-5764 or esther.walker@hoganlovells.com). 12 OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter, Bullying of Students With Disabilities, Enclosure (August 20, 2013), available at http ://www2. ed .gov/pol icy/speced/g uid/idea/memosdcltrs/bu llyi ngdcl-en closure-8- 20-13 pdf. 13 l_g_a.t 1. 14 l_g_. 3 \\\\DC - 703633/000410 - 5135795 v1 Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Magnet Schools of America [communications@magnet.edu] Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:02 AM Magnet Review Subject: Study Finds Magnet Students Outperform Peers by Wide Margins (J Like - MAGNET SCHOOL.....U'~ OF AMERICA State Study Finds Hartford Magnet Students Outperform Peers by Wide Margins A new report released by the Connecticut State Department of Education found that students attending one of the city's magnet or suburban schools outperform their peers by wide margins in math, reading, writing, and science. The report is the first of its kind to measure the performance of students attending one of the interdistrict magnet programs supported by the state. Magnet Schools of America is proud to host its next national conference in Hartford in 2014 where magnet school teachers, principals, and leaders will share their best practices and visit Hartford's top magnet schools. MSA Board Member, Susan Eaton also wrote a great piece about Hartford's interdistrict magnet programs and how other school districts can replicate their success. It is definitely worth a read! like us on Face book() View our profile on Linked~ Forward this email :\u0026gt;1 ifSafeUnsubscribc This email was sent to magnet@magnetschool.com by communications@magnet.edu Update Profile/Email Address Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe'\"' Privacy Policy. Magnet Schools of America 1909 K Street, NW Suite C-140 Washington DC 20006 CoostantC.OOtact\" 1l13m@iBii11 Conn ecticutS tate Department of Education CMT /CAPT Results for Hartford Resident Students The data in the following pages contain CMT and CAPT performance of Hartford resident students who are enrolled in local and choice programs. Notes: Data reflect Hartford resident students\nstudents from other towns are not included. State Department of Education does not report CMT/CAPT results for student counts less than 20. 2013 data include performance of Hartford resident students in the CT Technical High Schools. 2013 Hartford Public Schools results do not include Ramon E. Betances Early Reading Lab, a school that is under special review. These data represent annual snapshots of student performance\nas such, the cohort of students tested from one year to the next will be different. The 2012 Hartford Magnet School results for the \"percent of students at or above goal in Science\" is being reissued (see page 9). Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 1 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY GRADE Reading Percent at/above Goal 2013 Writing Percent at/above Goal 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 25.5 36.4 53.7 31.7 3 37.2 47.7 59.0 37.0 4 27.1 39.5 51.0 39.2 4 31.3 37.5 46.0 42.8 5 29.6 46.9 75.0 52.3 5 34.6 49.4 60.0 43.1 6 34.6 60.6 43.0 54.5 6 30.0 49.0 41.7 52.1 7 41.2 62.0 66.3 66.4 7 23.1 45.0 45.6 46.5 8 36.8 51.8 50.0 61.6 8 26.4 42.9 50.7 50.0 10 5.4 26.9 25.3 15.2 10 15.5 44.7 49.5 35.8 Math Percent at/above Goal 2013 Science Percent at/above Goal 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 25.1 29.9 52.9 30.6 5 18.2 41.5 60.0 39.2 4 24.8 39.0 53.7 39.6 8 15.5 32.4 24.4 36.4 5 26.8 43.7 57.1 45.8 10 4.7 30.4 15.2 13.7 6 26.8 48.0 30.6 43.1 7 18.8 31.2 39.8 39.8 8 18.9 36.8 37.0 35.4 10 4.9 26.0 31.1 19.8 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 2 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY GRADE Reading Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Writing Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 45.8 59.3 74.6 54.7 3 65.0 71.5 76.9 63.6 4 44.5 61.5 74.5 60.8 4 63.7 68.8 76.2 78.3 5 46.4 64.6 92.9 71.6 5 65.8 84.8 93.3 80.8 6 54.9 78.1 65.3 73.6 6 58.6 78.4 73.5 76.0 7 55.7 80.9 77.9 86.9 7 51.7 74.9 71.9 74.8 8 53.8 70.7 69.2 79.8 8 58.7 74.4 75.4 82.7 10 38.1 74.8 68.1 63.3 10 56.8 88.9 94.6 74.7 Math Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Science Percent at/above Proficiency 2013 Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice Grade HPS Regular Hartford Magnet CREC Magnet Open Choice 3 54.6 66.0 77.9 60.4 5 42.5 70.1 96.7 66.9 4 52.4 62.5 87.0 67.9 8 32.7 57.9 50.4 61.8 5 45.8 62.9 89.3 73.7 10 34.3 71.9 64.1 51.6 6 53.8 73.4 69.4 73.4 7 45.7 66.5 72.8 78.8 8 49.5 72.2 80.3 88.9 10 29.5 64.7 63.3 49.4 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 3 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Reading Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 24.7 3138 45.7 823 46.8 267 46.6 253 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 34.4 1853 47.7 650 47.6 275 45.4 485 Asian 27.8 115 53.1 32 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 51.1 231 73.9 111 \u0026lt; 20 58.3 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 24.6 134 57.9 38 \u0026lt; 20 43.8 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Math Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 19.3 3251 36.0 833 40.4 267 42.3 267 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 24.0 1886 31.6 652 35.5 276 32.9 496 Asian 32.6 135 51.6 31 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 38.1 247 62.2 111 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 14.0 136 39.5 38 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 4 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Reading Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 42.7 3138 68.4 823 70.0 267 68.0 253 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 55.9 1853 72.9 650 70.2 275 69.3 485 Asian 42.6 115 78.1 32 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 70.6 231 89.2 111 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 43.3 134 86.8 38 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Math Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 44.2 3251 68.2 833 76.0 267 71.2 267 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 52.9 1886 62.6 652 71.0 276 69.6 496 Asian 54.8 135 77.4 31 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 68.0 247 85.6 111 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 44.1 136 76.3 38 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 5 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Writing Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 24.8 3593 42.5 917 41.2 289 45.0 289 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 35.1 2090 43.3 719 51.6 304 42.8 549 Asian 36.5 126 52.9 34 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 46.1 245 68.1 113 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 27.5 138 59.0 39 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Science Percent at/above Goal 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 12.8 1493 31.5 340 24.3 111 36.0 111 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 15.1 906 31.8 299 23.3 129 27.8 216 Asian 8.7 69 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 26.3 99 51.2 43 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 12.3 65 54.2 24 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 :onnecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 6 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Resident Students: Writing Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 55.7 3593 75.0 917 75.8 289 76.5 289 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 67.7 2090 77.1 719 78.6 304 74.5 549 Asian 57.1 126 82.4 34 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 73.9 245 90.3 113 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 65.9 138 87.2 39 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hartford Resident Students: Science Percent at/above Proficient 2013 CAPT and CMT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magnet HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 33.1 1493 63.2 340 58.6 111 60.4 111 Native Amer. \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 African Amer. 40.7 906 64.2 299 60.5 129 61.6 216 Asian 17.4 69 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 White 70.7 99 79.1 43 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Two+ races 41.5 65 87.5 24 \u0026lt; 20 \u0026lt; 20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 7 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE CTHSS (Grade 10 Only)% at/above Proficiency and% at/above Goal 2013 Race Reading Reading Reading Math Math Math Writing Writing Writing Science Science Science Prof. Goal n Prof. Goal n Prof. Goal n Prof. Goal n Latino/Hisp 66.4 13.3 113 52.2 10.4 115 85.3 28.4 116 58.6 12.1 116 Native Amer. \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 African Amer. 55.3 2.1 47 61.7 10.6 47 90.2 17.6 51 62.7 2.0 51 Asian \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 White \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Two+ races \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 8 of 9 HARTFORD RESIDENT STUDENTS ATTENDING LOCAL AND CHOICE PROGRAMS BY RACE Hartford Magnet Data Corrected from 2012 transmission Hartford Resident Students: Science Percent at/above Goal 2012 CMT and CAPT Race HPS Regular HREGn Hartford Magne HMn CREC Magnet CRn Open Choice OCn Latino/Hisp 13.0 1433 30.9 311 26.4 129 67.9 78 Native Amer. \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 African Amer. 14.7 902 31.9 235 28.4 141 66.1 174 Asian 9.1 55 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Hawaiian/Pacific \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 White 21.9 96 48.8 41 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Two+ races 14.8 128 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 \u0026lt;20 Connecticut State Department of Education, September 3, 2013 9 of 9 June 2013 Volume 26, Number 5 TheA bellR eport What we think about, and what we'd like you to think about Published as a community service by The Abell Foufldation Years After a Landmark Court Decision, Connecticut's Solution to School Segregation Shows Promise: Can it Inform Action in Baltimore? ABELL SALUTES: \"The ETC\": helping entrepreneurs grow companies \"further and faster\" and \"creating new jobs in Baltimore.\" Tom Murdock was reaching school and saw a need-in his case, in the classroom learning process. Following the pattern of so many similar and successful scare-up stories, he began to put together a business plan designed to fill char needinvicing friends in to share. The plan led co a relationship wich cofounders (in Long Island) and to a meeting with che Emerging Technology Centers (ETC) in Baltimore. Mr. Murdock says, \"Ac char point our group found icselfhappily in che ETC's incubation process, where we were introduced to managers whose contributions to our scare-up's organization and growth became a chapter in a book we began writing together.\" This history, wriccen cogecher, led to che founding scare-up company known today as Moodlerooms. There are many Moodlerooms stories where che ploc involves, at a critical point along the way, the involvement of che ETC. The ETC is an initiative of the Baltimore Development Corporation, a nonprofit technology business incubator chat works with early-scage Baltimorebased technology entrepreneurs. The continued on page 8 By Susan Eaton J use beyond the bleak jail for juveniles, pasc bodegas painted tropical hues and commercial vacancy signs along Hartford, Connecticut's Broad Street, stands a sleek, shiny collection of modern buildings. On weekday mornings, a chain of yellow buses encircles chis meticulous, bustling 14-acre compound called The Learning Corridor. Kids hop through che buses' accordion doors, file into buildings, and sectle into classrooms where the mix of complexions and family incomes does nor match Census data culled from these streets. Many of the roughly 1,570 students scattered among che elementary, middle, and two high schools here have indeed been \"bused in\" to-yes-engineer rhe creation of racially and economically diverse schools in chis otherwise extremely poor Latino neighborhood. Some of the children who attend schools on chis campus do live nearby. Ochers come from Hartford's African-American neighborhoods to the north. A large share of the students, however, travels up to an hour from che suburbs beyond the city limits. Educators in several other \"magnet\" schools in and around Hartford open their doors each morning, too, to a scudent body chat reflects rhe diversity of the region, as opposed to the homogeneity found in most of Connecticut's public schools, which enroll scudents from just one cown or neighborhood. As of summer 2012, chere are 31 interdistricc magnet schools in the Greater Hartford region, including chose at The Learning Corridor, enrolling about 13,000 scudents and supported by a mix of state, local, and philanthropic funds. (Four more are scheduled to open chis fall.) Another state-funded program, called Open Choice, enrolls about 1,700 students and provides transportation for children who live in Hartford to attend suburban schools. Students who live in Hartford's suburbs can also transfer into Hartford through chis program, though only a few dozen have chosen char option in recent years. In the larger national public education context, where entrenched racial and economic segregation is the norm, the purposeful integracion effort that has taken root and blossomed here is undoubtedly an outlier. Bue ic is an educational anomaly char may be instructive for other racially and economically stratified regions. Created in response to a 1996 stare court ruling, rhe schools and programs in and around Hartford have nor only substantially reduced rhe share of students of color in high-poverty, segregated schools, bur rhey have also engendered a broad array of innovative educational options char have proven appealing to families of all racial and economic backgrounds and resulted in promising outcomes for the students who take pare. How did all chis come into being in of all places, Connecticut, one of the nation's wealthiest and mosc economically unequal scares? The story of what emerged in Connecticut and why is instructive not just for Balri more, bur also for the numerous metropolitan areas across rhe country beset by segregation and educational inequality. continued fom page I The Long Road to Remedy In 1989, a single mother of two, Elizabeth Horton Sheff, signed on as lead plaintiff in the civil rights case Sheff v. O'Neill. Sheff's lawyers argued chat the racial and class segregation in che region's public schools denied students che \"substantially equal education\" granted in the state's Conscicucion. In all, a racially diverse group of 19 schoolchildren and their families were plaintiffs in the case. Elizabeth Horton Sheff and the national civil rights organizations and local lawyers who brought Sheffsaw ic firsc as a way ro assist children of color and economically disadvantaged children in Hartford and, by implication, low-income students of color in ocher similarly challenged Conneccicuc cities. But from the beginning, their aspirations looked far beyond Conneccicuc. They imagined char Sheff might be the long dreamed about case chat could revive the ideals inspired by the iconic 1954 United States Supreme Court ruling, Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the Court declared unanimously char \"in the field of public educacion separate but equal has no place.\" Brown sparked the civil rights movement, which toppled enforced, intentional segregation in the American souch. However, the sotermed de facto segregation common in the North-segregation created not by wriccen law, bur consequential nonetheless- would prove far harder for civil rights lawyers co eradicate. In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court severely limited Brown's power and reach with the lesser-known 5-4 decision Milliken v. Bradley, which exempted Detroit suburbs from inclusion in urban desegregation plans. This meant chat urban school districts, where the pool of whice students was shrinking, were on their own in remedying segregation. As whice flight from cmes sped up, desegregation became increasingly difficult to achieve especially in che north. Because Sheff was brought in scare court, it represented a detour around the federal Milliken roadblock. The Sheff case was different in another important way, too. Sheff's lawyers did nor bother crying co prove char govern menc officials had intentionally segregated students by race or ethnicity. Rather, they argued chat the condition of racial and ethnic segregation cue off white students and students of color from necessary, viral exposure to ocher cultures, experiences, and knowledge. Racial and ethnic segregacion's accendant-concentraced poverty-the lawyers argued, overwhelmed even the best Hartford educacors who worked in schools with hallmark sympcoms of profound, chronic institutional disadvantage: constant disruptions, neglect, instability, and stress. In 1996, seven years after Sheff was filed, Conneccicuc's highest court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. In this 4-3 decision, the scare Supreme Court found chat it was the school district borders themselves- lines thac are coterminous with established racially segregated housing patterns-chat had created race and class isolation and the resulting inequality in the first place. The Court ordered lawmakers co fashion a remedy to reduce racial and ethnic segregation in Greater Hartford's public schools, but it provided no guidance on how to go about doing ic. \"Racial and ethnic segregation has a pervasive and invidious impact on schools, whether the segregation results from intentional conduct or from unorchestrated demographic factors,\" wrote chenChiefJ uscice Ellen Peters. \"We conclude ... chat che school districting scheme ... as enforced with regard to these plaintiffs, is unconstitutional.\" The Sheff ruling hinged on unusual language in Connecticut's Consriturion char prohibited \"segregation,\" which rhe courr, in chis case, declared need not be intentional in nature ro warrant remedy. This case forced public discussion and debate about segregation, and ics victory meant rhac reducing segregation would remain on political agendas. Major civil rights cases like Sheff require enormous investments of rime and money. Interestingly, if such a case were brought today, it would likely be a far srronger one. Since che rime Sheff was argued in the early 1990s, the research base on rhe educational harms of racial isolation and of concentrared poverty and on rhe potential of race and class diversity has grown far stronger and remarkably larger. After the court decision in 1996, the Sheff remedy rook several years to even begin to materialize in a serious way. As rhe years went on, district borders would remain sacrosanct, bur schools goc builr and programs were created ro make ir easier ro cross those lines. Geccing the schools up and running and the money allocated for chem required constant vigilance on rhe part of the legal ream, which included local lawyers and civil rights lawyers from rhe American Civil Liberties Union and rhe NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. As che scare began co increase its investments in Sheff, many onlookers speculated chat spending millions to promote diversity would nor move urban or suburban parents to leave the typically racially homogenous schools to which they'd ordinarily be assigned. \"People are happy in their neighborhood schools,\" then-Commissioner of Education Ted Sergi said of Hartford parents during a legislative commiccee hearing in 2001. Even some Sheff supporters doubted whether large numbers of white suburbanites, with access to some of the The Abell Report is published quarterly by The Abell Foundation 2 111 S. Calvert Srreec, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174  (410) 547-1300  Fax (410) 539-6579 The Abell Reporcs on the Web: www.abell.org continued from page 2 highest performing schools in the state, would put their children on buses to Hartford no matter how good the new schools might be. As it turned out, however, the doubters were wrong. Magnet schools and the transfer program Open Choice are so popular among both urban and suburban parents that demand for them is not being met. \"It's good news that the schools are so popular and so successful,\" says Liz Dupont-Diehl, who lives in suburban Windsor and has two daughters who attended middle school at The Learning Corridor. \"Bue it's bad news because people are getting left out.\" Sheff s Mantra: \"Quality Integrated Education\" From Sheff's earliest days, its plaintiffs, lawyers, and allies talked about the need to provide \"quality integrated education.\" The implication here was chat, unlike desegregation remedies of the 1970s, merely meeting some kind of numerical diversity standard would not suffice. Lawyers, educators and parents demanded that the educational remedy had to be of the highest quality, and it had to be responsive to and inclusive of families from many racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. Each so-termed \"Sheff\" magnet school has a particular curricular theme or focus, and each opens its enrollment to students throughout the region. In order to be considered by the court a part of the remedy, schools must consistently meet an \"integration standard,\" which requires chat at least 25 percent of the students be white. (Though crude, this standard is based upon current and forecasced demographics in the region.) To meet chis goal, school officials have largely relied upon \"affirmative marketing,\" through which they reach out co parents and families, and recruit and advertise offerings in communities whose demographics might help chem create the diversity standard. No schools use quotas to meet the integration standard, as students are always selected via lottery. In other words, no students are selected on the basis of their race or ethnicity. None of the schools impose admission requirements, such as tests or specialized applications or interviews. No student is compelled to attend a magnet school. It is difficulc to calculate the overall cost of the Sheff remedy. All students who attend magnets, for example, would obviously be educated somewhere. Bur state officials routinely cite rhe overall cost of providing the remedy to be more than $2 billion. It would have been far less costly-and agreeable to the plaintiffs, too-if lawmakers had regionalized the schools, but chat option was never seriously debated in a state wedded to the idea of local control. Post Sheff, there are 65 interdistrict magnets in the state, no doubt many of chem inspired by the Sheff case. Magnets chat existed before the ruling tend to be more racially diverse than non-magnet schools overall, but are not required by the court co meet desegregation standards. Scace officials refer co these as \"non-Sheff' magnets. As impressive as the integration remedy is, data show chat the offerings are meeting only 72 percent of the demand among Hartford families, and that demand is growing both in Hartford and its suburbs. In 2012, about 16,000 students entered che school choice lottery for either magnets or Open Choice with 5,700 of them from Hartford and about 10,000 from suburban communities. This marked a 21 percent increase in applications from the previous year. In 2012, about 34 percent of Hartford's African-American and Latino students attended schools in \"integrated settings\" as a result of the Sheff remedies. In lace April 2013, a scare judge extended for a year a prior legal settlement char required 41 percent of children of color in Hartford co be in diverse schools. As a result, three more existing Hartford schools became designated as interdiscricc magnets in the spring of 2013 and will open in September. Under the extension agreement, state officials also promised to cry to increase suburban participation rn the Open Choice program through financial incentives. In spite of demographic change that has brought increasing racial and economic diversity to several of Hartford's older suburbs, public schools beyond Hartford's closest neighbors still enroll comparably miniscule shares of students of color and/or students from low-income families. In Hartford, meanwhile, 92 percent of students come from families earning low incomes. In Hartford's nonmagnet schools, all or nearly all of the students are students of color. Hiscorically, it has been more difficult for interdiscricc magnets operated by Hartford Public Schools co achieve the required diversity in enrollment. Magnet school seats are assigned in the spring by a Regional School Choice Office within the state's Department of Education. Some families chosen by the lottery may decide nor to enroll, which can open up more seats and a second lottery. A common complaint among integration critics is chat even voluntary efforts depend disproportionately upon attracting African-American and Latino students from disadvantaged communities so they can attend schools in affluent white suburbs and face the burden of adapting. This has not been the case in Hartford, though, where opportunities for integration have quite deliberately been spread throughout the region and where most magnet schools enroll predominantly students of color. In face, the most popular schools for both urban and suburban families are more likely co be found in Hartford's poorest Latino neighborhood where The Learning Corridor is located, or in che city's ocher working-class neighborhoods. Where Innovation Meets Integration: Sheff's Magnet Schools Hartford's Learning Corridor houses four interdiscricc magnet schools. In addition to the Arcs Academy, there is another high school, che Greater Hartford Academy of Mach and Science, as well as the Montessori Magner 3 continued from pag, 3 School, which enrolls 3-12 year olds. The Hartford Magnet Trinity College Academy (HMTCA), for grades 6-8, brings cogecher roughly 600 students from about cwo dozen cities and towns for a comprehensive, rigorous curriculum. In 2011, HMTCA was awarded che Dr. Ronald P. Simpson Award, which recognizes che cop magnet school in che country, from che professional organization Magnet Schools of America. The Greater Hartford Academy of che Arcs (GHAA), with 766 students, has proven particularly popular among families in che region. Some GHAA students accend school there all day, caking their required courses in math and English ac the 16-acre Learning Corridor complex. Some ocher students cake che required courses at a high school in the community where chey live and come each afternoon co GHAA for arcs classes. Unlike many ocher arcs or performing arcs high schools, GHAA does not require chat students audition or submit portfolios for admission. This means that a wide range of skills and experience will often be represented in each classroom. For example, one student may have taken private baller lessons since she was 3, while another may have never been in a dance studio before coming co GHAA. The school's director of che arts, Kim Stroud, acknowledges chat chis policy of \"being open co all\" is not beloved by all of the teachers all of the time. \"le is a real issue,\" says Stroud. \"We have to talk about these things. But we have as a core mission valuing diversity and honoring diversity. That is what we do here. I chink it would be easier, in a way, yes, if we had auditions, if we sec some standard in terms of skill levels in the arcs prior co entry. Bue if we did chat, then we just would not be us.\" Because of che popularity of the arcs high school, in 2010, educators opened a second campus chat houses music and cheater arts programs on the former sire of the famous Colt gun factory, which supplied weapons for the Civil War, World War I, 4 and World War II. Just off che interstate highway, on che former site of a housing project, the 355 students at che Breakthrough Magnet Elementary School crave! from 24 cities and cowns. In 2012, Breakthrough was named a \"School of Excellence\" by che professional organization Magnet Schools of America. It is among che highest achieving and most popular of che interdiscricc magnet schools. The school's principal, Norma NeumannJohnson, testified ac che Sheff trial in favor of che plaintiffs and is an active member of che ShejfMovement-a grassroots organization of educators, parents, and ochers chat advocates for che expansion of Sheff remedies. In che hallway ac Breakthrough, docs on a colorful map connote the some 25 nations from which Breakthrough's students trace their immediate families' origins: Mexico, Mozambique, Vietnam, and Poland. Neumann-Johnson, who has worked as a teacher and adminiscraror in che city schools for more than four decades, describes Breakthrough as a \"global community for students of character.\" Drawing on che rich racial and cultural diversity of the school, Breakthrough includes an intensive focus on geography and culture within a character- based curriculum chat emphasizes personal responsibility, integrity, and contribution co che school community. A culture of belonging and responsibility permeates Breakthrough. Students set formal cables in their classrooms for lunch, help ouc wich che laundry, tend a rooftop garden, and staff a school score. Each Friday morning, che entire school assembles in che auditorium for games, interactive presentations, or social events. Different grades cake cums hosting the Friday assemblies. Breakthrough's students practice mindfulness in medication classes where one student explains, \"I quiet che negative voices and learn co listen co che positive stories about what I can do and who I am.\" To che west, in suburban Avon, where the median family income is $109,161 compared ro Hartford's paltry $29,000, che Reggio Magnet School for che Arcs enrolls about 300 scudents from more than a dozen cities and towns in che region. Curriculum here is based on che philosophy of the educator Reggio Emilia who, in ravaged pose-World War II Iraly, introduced early childhood centers chat focused on respect, community exploration, and a self-guided curriculum. A white school board member in Avon, Barbara Zuras, helped found the school and has been a leading supporter of che interdiscricc magnet school. She is also an outspoken advocate for creating racially diverse learning experiences even in children's earliest years. \"Connecticut needs co build on chis crack record by making quality, integrated preschool education universally available for 3 and 4yearolds,\" testified Zuras before the state legislacure in 2012. \"This scare should avoid creating a segregated preschool education syscem for low-income children of color.\" In Bloomfield, a predominantly black suburb just north of Hartford, the more than 700 students in grades 6-12 at the Metropolitan Learning Center (MLC) graduate with an international baccalaureate degree. MLC emphasizes global studies with che aim of helping students develop \"caring, inquiring, and openminded perspectives\" and of becoming \"empowered as agents of change creating a better and more peaceful world.\" le was named a \"Magnet School of Excellence\" for che past five consecutive years by Magnet Schools of America. The Capitol Region Education Council (CREC), which is similar in operation co a regional school district, operates some of the magnet schools. Its funding comes from a mix of local member school districts chat participate in magnets, state funds sec aside for the Sheff remedy, foundation dollars, and federal grants. Enrollment in CREC's magnets is remarkably diverse. Overall, about 33 percent of scudents in che CRECrun schools are African-American, 30 percent are white, and 28 percent are Latino. Close co half come from families earning low incomes. CREC's mission continued ftom page 4 is straightforward: \"To promote racial integration and reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation and foster an understanding of and an appreciation for cultural diversity.\" Hartford Public Schools also oversees some of the interdistricc magnet schools-all are in che city of Hartford and most are in existing buildings. The small, private Goodwin College, in East Hartford, oversees three magnet schools. \"I think we have a great story co tell about what is possible,\" says Robert Cocco, a member of the grassroots group the Sheff Movement. Cotto is also a former teacher at the Metropolitan Learning Center and a member of Hartford's Board of Education. He remembers moving from Hartford as a child and being one of just a few Puerto Rican students at his suburban school. \"So, I do chink I understand the really huge potential of diversity, for increasing opportunity,\" he says. \"I also chink I understand what a welcoming school should be, what a school chat strives coward true equality needs co do in order co realize chat potential. And I do feel like I've seen that here.\" Encouraging Early Results The U.S. Census Bureau reports chat by the end of che decade, no single racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority among children. In about three decades, no single racial or ethnic group will have a majority in the country as a whole. The way Cocco sees it, che more than 15,000 young people participating in che Hartford region's integration efforcs will be particularly well prepared for chis transformed nation. What's more, he suggests, is chose young people will be the men and women best qualified co be \"leaders in a society chat will look very different from che one their parents knew.\" The \"quality\" pare of che Sheff Movement's \"quality and integrated education\" mantra is best measured, Cocco says, by the satisfaction level among parents and students\nthe level of engagement observed in the classrooms and dance studios, during recitals and in robotics competitions at the schools\nthe low reacher turnover races\nche constructive, welcoming climate\nthe collaboration among students\nand the positive social relationships that break down stereotypes. Seeing that Sheff's goal was not co nudge up rest scores, but co provide more students access co opportunity and expanded horizons, Cotco's measures seem like logical ones. However, it is also true that test scores remain a meaningful measure for policymakers and ochers who measure school success. By this standard, coo, Sheff remedies have, so far, made the grade. A 2009 study in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis compared academic results between students who had applied co Connecticut's magnets and were not selected through the blind lottery and students who were selected and attended a magnet school. The magnet school students who lived in urban zip codes (these students were moscly Latino or black) made greater gains and did significantly better in math and reading in high schools and on reading cescs in middle school. What's more, the suburban students-this group being largely white-who attended magnets outdid their peers at traditional suburban (and generally much whiter and more affluent) schools, coo. The \"achievement gap\" between white students and students of color tended co be smaller in magnet schools than it was in traditional schools. The study also showed chat students in magnet high schools and regular high schools stated similar racial attitudes, but students of color in magnet schools were significancly more likely to say they felt close co white students and had white friends than did students of color who did not attend magnets. Similarly, white students in magnets were significantly more likely than students in nonmagnet schools co say they were close co students of color and had students of color as friends. This study is particularly informative because it avoids the common methodological concern of \"self-selection\" bias embedded in simple comparisons between students who choose a school and students who attend a school to which they are assigned. Self-selection bias refers to the fact that qualities chat plausibly cause a family to purposefully choose a given school-say, perseverance, foresight, planning, drive, ambition-might themselves be factors contributing to higher relative academic performance. But che 2009 study avoids that pitfall by using as a control group students who did choose to attend magnets but who were denied entry. More recent data from 2011 show that, on average, the region's seven interdistrict magnet high schools record far higher graduation rates than even some of the more affluent suburban districts in the Hartford region. Perhaps most revealing, interdiscricc magnets do a far better job at graduating students from families who earn low incomes than even several far more affluent school discricts. The graduation rate for low-income students ac magnet schools ranges from about 85 percent co higher chan 90 percent. (By comparison, the graduation rate for low-income students in Hartford char year was about 60 percent in 2011 and 53 percent in 2010.) In 2012, achievement data showed that students who live in Hartford and attend either a magnet school or who are enrolled in che Open Choice program tend to outperform their counterparcs in che Hartford Public Schools. These simple comparisons do not control for potential self-selection bias. However, the size of the differences makes the data informative. The share of Hartford resident students meeting or exceeding scare goals on mandated rests was typically 20 co 40 percentage points higher in magnets or Open Choice. A Deep Grassroots Connection Since che beginning, Sheff's lawyers, educator allies, and concerned community members built their strong multiracial, mulci-echnic, economically diverse base of urban and suburban supporters through old-fashioned community organizing. The lawyers were empowered 5 continuedfr om page5 by chis broad community base, and the interviews and meetings with community leaders and parents informed not only the shape of the case but rhe negotiations about remedy as well. In 1987-a full two years before Sheff was filed-the now well-known local civil rights lawyer John Brittain was at che cime a law professor ac the University of Connecticut. He worked with community- based advocates and ochers co put together a meeting between civil rights lawyers, parents, teachers, union activists, ministers, priests, and rabbis. The meeting was called co calk about a report recently issued by the state's very own Department of Education. The report derailed and lamented the intensifying racial segregation of the state's schools and called segregation \"educationally, morally, and legally wrong.\" On chat day, Brittain, who would go on co become dean of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University in Houston and Senior Deputy Director at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, laid out the history of the construction and maintenance of segregation. He and his colleagues from the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund then laid out some plausible legal options. For Brittain, that meeting brought back memories of his days organizing AfricanAmerican voters in Mississippi. \"People in the North were conditioned co living separately,\" Brittain recalls years later. Inequality, he adds, \"was something everyone knew about. Bue once we got people talking, right under the surface was a feeling chat we could do better, that it didn't have co be chis way.\" The intensity of the community-based organizing dissipated somewhat following the much-watched trial in the early 1990s and then after the court decision in 1996. About a decade ago, however, parents, local educators, and Greater Hartford residents regenerated Sheff's communitybased advocacy by forming the Sheff Movement Coalition. Coalition members, some of whom had been plaintiffs (, or had testified for the plaintiffs in the original case, have been meeting formally, usually at least once a month, for 10 years. Among the seven (and far less ambitious) voluntary incerdistrict desegregation programs in the nation, none has a grassroots advocacy counterpart chat is as institutionalized and active as the Sheff Movement. The Sheff Movement has a well-established routine of gathering at one of the incerdistrict magnets, the Capital Preparatory Academy on Main Street, which sics just beyond Hartford's downtown. Members spread our donuts and coffee in the school library, which in 2012, was officially named the Sheff Center, in Elizabeth Horton Sheff's honor. Members organize public forums related to Sheff and to ocher educational trends. They testify at legislative hearings, and hold meetings with state legislators and informational sessions for local school board members and suburban PTOs. Members have also in recent years sat on panels at national meetings of education scholars and policy expercs. They have sat behind cables at local magnet school fairs. They have crunched data to demonstrate the Sheff schools' and Open Choice's strong records of academic achievement. They get quoted regularly in the press. They publish and disseminate shore newsletters chat announce events and bring readers into daily life in diverse schools in the region. Lead plaintiff Elizabeth Horton Sheff often chairs the regular meetings and remains one of the case's most quoted spokespeople. These days, she says, she cries co strike a balance between complaints over the fact chat \"not enough people have access co quality integrated education\" and celebration \"over the incredible success we have been able co achieve here.\" Baltimore Parallels? Racial segregation came co characterize Greater Hartford and its schools in much the same way it did in other formerly grand American cities. Like in Baltimore, a confluence of economic trends, government housing policies and practices, and racially discriminatory banking and insurance practices encouraged, exacerbated, and then cemented in place incense race and class isolation in Hartford. Baltimore, with a longstanding identity as a border city between north and south, embarked on school desegregation soon after che Brown v. Board of Education decision. As Harold Baum chronicles in his book, Brown in Baltimore, rhe city school board was one of the first in the nation to end its de Jure system peacefully. However, the board instituted a weak \"freedom of choice\" plan char kept the current school assignment plan in place, but allowed for blacks and whites to choose different schools if they wanted, with no regard to race. Thus, as Baum shows, blacks did choose schools chat they perceived were of higher quality, but whites tended to choose the schools chat were close co their homes and were more likely to remain predominantly white. Baltimore did not provide transportation co transferring students. Like in other similarly situated urban districts, white flight ro the suburbs of Baltimore County concinued during these years, eventually making desegregation efforts pointless within the city. (Hartford never had a desegregation plan.) Today, metro Baltimore and metro Hartford have similar rates of segregation between blacks and whites. In Baltimore, about 64 percent of whites would have co move to different neighborhoods in order co be evenly distributed in the region. In Hartford, chat number is about 62 percent. Called a \"dissimilarity index,\" a number of 60 or higher is considered \"very high\" segregation. Of the 138 largest metro areas in the United Sraces, Baltimore has the 19th highest index for segregation between whites and blacks. Hartford is ranked 24th. Connecticut's government did not write laws mandating school segregation as they did in Maryland and 16 ocher states. Bue it did aid and abet the creation of segregated education by siring and building schools in accordance with a racially and economically separate setup chat decades of racial discrimination had continued from page 6 brought into being. Race and class separation remains such an embedded part of the Connecticut landscape chat if it had not been for Sheff, it might escape notice. With its focus on access, opportunity, and che present-day effects of longstanding structural discrimination, the Sheff case shares qualities with the important public housing desegregation case from Baltimore, Thompson v. HUD. Filed in 1995 on behalf of African-American families who had been relocated co segregated neighborhoods following che demolition of their public housing projects, Thompson argued chat city officials and HUD purposefully placed replacement public housing in segregated areas as a way co appease white residents who did not wane ic in their neighborhoods. After about 10 years of licigacion, Federal District Court Judge Marvin J. Garbis found chat che U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) violated che Fair Housing Ace of 1968 by concentrating African-American public housing residents in che poorest, most segregated neighborhoods of Baltimore Cicy. However, city officials were not held responsible and che Court viewed chem as accors within a fragmented system chat failed co consider che region as a whole and thus limited their ability co sire housing beyond municipal borders. In his decision, Judge Garbis wrote chat HUD had created che city of Baltimore like \"an island reservation ... a container for all of the poor of a contiguous region.\" A central element of che remedy was continuation of che Baltimore Housing Mobility Program (BHMP), created in an earlier phase of che case. A more recent secdement, in 2012, continued che program and court jurisdiction until ac lease 2019. A voluntary program, BHMP has enabled nearly 2,000 African-American families co move from high-poverty neighborhoods co lower-poverty neighborhoods chat provide easier access co high-performing schools and job opportunities. According co a 2009 report issued by che Poverty and Race Research Action Council and the Baltimore Regional Housing Campaign, schools in neighborhoods co which program participants moved, enrolled, on average, 33 percent of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch (a proxy for poverty) compared with 83 percent poverty in their former neighborhoods' schools. The report also showed chat in the families' new neighborhood elementary schools, 69 percent and 76 percent of students scored proficient or higher on scare math and reading tests, respectively, compared co 44 percent and 54 percent who did at their former schools. Perhaps most important, though, is chat 88 percent of seeded participants said in a su rvey chey are satisfied or very satisfied with che schools in their new communities. About 89 percent of seeded parents say their children appear co be learning better or much better at their new schools. In a recent report on deepening school segregation trends in Maryland, che Civil Rights Project at UCLA acknowledged chat there is no \"magic solution for comprehensive integration of schools\" in che Baltimore region. \"It would be foolish co claim chat there is one,\" writes report author, UCLA professor Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project. \"Ic is equally foolish, on che ocher hand, co do nothing about the continuing spread of segregated schools and resegregacion of neighborhoods or not co use school choice and magnet methods appropriately co create integrated schools where ic is feasible. Stably integrated communities are more successful educationally and socially chan resegregaced communities, which tend co experience rising poverty and declining educational and job opportunities.\" Toward Stable Integration A constructive first step coward what Or field calls \"a stably integrated\" community might be co bring Baltimore's regional housing experts and advocates cogecher wich Connecticut's regional education experts and advocates to think collaboratively about comprehensive, complementary strategies co reduce segregation. Every metropolitan area has its own set of challenges, both political and practical. Bue community members, educators, and leaders who embark upon discussions about reducing segregation through schooling opportunities also face some common questions. At the outset, it is important co realistically assess the political obstacles a regional school integration plan might face and co chink in advance about where interests might converge. Similarly, a thorough review of existing state education policy would ensure chat proposals do not violate existing laws and could also identify ways co facilitate regional efforts. Baltimore's ambitious new plan co rebuild and refurbish ics aging school facilities might provide an opening co discuss che creation of regional magnet schools or ocher programs chat provide opportunities for students from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds co attend diverse schools. For example, could any of che planned new or renovated city schools become regional magnet schools? If so, what themes or curricular focuses might be most effective in attracting students from the city and the suburbs? Would it be possible co place magnet schools near job centers or major regional employers? Are there any existing summer programs or excracurricular programs chat bring urban and suburban students together? If yes, how might chose be expanded? \"I always keep in mind chat segregation was created by people,\" Sheff's lead plaintiff Elizabeth Horton Sheff said recendy. \"And chat doesn't make me depressed. le reminds me chat ic can be undone by people.\" Susan Eaton is research director at the Charles Hamilton Houscon Inscicuce for Race \u0026amp; Justice at Harvard Law School. She is the author of The Children in Room 4: American Education on Trial, a narrative non-fiction book about che Sheff v. O'Neill case. 7 Baltimore School for the Arts-a local example of a \"one-way\" interdistrict high school? While Maryland does not have legislation requiring interdistricr enrollment among school districts, Baltimore City's Baltimore School for the Arts may well serve as an example of what is possible with at least one-way interdistrict transfer. Opened in 1980 and located in the Mt. Vernon neighborhood of downtown, Baltimore School for the Arcs (BSA) is a public high school offering a pre-professional am program with a challenging college-preparatory academic program. Admission to irs music, dance, visual art, theatre, and theatre production programs is based solely on audition\nthere are no academic criteria. While BSA is a school within the Baltimore City Public School Sys rem, it has an independent Board of Overseers rhat ensures fidelity to the original mission and engages in substantial fund-raising. While BSA attracts a majority of its students from Baltimore City, the school is open to studencs throughout the state. Typically, 25 percenr of its 400 studencs reside in rhe counties surrounding Baltimore City. Families of these non-city students are responsible for contributing $5,360 in tuition and must provide their own transportation. The State of Maryland contributes its share of per pupil funding for these students, but there is no portion paid by the sending school district. As a result of this one-way incerdistricting, BSA has attracted a more racially and economically diverse student body than other Baltimore City high schools. In 2012, 56 percenc of BSA students were African-American, 36 percenc white, 5 percenc Asian, and 3 percent Hispanic\nless than one-third of its students come from families who qualify for free and reduced meals. Compare that to the average Baltimore City Schools high school population, which is 90 percent African-American and 76 percent eligible for free and reduced lunch. This mix appears to be beneficial for all studencs: Baltimore School for the Arts earns a high School Performance Index score from the state, and is particularly noted for its ability to close the achievement gap in English and math among socioeconomic groups. Its srudencs' average combined SAT score of 1542 is the highest in Baltimore City, and more than 95 percent of its entering 9th graders graduate in four years. ABELL SALUTES continued from page I ETC describes its involvement with these Aedgling companies rhis way: \"We move their business ahead further and faster than they could on their own.\" To back up rhe claim, the ETC has data: It estimates rhar in rhe 14 years in which it has been operating, ETC companies have created companies in excess of $375 million in economic activity for Baltimore City. In its mentoring relationship, rhe ETC offers a comprehensive array of business services: Aexible turnkey solutions rhat free the founding entrepreneurs to focus on rhe critical success factors driving the business. The ETC incubator offers office space with common conference rooms and services, relieving companies of a number of administrative derails. The full-rime ETC staff assists companies by providing srraregic planning\nhelp with decision making on product development and marketing\nand use of 8 an extensive network of volunceer mentors and professional service providers to give start-up companies unprecedented access to business, university and governmenc concracrs, public and private funding sources, and new opportunities with both early-stage and mature technology companies. Over its 14 years in existence, the ETC has had an impressive record of results:  Of281 companies assisted, 85 are still in business as of this writing\n All graduate companies remain in Maryland, 56 percenc in Baltimore Ciry\n More than 2,000 jobs have been created at an average salary of $70,000\n More than 1.5 billion in outside investment has been raised by ETC companies\nand  Thirty-nine percenc of the companies have successfully transferred technology from a university or federal lab. Deborah Tillett, president of the ETC, poincs our the defining characteristic of rhe ETC: \"The ETC provides more than the opportunity for individual companies to maximize their growth potencial, it provides a creative environmenc in which like-minded encrepreneurs can increase rheir companies' porencial through shared learning, partnerships, joinc vencures, and collaborations. Some other companies we have served include Looking Glass, Groove Commerce, Ainsley \u0026amp; Co., Millennial Media, R2i, Straighrerline, and CSA Medical.\" In a typical year, the ETC receives about one-quarter of its operating budget from Baltimore City-the remainder is earned in the form of fees and services from its 86 portfolio companies. Abell Salutes ETC president Deborah Tillett, for helping rhe many start-up Moodlerooms get off rhe ground fast, and go further than the founders could on their own, and for helping to create jobs in Baltimore. NEW STAFF 2013-2014 NAME OF SCHOOL: BOOKER ARTS MAGNET SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE ASSISTANT CHARLOTTE CORNICE AA PRINCIPAL FOURTH GRADE BENJAMIN GRANT C TEACHER RESOURCE JANE HARKEY C TEACHER MEDIA SPECIALIST EMILY HESTER C FOURTH GRADE MELANIE MINOR C TEACHER VISUAL ARTS CARRIE PORTER C TEACHER FIFTH GRADE RACHEL SCHNEIDER C TEACHER GENDER F M F F F F F NAME OF SCHOOL: POSITION 5TH GRADE 1ST GRADE NEW STAFF 2013-2014 CARVER MAGNET NAME OF STAFF LYNNETTE PITTS CYNTHIA FINSTROM RACE GENDER BLACK FEMALE WHITE FEMALE NAME OF NEW STAFF 2013-2014 SCHOOL:_GIBBS ___________________ _ POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE GENDER 2ND GRADE LAURA SUTTON w F 4TH GRADE JULIE DA VIS w F KINDERGARTEN LAUREN GASKELL w F RESOURCE DEBORAH BAKER w F NEW STAFF 2013-2014 NAME OF SCHOOL:_WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE COACH ANTONI LASKER B ART AMANDA MAMULA w 4TH GRADE STACI HULA w MEDIA CLERK SANDRA MCINTOSH B 1ST GRADE CARISE ECHOLS(INTERN B FROM LAST YEAR) COUNSELOR CHARRIT A HUNNICUT B GENDER M F F F F F NEW STAFF 2013~2014 NAME OF SCHOOL: MANN MAGNET ARTS/SCIENCE MIDDLE SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF RACE GENDER SPANISH ASHLEY BOSHEARS WHITE FEMALE TEACHER ENGLISH WILLIAM BRAZLE WHITE MALE TEACHER 6TH MATH SHEA DRAKE BLACK FEMALE 6TH MATH DIANE Ross WHITE FEMALE 8TH MATH SARA GAINES WHITE FEMALE 7TH MATH CHRISTY MCNEARY BLACK FEMALE 6TH SCIENCE ST ARLETTE INGRAM WHITE FEMALE 7TH SOCIAL CLARICE SUMMONS BLACK FEMALE STUDIES 8TH SOCIAL ANGLEA MORRISON BLACK FEMALE STUDIES 7TH MATH AMISTA SUTTON WHITE FEMALE ENGINEERING TREMAYNE WHITE BLACK MALE TECHNOLOGY NEW STAFF 2013-2014 NAME OF SCHOOL: PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL POSITION NAME OF STAFF SPECIAL ED CHANDLE CARPENTER HISTORY TEACHER PATRICK DONOVAN EAST LAB PHILICIA BELL ENGLISH TYESHAIL MILLER TEACHER ENGLISH DEANNAH JOHNSON TEACHER *CAREER COACH FRANK NEWSOME *CAREER COACH ROBERTO CANDELARIA ASST. HEAD TORRENCE TILLMAN CUSTODIAN INTERIM DANCE ALLISON CLARK TEACHER RACE GENDER B F w M B F B F w F B M H M B M w F ~CAREER COACl-1 POS/T/0!'1S ARE PAID THROUGH PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE B'r' WAY OF ARKANSAS OEP,,RTMENT OF CAREER DUCA TION Horace Mann VACANT SEATS LRSD NLRSD PCSSD SCHOOL B w T B w T B w T Mann/SCIENCE 6 -2 7 7 0 5 5 3 10 13 7 6 5 11 1 3 4 0 8 8 8 2 6 8 2 5 7 1 9 10 Mann/ARTS 6 -8 6 6 -2 9 9 6 11 17 7 2 7 9 -2 9 9 4 4 8 8 7 11 18 0 6 6 -1 19 19 A number with a negative sign indicates the number of students that district is over by in that particular grade and magnet side. TOTAL CAPACITY= 900 Sept 03 2013 B w 0 TOTAL BLK 460 164 134 758 61.0% PowerHouse QUIZ More + - ---- ---------------------------------------- ~--------------------- 1 LRSD SCHOOLC OUNTSB Y SCHOOL- C~ 2013/09/18 PAGE 1 . CHOOL: 005 PARKVIEWAR TS/SCIENCEM AGNET class Black Slack Other Other Total Max Vacancy count Percent count Percent count Capacity SP 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 09 143 54.2% 121 45.8% 264 325 61 10 150 56.4% 116 43.6% 266 315 49 11 132 54.1% 112 45 .9% 244 285 41 12 135 54.0% 115 46.0% 250 ~ 275 25 Total 560 54.7% 464 45. 3% 1024 00 /~ F2=Screen wait F3=EXit F6=TOp line F9=Retrieve FlO=TOp  Fll=Bottom F12=Break Fl4=View Parkview Magnet Swap Report 2013-2014 Parkview # Seats LRSD NLRSD PCSSD (current count B w T B w T B w T 9/19/13 From Swap Reporto -- ... 60 . ,. (15 13 _.,, Science 100 30 30 7- 8 12  25 9 0 3 3 0 7 7 6 5 11 10 5 8 13 0 7 7 0 7 7 11 5 6 11 4 5 9 4 10 14 12 5 5 10 6 7 13 7 8 15 Band 42 12 12 24 2 2 4 7 7 14 9 3 3 6 1 0 1 4 6 10 10 1 4 5 0 0 0 3 4 7 11 0 3 3 1 2 3 4 4 8 12 -1 2 2 1 1 2 0 4 4 Dance 38 11 10 21 2 1 3 6 8 14 9 -1 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 8 10 0 -2 0 -1 -2 0 -4 6 6 11 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 5 7 12 2 5 7 0 1 1 0 3 3 Drama 54 16 16 32 3 3 6 8 8 16 9 0 -2 0 0 2 2 2 2 4 10 1 0 1 1 3 4 0 2 2 11 2 2 4 1 2 3 4 4 8 12 0 2 2 .. 0 2 2 2 2 4 Orchestra 13 4 3 7 1 1 2 ,_. 2 2 4 9 -1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 10 0 0 0 1 0 1 -1 1 1 11 -1 -1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 12 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Visual Arts 42 13 13 26 2 2 4 6 6 12 9 -3 -1 0 1 1 2 2 2 4 10 3 -3 3 0 2 2 1 4 5 11 1 1 2 -2 1 1 2 1 3 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 -1 1 Vocal Music 36 10 10 20 2 2 4 5 7 12 9 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 3 5 10 2 -1 2 0 1 1 0 6 6 11 -5 -2 0 2 1 3 3 5 8 12 0 -1 0 -1 2 2 4 4 8 SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 560 254 208 1022 55.0% SCIENCE UPDATED 9/19/13 CIE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT GRADE NB 16 124 BLK 112 09 NB 17 153 BLK 142 10 NB 1 120 BLK 121 11 NB 3 54 BLK 50 12 BAND UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 3 36 BLK 33 10 NB 1 46 BLK 45 11 NB 0 20 BLK 20 12 NB 2 23 BLK 21 DANCE UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 17 132 BLK 115 10 NB 24 159 BLK 135 11 NB 12 104 BLK 92 12 NB 0 74 BLK 74 DRAMA UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT GENDER GENDER RACE COUNT GENDER GENDER (FEMALES) (MALES) (FEMALES) (MALES) 09 NB 39 30 9 BLK 124 74 50 10 NB 33 22 11 BLK 163 112 51 11 NB 13 10 3 BLK 112 58 54 12 NB 13 8 5 BLK 88 56 32 ORCHESTRA UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 6 26 BLK 20 10 NB 5 32 BLK 27 11 NB 1 24 BLK 23 12 NB 0 12 BLK 12 VISUAL ARTS UPDATED. 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 39 145 BLK 106 10 NB 39 154 BLK 115 11 NB 33 150 BLK 117 12 NB 47 118 BLK 71 VOCAL MUSIC UPDATED 9/19/13 GRADE RACE COUNT TOTALW/L RACE COUNT 09 NB 11 80 BLK 69 10 NB 6 102 BLK 96 11 NB 6 61 BLK 55 12 NB 1 72 BLK 71 10 DAY COUNT FOR THE STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS BOOKER MAGNET BLACK 286 CARVER MAGNET BLACK 212 GIBBS MAGNET BLACK 158 WILLIAMS MAGNET BLACK 220 Total capacity Booker Magnet 579 Carver Magnet 398 Gibbs Magnet 330 Williams Magnet 473 WHITE 105 WHITE 75 WHITE 94 WHITE 100 OTHER TOTAL PRECENTAGE 119 510 8-56.0% 0-44.0 % OTHER TOTAL PRECENTAGE 57 344 B - 64.4% 0 - 38.6 OTHER TOTAL PRECENTAGE 40 292 B - 54.7% 0 - 45.3% OTHER TOTAL PRE CENT AGE 88 408 B - 53.2% 0 - 46.8% 10 DAY COUNT FOR THE STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS SCHOOL #VAC LRSD NLRSD PCSSD B 0 T B 0 T B 0 T BOOKER K 10 1 5 6 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 7 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 17 2 9 11 1 2 3 0 3 3 3 7 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 3 4 10 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 5 5 5 23 2 18 20 0 1 1 0 2 2 CARVER K 6 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 4 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 2 4 6 0 3 3 2 3 5 5 26 4 19 23 0 0 0 0 3 3 GIBBS K 5 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 3 5 2 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 1 5 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 WILLIAMS K 9 4 0 4 0 2 2 0 3 3 1 8 0 6 6 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 12 3 7 10 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 15 4 6 10 1 1 2 1 2 3 5 16 3 10 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 Mitchell, Sadie From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Please see attached. From: Mitchell, Sadie Carson, Cheryl Monday, September 23, 2013 1 :20 PM Mitchell, Sadie RE: Recruitment RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES FOR AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER 2013.rtf Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:28 AM To: Booth, Dexter\nBrown, Lori\nBarksdale, Mary\nHobbs, Felicia\nCarson, Cheryl\nMcgee, Keith Cc: 'Magnet Review' Subject: Recruitment Send me a bullet list of things that you have done for recruitment since August. I need this information for the MRC meeting in the morning. I am sorry for such short. Please send by then end of the day. To: From: Subject: Date: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for Elementary Schools Cheryl A. Carson, Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Recruitment Activities September 23, 2013 Please find listed below recruitment activities during the 2013-2014 school year.  Tours have been conducted.  Addressed parents at Kindergarten Orientation and encouraged them to refer other families  Spoken with parents at Open House and encouraged them to refer other families  Collaborated with PTA to host Grandparent's Day on September 11, 2013  Contacted Student Registration in LRSDa nd PCSSDo n several occasions to facilitate the assignment of students Mitchell, Sadie From: Sent: To: Subject: Barksdale, Mary Monday, September 23, 2013 4:21 PM Mitchell, Sadie RE: Recruitment Back to School Bash at the Museum of Discovery for all staff, parents, children and friends (PTA paid) Open House ---discussed Recruitment and Parents Importance telling other parents Grandparents Days PTA Newsletter Facebook developed by our VIPS Coordinator Asked Dr. Suggs for a meeting of Magnet Schools to discuss strategies for recruitment Visited with all three Magnet school assignment people per district over the phone begging for help with assigning students Toured a few parents, and talked to some on the phone about coming to Carver Hosted the Love Your School Grant Kick Off Supported the development of our new STEM room----lmagination Station Stressed CUSTOMERS ERVICEW ITH OUR STAFFa nd RECRUITMENTa s a priority Greeted and thanked the Readers of 9/11 Discussed with the PTA President that recruitment must be our top priority- we are entertaining the idea of purchasing ads in two Family magazines From: Mitchell, Sadie Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:28 AM To: Booth, Dexter\nBrown, Lori\nBarksdale, Mary\nHobbs, Felicia\nCarson, Cheryl\nMcgee, Keith Cc: 'Magnet Review' Subject: Recruitment Send me a bullet list of things that you have done for recruitment since August. I need this information for the MRC meeting in the morning. I am sorry for such short. Please send by then end of the day. Mitchell, Sadie From: Sent: To: Subject: Brown, Lori Monday, September 23, 2013 4:41 PM Mitchell, Sadie RE: Recruitment 1. Updated Williams School website 2. Hosted school tours 3. Distribution of Williams Bumper Stickers 4. School marquee 5. Artwork displayed at school partners From: Mitchell, Sadie Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 11:28 AM To: Booth, Dexter\nBrown, Lori\nBarksdale, Mary\nHobbs, Felicia\nCarson, Cheryl\nMcgee, Keith Cc: 'Magnet Review' Subject: Recruitment Send me a bullet list of things that you have done for recruitment since August. I need this information for the MRC meeting in the morning. I am sorry for such short. Please send by then end of the day. EI Mundo LeMonde Die Welt The World Gibbs International Magnet School Vol. No. 16 Issue No. 2 Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Languages Inside this Newsletter IMPORTANT EVENT DATES NATIONS AT GIBBS WATER FROM THE SOLE CHILDREN'S THEATRE GIBBS PTA NEWS Important Event Dates LABOR DAY NO SCHOOL Monday, September 2 GIBBS OPEN HOUSE Thursday, September 5 GRANDPARENTS LUNCHEON Friday, September 6 PTA MEETING Thursday, September 12 NATIONS AT GIBBS FOR 2013-2014 Our class nations this year have changed at a couple of grade levels. Please note the changes below. Pre-K Harris Germany Pre-K Parrish France Kindergarten Shaw China Kindergarten TBA Australia 1 stGrade Sub-Saharan AFRICA 1st Grade Blome Kenya 1st Grade Love Nigeria . 2 Grade 2nd Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade EAST ASIA Sims Japan Sutton Taiwan MIDDLE EAST 3rd Grade Alonso Egypt 3rd Grade White Saudi Arabia 4th Grade LATIN AMERICA 4th Grade Davis Brazil 4th Grade Long Mexico 5th Grade WESTERN EUROPE 5th Grade Barbarotto Spain 5th Grade Gillespie U. K. (United Kingdom of Great Britain \u0026amp; Northern Ireland) WATER FROM THE SOLE By Coach Passini OzarWk atePrr oject The Ozark Water Project is a nonprofit organization that asks for donations of clean, in good repair, gently used footwear of all kinds. The donated shoes finance well digs and the installation of water purification systems in poor nations bringing clean water to the Earth's people. Word of the collection has gone home with all students this week in the PE letter from Coach Passini. PT A has been asked to get this information of the collection out on their email line. An additional flyer will be sent with each student next week ...... TO BRING YOUR DONATED FOOTWEAR TO OPEN HOUSE NEXT WEEK El Mundo ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 5TH AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6th if you forget. At open house, shoes will be collected outside the entrances to the building. Collection boxes will be available on Friday inside the school entrances. The Voyager After School Students will count and bag the shoes for pickup. This is simple stewardship supporting the Earth's precious resource called \"water\". So Gibbs students, families, and staff, CLEAN OUT YOUR CLOSETS AND DONATE SHOES AT THE GIBBS OPEN HOUSE TO THE OZARK WATER PROJECT! IT'S WHAT WE DO AT -( Our first year with the project, Gibbs families donated a mountain of shoes!) FOR THE ARTS, PLAY, \u0026amp; RECREATION: CHILDREN'S THEATRE FROM LR CULTURE VULTURE Arkansas Arts Center has announced the 2013-2014 Children's Theatre season lineup. The season will open with Pinkalicious the Musical, running from September 20 through October 6. Based on a popular children's book by Elizabeth and Victoria Kann, LeMonde Die Welt this story is about a girl who turns pink. The songs are written by John Gregor. Next up will be The Sorcerer's Apprentice, just in time for Halloween. It will run from October 25 through November 10. Alan Keith Smith has adapted Johann Wolfgang van Goethe's poem of magic and imagination. In this version, a modem young girl is taken on a mystical journey where she meets a medieval sorcerer's apprentice. The holiday show at the Children's Theatre will involve a train filled with toys. From November 29 through December 15, The Engine That Thought It Could will take the stage. Alan Keith Smith has adapted Rev. Charles S. Wing's 1906 story to create this tale of hope and determination - with plenty of holiday fun thrown in. The winter blues will melt like butter with Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type. From January 24 through February 7, this comical romp through the barnyard will be on stage. It involves Farmer Brown, typing cows, striking foul, and learning about compromise. It is adapted from Doreen Cronin's book with illustrations by Betsey Lewin. The familiar tale The Boy Who Cried Wolfwill premiere at the Children's Theatre from March 7 through 23. Based on Aesop's story, Alan Keith Smith has adapted this timeless classic about honesty. The 2013-14 season will conclude with Sleeping Beauty. The World Based on the Brothers Grimm folk tale, it will be on stage from April 25 through May 11, 2014. This classic tale of love, courage and the triumph of good over evil is sure to delight audiences of all ages. Bradley Anderson is the artistic director of the Arkansas Arts Center Children's Theatre, and Dr. Todd Herman is the executive director of the Arkansas Arts Center. GIBBS PTA NEWS By President Johnson GIBBS OPEN HOUSESeptember 5th at 5:30 p.m. Check out your child's classroom. Catch up on what they're learning this year. There will be pizza \u0026amp; drinks for the kids and sweet treats and door prizes for the parents. Please donate cookies or other storebought desserts for the dessert table. Contact Open House Chair - Rokina Gibson - RokinaGibson@yahoo.com REMEMBER TO CHECK THE WISH LISTS FOR YOUR TEACHERS AND SPECIALISTS! Grandparents Luncheon is Friday, September 6th  Grandparents, please come eat with your grandchild/ren on the 6th! Our PT A membership drive is ongoing! Please join the Gibbs PT A for only $5 per membership. Get grandparents to join as well. Our first PT A meeting will be Thursday, September 12. Working together can make all the difference in the world! El Mundo Gracias, Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal LeMonde Die Welt The World Recruitment Plan for Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies \u0026amp; Foreign Languages 2013-2014 1. Publicity in the local news media and LRSD website A. Gibbs has been in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper twice already this year: (1) First Day of School with Fathers Bringing Students to School  I . -- Arkansas DemocratGazette/ M ELISSA SUE GERRITS 08/19/13 - Amy Nicholas embraces daughter Avery Nicholas, 7, at Gibbs Magnet Elementary School August 19, 2013 while they wait to hear which classroom Avery will be in for her first year of school at Gibbs. (2) Ja anese Students at Gibbs B. Gibbs has been featured on local television three times this year: (1) Japanese Students at Gibbs (2) 9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance with Firefighter Ceremony (3) Ozark Water Project C. Gibbs has been featured on LRSD website three times already: (1) Gibbs Educator at Global Conference in NYC Gibbs Educator Participates in Japan Society's Global Conference in NYC In May, Ms. Vicki Stroud Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs International Magnet School, received a select invitation to participate in the Third Annual Going Global: International Student Social Networking Conference for Educators organized by the Japan Society. Gonterman, one of only ten US-based educators invited, attended the three day conference, August 7-9 in New York, with educators from Japan and Pakistan. The all-expenses paid conference was sponsored in part by the Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership and the Toshiba International Foundation. The U.S.-Japan Foundation submitted Gonterman's name for inclusion in the conference as she was their 2006 Elgin Heinz Humanities Educator of the Year. Gonterman now has a Japanese \"Kamishibai\" lesson published online with the Japan Society on their educator's website! Click here to view the lesson. Also, as a result of participation in the conference, Gonterman is currently establishing a new partnership with an international elementary school in Japan. Photo: Gonterman is sitting on the far right of the first table with educators from Japan and Pakistan. (2) Two LRSD Teachers Win Competitive Study Opportunity at the Truman Library Chris Gonterman, Physical Education Teacher at Hall High School, and Vicki Stroud Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs International Magnet Elementary School, have both been selected as winners of the Summer Teachers Seminar entitled, \"U.S. Presidents and the Middle East: Truman to Obama,\" offered by the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri this July. The two will attend the weeklong conference, along with teachers selected from across the United States, attend lectures, and utilize the Truman Library's primary source documents on Presidential Policy Making in the Middle East to create lesson plans. The competitive application process included a personal essay explaining the content and pedagogy that would be utilized in their classroom along with an application and resume. (3)Reading Quiz Bowl Results Results for Gibbs Magnet's First Reading Bowl! Gibbs International Magnet School has just concluded its first Reading Bowl of the year! Students in grades 3-5 had an assigned book over the summer. Upon their return to school in August, the children anticipated involvement in a quiz bowl competition around their book. The competition was conducted in each classroom. The winning team in each classroom faced off against the winning team in the opposing grade level homeroom! Homeroom winners were: Third Grade - Mrs. Jennifer White's students\n4th Grade - Mrs. Julie Davis's students\nand Fifth Grade - Ms. Jennifer Gillespie's students! Each student on the winning teams received a certificate with their team photo. A trophy is also displayed outside each classroom! These children exhibited great sportsmanship! They are looking forward to the next Reading Quiz Bowl at Gibbs! Pictured above are (1) fourth graders and (2) third grade students competing in the first-ever Gibbs Reading Quiz Bowl! D. Gibbs is also featured on the LRSD Access Channel with our \"9/11 Day of Service and Remembrance\" which included First Lady of Arkansas, Ginger Beebe, reading to a Kindergarten class and many other service volunteers reading in grades K-3. 2. Community Involvement: (1) Gibbs fifth graders perform at Opening Ceremony of WorldFest annually for school and community relations (City of Little Rock and LR Racial and Cultural Diversity Commission) (Friday, September 27, 2013) (2) Other community events such as with Clinton Foundation or Sister Cities Commission as come up during the year. 3. Weekly newsletter (every Wednesday) 4. Special Days at School (1) Grandparents Day Luncheon (September) (2) Dads Day Luncheon (October) (3) Mom Day Luncheon ( 4) Coffee Cafe, monthly 5. Special Evenings at Gibbs: (1) New Student/Family Or\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_428","title":"Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District: Research Report, 2004-2005, Draft","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":["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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District: Research Report, 2004-2005, Draft"],"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/428"],"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":["126 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\nCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 2 of 69 CREP Center for Research in Educational Policy Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Center for Research n Educational Policy The Universiy of Memphis 325 Browning H\u0026lt;d t4emphis. Tennessee 38152 ToB Free. 1-866^70^147 Research Report 2004-2005 DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW BY Little Rock School District December 2005 Lyle Hull Davis, Ph.D. Gail Weems, Ph.D. John Nunnery, Ph.D. Center for Research in Educational PolicyCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 3 of 69 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DHlUOilNO W N0lW5)3H33S3a Nvr aaAiaoaa This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to: a) provide cumulative evidence of SMART/THRIVE implementation practices\nb) examine the extent to which the programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students\nand c) explore perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental prealgebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I, respectively. The programs intentions/goals are to: a) provide a solid foundation for Algebra, encourage exploration\nb) make mathematics fun\nc) enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics\nand c) create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses. The SMART program meets for two consecutive weeks during the summer and the THRIVE program meets every other Saturday during the Spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. The primary context of observations, focus groups and surveys was the 2005 THRIVE program. Additional attendance data were collected from the 2004 SMART program. Survey and focus group responses concerning both programs also were collected. Both programs served students from the following schools: Cloverdale, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest. Research Questions Seven research questions provided the focus of the evaluation. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. Evaluation questions were: 1. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? 2. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? 3. 4. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 7. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? RECEIVED JAN 3 2006 1 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 4 of 69 Design The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results within this summary are primarily descriptive in nature\nhowever, achievement data will be used for comparative analyses among SMART participants. THRIVE participants^ students participating in both programs, and students participating in neither program. These data will be examined in light of attendance data provided by program heads. Evaluation Measures Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: standardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. Administration procedures and descriptions of instrumentation are provided below. Direct Classroom Observation Measures  School Observation Measure (SOM*): Examines frequency of usage of 26 instructional strategies.  Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA)\nProvides measurement of the degree of learner engagement in cooperative learning, project-based learning, higher-level questioning, experientiai/hands-on learning, student independent inquiry/research, student discussion and students as producers of knowledge.  Math Addendum: Rates teachers' actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Surveys  Student Survey: Collects participant impressions and perceptions regarding the satisfaction, short-comings, strengths and influence of SMART and THRIVE programs.  Parent Survey: Collects parent perceptions and impressions regarding availability (access), influence, transportation and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  Algebra I Teacher Survey: Collects Algebra I teacher perceptions and impressions of influence of program on student performance as well as global awareness and opinions of SMART and THRIVE.  SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey: Collects THRIVE teacher perceptions and impressions regarding professional development, influence of technology, influence of program on student performance and overall opinions of the program. Focus Groups  Student Focus Groups: Collects program participant impressions and perceptions regarding the influence of each program on Algebra I achievement, test scores, and self-confidence about math. Also collects information about SMART and THRIVE program weaknesses, strengths and needs.  Mentor Focus Group: Collects high school SMART mentor impressions and perceptions of SMART program strengths, weaknesses, needs, and influence on students. Student Records  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in light of achievement data. Participation rates are reported as well. 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 5 of 69 student Academic Performance  Math Benchmark Test (2003 - 2004) scores were analyzed. The Benchmark Test is a state- mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2004-2005 scores were analyzed. The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterion-referenced test with questions that align with the goals and subjectspecific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as Advanced, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.  ITBS Math Subtests scores were analyzed. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and computation.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests: The curriculum-based tests are measures of student ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. Procedure Data for this evaluation were collected during the ^ring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted in February and March of 2005 using the SOM, Math-addendum, and RSCA instruments. J , IVIUK I UUUOl lUUl I I, dl lU ITOV/ZA II lO U UI I I Cl I lb. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. Student perfonnance measures were administered in late spring. The following table summarizes the data collection procedure. 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 6 of 69 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Targeted Classroom Observations Instrument SOM RSCA Math Addendum Number Completed/Data _____ Source Total 5 19 5 Description A series of observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During a one hour period, four^ note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent Algebra I Teacher Student 10SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE 70 SMART/142 THRIVE Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. Mentors from the SMART 2004 program were contacted by researchers. Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45-minute locus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Achievement Tests Math Benchmark Test 2003-2004 and 2004 -2005 End of Course Exams ITBS Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distribute throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005. Attendance Data SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students (88% African American) 143 students (84% African American) Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students *One observation session was comprised of three rather than four observation segments due to scheduling constraints. 4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 7 of 69 Results Direct Classroom Observation Results Targeted Observations Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the five observation sessions revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state-designed Student Learner Expectations (SLE). The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and coilaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instruction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. The RSCA results suggest that the THRIVE program integrated technology into the curriculum. Average or above average implementation (e.g., level of intensity, meaningfulness, quality) was noted for activities associated with higher level thinking strategies, teamwork and independent technology use. Survey Results Student Survey The overall trend in response types was positive for survey items pertaining to THRIVE and SMART. Regarding THRIVE, students demonstrated high levels of agreement for items probing self-confidence, comfort level, growth among problem solving skills, and overall satisfaction with the program. Two areas in which some students showed some disagreement were related to generalization and application. Students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program on the open ended portion of the student survey, but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Responses to items pertaining to SMART indicated agreement among students for items pertaining to preparedness, motivation, and application. Open-ended items also suggest overall satisfaction with SMART\nhowever, a number of student suggestions were made about changing the time during which the summer program met. Parent Survey Responses from the 35 parents who responded to the THRIVE parent survey suggest that they have positive feelings towards the program. Agreement or strong agreement was consistently noted across all survey items. No negative responses to the items were reported. The 21 parent respondents provided similar information, particularly for those items reflecting their satisfaction with the teachers, their childrens preparedness for Algebra I, and their comfort level with the program meeting time. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Neutral responses were noted for one item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. Parent perceptions measured with analysis of open-ended responses reflected an overall satisfaction with both programs. When asked specifically about transportation, the majority of parents did not site it as an issue\nhowever, some parents reported access to transportation being inconsistent. Algebra I Teacher Survey In contrast to response trends from the parents, students and THRIVE teachers surveyed, Algebra I teachers responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers responding to THRIVE items and the 25 Algebra I teachers responding to SMART items showed a 5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 8 of 69 positive response trend. These teachers agreed that both programs had bolstered students self-confidence and positively impacted student achievement\nhowever, they responded more neutrally to items probing the programs' influence on childrens problem solving ability and influence on general Algebra I instruction. When asked specifically about whether they felt SMART and THRIVE had had an impact on achievement differences among races, a small percentage disagreed, approximately one third responded neutrally or did not know and the remaining 48% agreed. SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey SMARTTTHRIVE Teachers responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE and SMART programs. Two items for which some teachers indicated neutrality across both programs were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. No negative responses were noted among the items\nhowever, some teachers indicated that the limited time available for teaching was considered a shortcoming for both SMART and THRIVE. Focus Groups Student Focus Group Students perceptions of both programs suggest that there is a generally positive feeling towards SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the consensus among the twenty-one students who participated in the focus groups was that SMART and THRIVE bolstered math skills and boosted confidence. Despite some mild distaste for required meeting times (Saturdays and during the summer), most student participants indicated that both SMART and THRIVE had reinforced Algebra I skills and provided a fun, relaxing context for learning. Many students noted that the programs had provided new strategies for problem solving and made Algebra I less daunting. There were no outwardly negative comments made. Mentor Focus Group Two high school student mentors who had participated in SMART, 2004 provided input about the SMART program primarily. The mentors viewed SMART as a preparatory program focused on reviewing prealgebra principals. Both mentors, however, also noted that SMART provided a unique environment in which competition helped motivate students and make math more enjoyable. The mentors global perception of the program was that SMART allowed students to get a head start on Algebra I principals with a simultaneous boost in confidence. Attendance Collectively, the 2004 SMART program served 210 students for which attendance data was available and the 2005 THRIVE program served 143 students for which data was available. Compared to the general population served by the district (69.0% African American), SMART and Thrive programs served a higher percentage of African American students (88.0% SMART\n84.8% Thrive\n89.6% Both). The attendance rates for SMART yielded an average rate of 97% (range: 94%- 100%) and the attendance rates for Thrive yielded an average rate of 90% (range: 81 %-100%). Achievement The results provide evidence that, in 9'*' grade, the SMART program, the Thrive program, or the combination of the two programs were associated with substantial and statistically significant improvements in the achievement of participating students relative to non-participating students on the Algebra I EOC exam. The strongest effect size was associated with a combination of the programs. Additionally, eighth grade students participating in any combination of the programs were less likely than their non-participant peers to perform at basic or below basic proficiency levels on the Algebra I EOC exam. More specifically, African American students in both eight and ninth grade who were 6Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 9 of 69 enrolled in any of the three program configurations were more likely to perform at proficient or advanced levels of proficiency than the non-participant comparison group. Statistically significant gains were also noted on the program-specific assessments for the SMART and Thrive programs. No statistically significant program effects or racial differences noted among scores from the ITBS. CONCLUSIONS Each of the major research questions will provide a framework around which the conclusions for the present study will be structured. Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? StudenMevel achievement analyses yielded results suggesting that participation in SMART, Thrive and a combination of programs is associated with comparative improvements in achievement relative to nonparticipating students. Specifically, our interpretation of these outcomes focuses on the extent to which these differences in achievement relate to growth among African American students. Findings suggest that although there was not a statistically significant interaction term specific to race, participation in any of the program configurations was associated with a major reduction in the achievement gap between African American students and students of other races from 8* grade to 9* grade, from a one standard deviation deficit on 2003-04 Benchmark scores to virtually no difference on 2004-5 Algebra I EOC scores. For 2004-05 8 graders, the results suggest a positive effect of the programAfrican American students attending any program configuration were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced levels. However, the lack of 2003-04 achievement data tor use as a covariate limits the strength of this evidence. Although results were favorable for African American students enrolled in both programs, no statistically significant effects were noted from ITBS scores for race or program, demonstrating that although SMART and Thrive have a direct and significant impact on curriculum-based performance measures, they have a lesser influence on standardized math achievement performance. In light of the current goal in increasing achievement among African American students, particularly in the domain of mathematics, the results from EOC and Benchmark exams are highly significant. These results are encouraging as implementation of the SMART and Thrive programs seems to have had a positive impact on African American student achievement. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Overall, the level of participation for both programs was high. The vast majority of students enrolled in SMART, Thrive or both programs missed no sessions, yielding average attendance rates of 90% or above. Additionally, data from classroom observations suggested a high degree of student engagement and participation across classrooms within the Thrive program. Given the demographic characteristics of the participants, the significant quantitative relationship between participation and student achievement gains, and the high participation rates among participants, the results provide evidence that SMART and Thrive have a positive impact on participation among African American students and that participation has had significant influence on achievement. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? During classroom visits, the majority of observed instructional strategies were couched in a collaborative teaching model focused on higher level thinking skills and student grouping. Students were observed utilizing technology throughout their lessons and were highly engaged during observation sessions. Teachers frequently posed hypothetical questions to groups to accommodate use of higher-level thinking skills and generate more varied student responses. Even when students were engaged in independent seatwork, which was rare, teachers were observed circulating among various student groups, requesting more in-depth questioning strategies in their problem solving approaches. Additionally, although the competition component 7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 10 of 69 of the program was not observed directly, students were frequently cited encouraging fellow students in preparation for competition while working in collaborative groups. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was a positive response trend among SMART/THRIVE teachers across questionnaire items for both programs. Teachers generally believed that the core components of both programs bolstered student learning, particularly among students who were struggling to perform well in Algebra I classes. Additionally, they reported feeling comfortable with expectations and resources, noting that having opportunities to collaborate with other teachers and utilize competition to motivate students were essential to success. Teachers cited time constraints as a recognized weakness across both programs. The general consensus was that they wanted more time to develop deeper skills among students and to reinforce concepts taught in Algebra I classrooms. None of the respondents expressed feelings of dissatisfaction with either program and demonstrated the highest percentage of positive responses when compared to other groups (students, parents. Algebra I teachers). What are the perceptions of Algebra I teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Algebra I teachers were generally positive in their reaction to both SMART and THRIVE programs, representative of an overall feeling that SMART and THRIVE facilitated student learning and generalized to the Algebra I classroom. Algebra I teachers noted observed improvements among students participating in SMART/THRIVE and globally agreed that the programs effectively enabled students to use technology in the Algebra I classrooms. A number of Algebra I teachers indicated that both programs needed to reach a larger and broader group of students. There were no indications that Algebra I teachers disliked SMART or THRIVE\nhowever, there was some evidence that some respondents felt that the programs did more to supplement what was being taught in Algebra I classrooms rather than cultivate more meaningful understanriinn nf algebraic concepts, ~ What are the perceptions of participating students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Students were somewhat mixed in their reactions to SMART and THRIVE, although the response trend among respondents across items was generally positive. While most of the students believed that SMART and/or THRIVE helped them with Algebra I class, others indicated mild dislike for time spent doing academics during summer and/or Saturdays. Students did perceive the programs as motivating, fun, and globally helpful. It was rewarding to note that despite some dislike of the programs' scheduled meeting times, most students indicated a desire to continue with the programs modifying very little about the actual instructional delivery. These comments were corroborated by comments students made during focus group sessions. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents' reactions to both programs were globally positive. Specifically, parents commented that the motivational, fun nature of the programs was fostering an interest in math among students. Comments for change were largely dominated by parents requesting that the program be expanded both in breath/scope and duration. None of the parents cited negative features\nhowever, some parents requested more rigor within the curriculum. When asked specifically about transportation, a concern of SMART/THRIVE program heads, the majority (84%) of parents indicated that it was not a problem. Of the parents who did indicate that transportation was a problem, inconsistency of service was cited as the primary issue. The majority of parents felt comfortable sending their children to the programs during the summer and/or on Saturdays, particularly because transportation on those days/during that time did not conflict with work or other activities that typically dominated school days. 8Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 11 of 69 Evaluation of SMART/THRIVE In the Little Rock School District Research Report: 2004-2005 INTRODUCTION The Arkansas Department of Education contracted with the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at The University of Memphis to collect formative evaluation data in schools implementing SMART/THRIVE. This report summarizes the 2004-2005 evaluation study of the SMART and THRIVE programs. The global purpose of the evaluation was to examine the extent to which the SMART/THRIVE programs have been effective in improving and remediating academic achievement of African-American students. Additionally, the evaluation explores perceptions of participants, parents and teachers as well as level of student participation in SMART and THRIVE. The overall purposes of the SMART and THRIVE programs are to provide supplemental pre-algebra support to students entering Algebra I and to prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I. It was designed as an intervention for rising and current 8'\"- and 9-grade students who are entering or will be enrolled in Algebra I. Applications for SMART are disseminated through the Sth grade teachers for any rising 9th grade student who has not taken Algebra I. Eligible rising 9th grade students who are registered to attend high school in the LRSD and will take Algebra are selected on a first come-first served basis. Seventh grade math teachers are asked to recommend students, particularly African-American or Hispanic students, who have the potential to be successful in Algebra I in the Sth grade. Students who participated in SMART are invited to participate in THRIVE. After a designated enrollment period, remaining seats are opened to any student taking Algebra I. Applications for these remaining seats are disseminated by the Algebra 1 teachers. The programs intentions/goals are to:  Provide a solid foundation for Algebra, encourage exploration Make mathematics fun Enable students to achieve academic success in mathematics  Create the confidence necessary to pursue higher level courses The goals encompass two components: pre-algebra instruction for two weeks during the summer (SMART Program) and 10 Saturdays across the school year (THRIVE Program). Instruction in both 9Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 12 of 69 programs utilizes small class sizes (fewer than 18) with two teachers per class. Each program currently (2004-2005) engages approximately 10 percent of the total African-American student population enrolled in Algebra I classes. Various local grants have funded both programs since 1999. Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training (SMART) provides opportunities for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for success in Algebra 1. SMART is a two-week half-day summer institute for eligible rising 8'\" and 9' grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra 1. SMART serves approximately 200 students each year. Each SMART classroom consists of a qualified mathematics teacher, one high school mentor who demonstrates outstanding mathematical skills and a positive attitude, and no more than seventeen SMART students. Each teacher uses a variety of strategies and tools to enhance their instructional delivery. Activities include real-life situations requiring the use of math skills. SMART students are exposed to and become familiar with a range of technological tools. The most popular tool used is the Tl- 84 Plus graphing calculator. SMART students learn how to use the calculator to further and deepen their knowledge of mathematics. In addition to the TI-84 Plus calculator, students use the Calculator-Based Laboratory (CBL) and the Calculator-Based Ranger (CBR) to solve problems and perform experiments. Students who successfully complete the SMART program receive a free TI-84 Plus graphing calculator, a SMART T-shirt, and a certificate. Instructional delivery and structure within the THRIVE program is virtually identical to that noted within SMART sessions\nhowever, students do not have a high school mentor acting as a facilitator. THRIVE serves approximately 150 students, many of whom generally have been enrolled in SMART during the previous summer. Students currently enrolled in Algebra I meet bi-monthly on Saturdays during the Spring semester from 8:45 a.m.  12:25 p.m. The sessions are divided into 45-minute instructional blocks with learning activities prescribed for each block. The last block consists of two classes competing in a mathematics game/competition featuring the material covered that day. Teaching methods mirror those used in SMART, but integrate more advanced content and focus on material covered in Algebra I classrooms across the district. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Seven research questions provided the structure around which the evaluation was developed. The primary research question focused on the extent to which SMART/THRIVE programs improved and/or remediated math achievement among African American students. A substantive supplemental question 10Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 13 of 69 addressed the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African-American students. Additional attention was focused upon academically focused time and student engagement as well as parent, student, teacher and Algebra I teacher perceptions of the programs. The questions are listed below and are followed by a brief explanation of the areas addressed in the present evaluation. PRIMARY EVALUATION QUESTION Have the SMART/THRIVE programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? A treatment (2-levels)-control student pre-tesVpost-test designed was employed for this evaluation. The analysis controlled for pretest, gender, ethnicity and SES. Four types of Algebra I students were compared: a) no program/comparison, b) SMART program only, c) THRIVE program only and d) both SMART and THRIVE programs. The pretest data was collected from the 2003-2004 Math Benchmark Test and the posttest data was collected from the 2004-2005 Math Benchmark Test. Additional test information gathered for treatment-control comparison includes the 2004-2005 ITBS Math subtests and Algebra I End of Course Exams (EOC). Descriptive data from SMART and THRIVE participants were derived from pre- and post-test program exams. All standardized tests were administered by and throughout the Little Rock School District. Pre- and post- test program exams were administered through SMART and/or THRIVE. SUPPLEMENTAL EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. What is the level of participation in SMART and THRIVE by African American students? Attendance data from the SMART program of 2004 and the THRIVE program of 2005 were examined. In addition to descriptive information, the levels of participation were analyzed in light of student achievement. 2. What instructional strategies are used during the tutoring sessions? This question was addressed through classroom observations using an instrument focused on 26 research-based teaching strategies associated with increased academically focused instructional time and technology use within the classroom. Three additional math-specific items were designed to gather observation data about math-specific instructional practice. Five, random observation visits were conducted during the THRIVE program sessions. 11Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 14 of 69 3. What are the perceptions of SMART/THRIVE Teachers regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of Algebra I 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 SMART/THRIVE students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were addressed through use of self-report surveys, including objective and open-ended items. Demographic data was also collected and analyzed. In addition, three student focus groups were created during which students perceptions of program strengths\nweaknesses and overall satisfaction were collected, and then analyzed. PARTICIPANTS Currently, SMART/THRIVE serves students from the following eight Little Rock School District middle schools: Cloverdale: 82% African-American student population\nDunbar: 61% African-American student population\nForest Heights: 77% African-American student population\nHenderson: 82% African-American student population\nMabievale: 81% African-American student population\nMann: 52% African-American student population\nPulaski Heights: 57% African-American student population\nSouthwest: 94% African- American student population. Of 274 eighth- and ninth-grade students who participated in SMART, Thrive, or both programs, matching district demographic data were available for 258 (94.2%). Tables 1 and 2 provide summaries of demographic and grade-level data for the various subsamples of SMART, THRIVE, and Comparison students in the study. These programs served a higher percentage of African American students than existed in the student population at large (69.0%): 88.0% of SMART students, 84.8% of Thrive students, and 89.6% of students attending both programs were African American. Of the 258 students with matching data, 125 attended SMART only, 66 attended Thrive only, and 67 attended both programs. Most students attending SMART only were ninth graders (83.2%), while the majority attending Thrive only were eighth graders (66.7%). About equal percentages of eighth graders (53.7%) and ninth graders (46.3%) attended both programs. Whereas the district percentage of female students in eighth and ninth grades was 50.1%, the 12Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 15 of 69 programs served a much larger proportion of females: 63.2%, 66.7%, and 59.7% for SMART, Thrive, and both programs, respectively. Table 1 Percentage of Students Served by Race: SMART^hrive and Comparison PROGRAM Am Indian Asian Black Hispanic Other White Total n Comparison 0.2 1.7 69.0 4.8 1.4 22.9 3726 SMART 0.0 0.0 88.0 0.8 4.0 7.2 125 THRIVE 0.0 6.1 84.8 3.0 0.0 6.1 66 BOTH 1.5 1.5 89.6 4.5 0.0 3.0 67 Total 0.3 1.7 70.2 4.6 1.4 21.8 3984 Note. Comparison group is all eighth and ninth grade students not served by either the SMART or Thrive programs. Table 2 Program Attended by Grade Level PROGRAM Total GRADE 08 09 Total Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Count % within PROGRAM Comparison 1727 SMART 21 THRIVE 44 BOTH 36 1828 46.3% 16.8% 66.7% 53.7% 45.9% 1999 104 22 31 2156 53.7% 83.2% 33.3% 46.3% 54.1% 3726 125 66 67 3984 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% EVALUATION DESIGN The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2005. A mixed-methods design was employed to address the research questions. Results are primarily descriptive in nature\ninferential statistics from achievement analyses are discussed. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected by trained observers. The observers administered and collected surveys to THRIVE teachers and students and conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors. The majority of the time was spent observing 13Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 16 of 69 classrooms using the School Observation Measure (SOM) described below. Observers also conducted focus groups with students and SMART mentors and administered or distributed surveys to students, teachers. Algebra I teachers and parents. Additionally, achievement data from students participating in SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 was collected and analyzed by CREP. Details about all of the instruments and evaluation procedures are provided in subsequent sections INSTRUMENTATION To address the questions proposed in this mixed-methods evaluation, data from achievement tests, student records, classroom observations, surveys, and focus groups were collected. Six measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data\nstandardized achievement test scores, classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, and program-developed achievement benchmarks. ACHIEVEMENT TEST SCORES Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005: The Benchmark Test is a state-mandated criterion-referenced test aligned with state math standards and developed by Arkansas teachers and the Arkansas Department of Education. Benchmark scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. The mathematics portion of the exam is comprised of multiple-choice and open response items. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2002-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .84 - .87.  End of Course Exams (EOC) 2005: The Algebra I End of Course Examination is a criterionreferenced test with questions that align with the goals and subject-specific competencies described by the Arkansas Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Algebra I Course Goals. The purpose of the test is to assess student mastery of Algebra I knowledge and skills. Students take the exam at the completion of Algebra I. Scores are reported as advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. Internal consistency reliability estimates, from the 2001-2004 administrations ranged from Cronbachs Alpha of .81 - .88.  ITBS Math Subtests\nThe Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Math) assesses students ability to compute, deal with math concepts and solve problems dealing with numeration, graph/table interpretation, and 14Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 17 of 69 computation. The ITBS test is a norm-referenced. The ITBS information is proprietary and, therefore, estimates of reliability and validity could not be obtained.  SMART and THRIVE Pre/Post Tests\nThese curriculum-based tests measured students' ability to utilize algebraic concepts to solve equations, judge inequalities, evaluate and simplify basic problems, graph equations, plot data, and solve applied problems. The THRIVE program tests were comprised of content more advanced than that of SMART program tests. Pre-test problems were identical to post-test problems in both programs. STUDENT RECORDS  Attendance records from the 2004 SMART program and 2005 THRIVE program were examined in comparison to achievement measures. CLASSROOM OBSERVATION MEASURES The data collection instruments for classroom observations were the School Observation Measure (SOM), including three math-specific items designed to better-tailor the instrument, and the Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA). The SOM and addendum items were designed to gather information about instructional practices and classroom activities. The RSCA was used to gather more detailed information about the level of student engagement during target activities throughout target observations. The instruments used for classroom observation are described below. School Observation Measure (SOM): School Observation Measure (SObP). The SOM was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices (e.g., direct instruction, cooperative learning, student inquiry, experiential learning) are used by teachers (Ross, Smith \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999) in typical (non-evaluative) classroom contexts. During each recording session, notes were completed every 15 minutes in different classrooms for a total of four at the end of one, 60-minute observation period. Researchers objectively recorded the relative use, non-use and frequency of 26 observation items covering a variety of classroom practices. Additionally, researchers recorded the extent to which high academically focused instructional time and high student attention/interest were observed. At the conclusion of a one-hour targeted visit, a trained observer summarizes the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed, yielding one SOM Data Summary Form. The frequency is recorded via a 5-point rubric that 15Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 18 of 69 ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively Observed. Two global items rate, respectively, the academically-focused instructional time and degree of student attention and interest. A reliability study by Lewis, Ross, and Alberg (1999) found that pairs of trained observers selected identical SOM categories 67% of the time and rated within one category 95% of the time. Math Addendum: Because the program under evaluation was specifically a mathematics program, three additional observations items unique to mathematics were developed. The items were written by a member of the research team with an Arkansas teaching certificate in mathematics based on the standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). The three items addressed the teachers actions in emphasizing conceptual understanding, connecting the content to daily life, and promoting students confidence in mathematics. Each item was rated as 1 indicating not observed to 5 reflecting strong application. Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA): This Rubric (Ross \u0026amp; Lowther, 2002) is applied in conjunction with SOM visits to determine the quality and depth of teacher applications of selected strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, higher-order questioning, project-based learning, and technology as a learning tool). These strategies reflect emphasis on higher-order learning and attainment of deep understanding of content. Such learning outcomes seem consistent with those likely to be engendered by well-designed, real- world linked exercises, projects, or problems utilizing technology as a learning tool. Each item includes a two- part rating scale. The first is a four-point scale, with 1 indicating a very low level of application, and 4 representing a high level of application. The second is a Yes/No option to the question: Was technology used? with space provided to write a brief description of the technology use. The RSCA was completed as part of SOM observation periods. The RSCA reliability results indicate that observer ratings were within one category for 97% of the whole-school observations and for 90% of the targeted observations (Sterbinsky \u0026amp; Burke, 2004). A RSCA was completed at the end of each targeted classroom observation. SURVEYS Four surveys were developed by the evaluation team to collect data pertaining to the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE Program. The specific audiences around which the current evaluation focused were parents. Algebra I teachers currently teaching in Little Rock schools, SMART/THRIVE teachers, and students 16Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 19 of 69 currently enrolled in THRIVE. Items were designed to address both the primary and secondary research questions of the study and to glean open-ended perceptions from the four data collection groups. Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included as were open-ended questions about both programs. Program-specific items were presented to gain general and specific knowledge about both programs as separate entities. This also eliminated the need for respondents to complete two separate surveys. Each survey was divided into three sections. The first section was used to collect demographic information specific to each group. The second section was comprised of objective items specific to the research questions and each program (SMART and THRIVE), in the final section, the respondents were presented with four, open-ended questions which probed strategies, strengths, weaknesses and general additional comments for each program. Responses across all surveys were scored through the use of Likert- type ratings ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Demographic information was also collected. Drafts of all surveys were presented at the evaluation team meetings in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants suggestions. Sun/eys are found in Appendix A. FOCUS GROUPS Two sets of focus group protocols were developed by the evaluation team. Students were asked their perceptions of the effectiveness of the SMART/THRIVE program. SMART mentors also were asked their impressions of program effectiveness. Additionally, participants were also asked to report their perceptions of program impact. Student and Mentor protocols were similar, but tailored to their specific audience. Question drafts were presented at an evaluation team meeting in Little Rock and revisions were made from team participants' suggestions. PROCEDURES Data for this evaluation were collected during the spring of 2005. Targeted observations were conducted during late spring, 2005 using the SOM (including 3 math-specific addendum items) and RSCA instruments. Surveys, focus groups and program-designed achievement tests were also administered during this time period. The classroom observations were conducted during February and March, 2005. Observations were scheduled for random classrooms participating in the THRIVE program on three different days. Student performance measures were administered in late spring, collection procedure. Table 3 summarizes the data 17Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 20 of 69 Table 3 Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instrument Targeted Classroom Observations SOM RSCA Number Completed/Oata Source Total 5 19 Description Surveys SMART/THRIVE Teacher Parent 10 SMART/18 THRIVE 21 SMART/35 THRIVE 25 SMART/33 THRIVE Algebra I Teacher 70 SMART/142 Student THRIVE Focus Groups Student Focus Group Mentor Focus Group 21 Participants 2 Participants Achievement Tests Attendance Data Math Benchmark Test 2003 - 2004 and 2004 - 2005 End of Course Exams ITBS SMART 2004 Attendance THRIVE 2005 Attendance 210 students 143 students Note: One SOM session was cut short due to scheduling, yielding 3 observations sheets and 3 FiSCAs. Observation sessions in which random THRIVE classes were observed. During the observation period, note forms were completed every 15 minutes. Four* sets of observation notes were completed for each SOM. Completed during Spring, 2005 THRIVE sessions. Four RSCAs were completed for each SOM._____________ Items specific to SMART and THRIVE were included in the surveys and administered to all groups in Spring, 2005. THRIVE student surveys were distributed in class and collected by researchers. THRIVE teacher surveys were distributed during a faculty meeting and administered by researchers. THRIVE parent surveys were distributed by teachers via students, returned to the school and sent to researchers. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed through the district, returned to the school and sent to researchers or sent directly to researchers._________________________ During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.  Researchers used the Student Focus Group protocol to conduct an on-site, 45- minute focus group with 2 of the 7 mentors. Researchers used data collected from three major math measures designed by independent entities and distributed throughout the LRSD for achievement data analysis. Exams were taken during the Spring of 2005._______________________ Researchers used the attendance and demographic data from SMART, 2004 and THRIVE, 2005 to examine level of participation among African American students. Data were collected from program heads and sent to researchers. 18Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 21 of 69 ACHIEVEMENT TESTS End-of-course (EOC) Algebra I test scores were used as 2004-05 outcomes for g** grade students, with 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores used as a covariate. No covariate was available for 8' grade students, because no district or state tests were administered to graders in 2003-04. The End of Course Exams were administered at the end of the academic year to all students enrolled in Algebra I during the 2004-2005 school year. The ITBS exam was administered only to O' grade students, thus outcomes for this exam were available only for 9* graders. With no S grade scores available, 2003-2004 Benchmark scores were used for covariate comparisons. Additionally, curriculum-based pre- and post- program were administered on the first and last day of both programs. Both pre- and post-program-designed exams exams were comprised of 20 items, asking students to simplify, evaluate, graph, and solve equations. The SMART exams were geared to test pre-algebra and early algebra content and the THRIVE exams were designed to examine content expected of students completing Algebra I. The pre-program exams and post-program exams were identical. These exams are provided in Appendix B. CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Trained observers completed a series of classroom visits to collect frequency data regarding observed instructional practices, use of technology and level of student engagement. Classroom teachers were advised that the observers would be present throughout the semester, but were instructed to deliver lessons as usual. A targeted procedure was used for the present study given that the observations were of the THRIVE sessions rather than of a school-wide, cross-categorical program. The majority of the observations were conducted by one researcher, with the second researcher observing for one SOM to examine inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for the joint observation was high\nobservers selected identical SOM categories 88% of the time and rated within one category 100% of the time. The standard SOM procedure involves evaluation of an entire school by visiting 10-12 randomly selected classrooms for 15 minutes each. However, the goal of this evaluation was to examine the practices within a single program, where all classrooms were participating in the same activities at the same times, not assess an entire school. Therefore, procedures were modeled from those used by Lowther, Ross, and Morrison (2003) in their examination a school laptop computer program. A total of five SOM observations were conducted. Both the RSCA and the Math Addendum items were completed at the same time. A total of 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 22 of 69 19 RSCAs were completed because one observation session was interrupted by a scheduled class dismissal. SURVEYS The program teacher surveys were administered and collected by researchers on March 5, 2005 during a faculty meeting. Student surveys were administered and collected by researchers during a March 5 class. Algebra I teacher surveys were distributed via district mail. Parent surveys were distributed through students and collected by teachers before being sent to CREP for analysis. Additional parent surveys were administered and collected by a member of the research team at the student Math Fair. FOCUS GROUPS During spring 2005, student and mentor focus groups were conducted at the THRIVE site by researchers. All students returning parental permission slips were included in the focus groups, each of which lasted 45 minutes. The mentors were contacted individually by researchers via phone, mail and email. Two of the seven mentors responded and attended. The mentor focus group interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. RESULTS The results of this evaluation are presented below and synthesized to address each research question in the Discussion section. These results are presented by measurement strategy\nhowever, the findings are synthesized across instruments to reflect each research question in the Discussion section of this report. SCHOOL OBSERVATION MEASURE (SOM) As noted previously, observers focused on the 26 instructional strategies provided in the SOM using a standard five-point rubric (0 =not observed, 1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = extensively). The results are presented with a full, categorical breakdown in Table 4. Four strategies were observed occasionally to extensively at a frequency level of at least 75% or higher. These strategies include team teaching (100%), cooperative/collaborative learning (100%), use of higher-level questioning strategies (80%), and teacher acting as a coach/facilitator (100%). The data indicates that students were engaged in collaborative learning situations with high teacher support where they were asked to use problem solving and critical thinking skills to solve problems. Strategies that were observed occasionally 20Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 23 of 69 to extensively during 40-60% of the sessions included direct instruction (lecture), higher level instructional feedback (40%), experiential hands-on learning (40%), independent inquiry or research (40%) and student discussion (60%). Student discussion heavily dominated the instructional context (60% observed frequency) with teams of students working together to solve problems and propose new ideas. Some individual seat work and independent research was observed (40% each respectively), however, these frequently were noted to lead into a group-based activity in which individuals proposed ideas to a team that was used to create a corporate answer to problems proposed by the teachers. Sustained reading was observed in one classroom. Technology was heavily used (80%) as teachers relied upon graphing calculators and problem solving with technology as an integral part of the curriculum. Teachers demonstrated different ways to solve problems and/or work towards solutions via calculator and multi-media use. High academically focused time was observed extensively (80% of the time) as was high student engagement (in 60% of the observation sessions). Since the evaluation context was an Algebra I Saturday supplementary program with specific model parameters, some instructional strategies within the SOM were not observed. These strategies included individual tutoring, ability and multi-age groupings, work centers, integration of subject areas, project-based learning, independent seatwork, sustained writing/composition and systematic individual instruction. Generally, the aggregated data reflect efficient use of class time with teachers using a team teaching approach to deliver instruction to collaborative teams of students. The aforementioned math addendum items served to capture specific strategies used frequently among math teachers. Results from observations showed that THRIVE teachers frequently emphasized conceptual understanding over rote learning 60% of the time observed. Teachers also demonstrated connections between math and daily life frequently in at least 60% of the observations. One additional strategy of high interest was teachers cultivation of students confidence. flexibility and inventiveness in doing mathematics. This was observed frequently among 80% of the observations. None of the math-specific strategies were observed extensively. 21Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 24 of 69 Table 4 School Observation Measure (SOM) Data Summary for Little Rock-SMART/THRIVE Project N = 5 The extent to which each of the following was used or present in the school..._______ Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring (teacher, peer, aide, adult volunteer) Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) Instructional Strategies Higher-level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas (interdisciplinary/thematic units) Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction (differential assignments geared to individual needs) Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teacher-generated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery (e.g. CAI, drill \u0026amp; practice) Technology as a learning tool or resource (e.g., Internet research, spreadsheet or database creation, multi-media, CD Rom, Laser disk) Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention/interest/engagement Percent None Percent Rarely Percent Occasionally Percent Percent Frequently Extensively 20.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 100.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 8Q.0 40.0 40.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 Wole\nOne SOM is comprised of approximately 8 classroom visits. 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 60.0 22Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 25 of 69 RUBRIC FOR STUDENT-CENTERED ACTIVITIES (RSCA^ The RSCA results reflect the percentage of observed sessions in which selected strategies are observed at least once. The quality of the application and the percentage of sessions in which technology was used with the observed strategy are also recorded. A descriptive summary of the RSCA results is presented in Table 5. The RSCA results suggest that the level of application with which THRIVE program teachers applied certain instructional practices, particularly with regard to cooperative learning and higher-level questioning strategies was high. Additionally, students evidenced appropriate use of technology (calculators, multimedia, and spreadsheets) in self-directed activities to create new knowledge. The most notable area of technology use was among cooperative learning groups, where students collaboratively utilized multimedia, calculators and graphing applications to solve problems\nteachers often helped direct collaborative groups. Project-based learning was not observed and although student discussion, experiential hands on learning, and independent research were applied, the level of application was limited or somewhat limited without technology use. Additionally, aggregate results suggest that technology was used in more than a third of the instances during which 5/7 remaining student-centered activities were observed and in over 25% of the instances during which 6/7 remaining activities or strategies were applied. 23Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 26 of 69 Table 5 Rubric for Student-Centered Activities (RSCA) N = 19 Student-Centered Activities Not Limited Somewhat Somewhat Cooperative Learning Project-Based Learning Higher-Level Questioning Strategies Experiential Hands-on Learning Independent Inqulry/Ftesearch Student Discussion Students as Producers of Knowledge Using Observed Application Limited Strong Application Application Strong Application Technology In Use * 8.7 13.0 8.7 21.7 47.8 60.9 100.0 26.1 56.5 56.5 56.5 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 8.7 17.4 8.7 Technoiogy Percentages Indicating Observed Levels of Application Rating Scale: 1- limited application\n4=strong application 30.4 39.1 4.3 26.1 4.3 0.0 8.7 21.7 21.7 30.4 17.4 39.1 13.0 39.1 4.3 0.0 0.0 39.1 30.4 * See addendum description of technology use SCHOOL OBSERVATION SUMMARY Analysis of data collected using SOM, the Math Addendum and RSCA during the observations revealed that THRIVE teachers are using a variety of instructional strategies aligned with Arkansas state- designed SLEs. The most striking result was the extent to which team teaching and collaborative/cooperative learning dominated the curriculum. Additionally, notable use of higher level questioning strategies and teachers acting as coaches rather than lecturers was noted among observed sessions. During the teaching sessions that were observed, the Math Addendum items revealed that teachers were frequently emphasizing conceptual understanding over rote learning. Furthermore, this practice facilitated frequent instances of promoting students confidence and flexibility in doing mathematics. Overall, students in the THRIVE program had a high level of interest and were observed being engaged in instnjction that emphasized practical and conceptual learning in a comfortable, student-centered setting. 24Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 27 of 69 SURVEY RESULTS Four surveys (Algebra I Teacher, Student, Parent, SMART/THRIVE Teacher) were administered in late March, 2005. Results for each characteristics of the respondents demographic section of the surveys. of the four instruments were examined independently. Demographic are representative\nhowever, not all respondents completed the Additionally, the total number of respondents to THRIVE items varied from the total number of SMART respondents across questionnaires. Demographic differences are described for each group. Finally, item percentages across surveys did not always total 100% because of missing input from some of the respondents (i.e., there were questions to which some people did not respond). PROGRAM PARTICIPANT SURVEY THRIVE A total of 142 students responded to items pertaining to THRIVE and 70 students responded to items pertaining to SMART'. Of the 138 THRIVE respondents who reported their ethnicity, 77% specified African- American, 7% specified Multi-Ethnic, and 4.2% specified Asian. The remaining categories of Caucasian (3.5%), Hispanic (2.8%), and Other (2.1%) were specified less frequently. A total of 63.4% of the respondents were female\n35.9% of the respondents were male. Of the 70 students responding to SMART questionnaire items and specifying demographic information, 38.6% were female and 61.4% were male. Regarding ethnicity, 82.9% of the SMART respondents specified African American, 4.3% specified Caucasian or Hispanic respectively, 2.9% specified Multi-Ethnic and 1.4% specified Other or Asian. Table 6 contains the results for THRIVE and SMART objective survey items. These results are summarized in text below. Summaries of the open ended questions are shown in subsequent Tables. The overall trend in response types was positive\nfifty percent or more students indicated agreement or strong agreement across all items. Well over eighty percent of students responding to the survey reported that team competitions made THRIVE classes more fun. Over seventy-five percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE made Algebra more enjoyable and instilled confidence in doing well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam. Over sixty percent of student respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE improved their self-confidence about math, helped them feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. Because some students participating in the THRIVE program did not participate in SMART during the previous summer, differences between respondent numbers were expected. 25Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 28 of 69 and facilitated problem solving through calculator use. A total of 66.6% of respondents indicated that THRIVE teachers helped them with problems they were having in their regular algebra class. At least one half (50.0%) of the students responding to the survey indicated that THRIVE helped improve their algebra grades and helped them understand how to apply algebra concepts in real life. In contrast to the positive trend in responses across items, two areas in which some students showed disagreement were related to generalization and application. This is somewhat consistent with responses noted within the open ended portion of the student survey where students indicated an overall satisfaction with the program but did not feel that the program changed their study habits or helped them apply information to real life situations. Additionally, more students responded neutrally to items pertaining to content, grades and application when compared to responses for items related to motivation, fun and self-confidence. Table 6 Student Survey - THRIVE N = 142 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. THRIVE items Because of THRIVE, I have learned how to use a calculator to help solve algebra problems. THRIVE makes Algebra more enjoyable. THRIVE has helped me get good grades in Algebra. I think I will do well on the Algebra Benchmark Exam because of THRIVE. In THRIVE, I have learned how algebra can be used in real life. THRIVE has made me more confident about math. My THRIVE teacher helps me with problems I am having in my algebra class. I feel comfortable asking questions in THRIVE class. Team competitions make THRIVE classes fun. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 67.6 77.5 50.0 78.9 55.6 66.2 66.2 74.7 87.3 Percent Neutral 23.9 20.4 40.9 16.2 33.8 24.7 25.4 21.1 6.3 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 8.5 2.1 8.5 4.2 10.6 7.8 8.5 4.2 2.8 26Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 29 of 69 SMART Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement for items pertaining to the SMART portion of survey were consistently above 75%. Of the 70 respondents, over 85% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART helped prepare them for Algebra I in the fall, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART made algebra more fun. Seventy-eight percent agreed or strongly agreed that the SMART program helped them remember math skills from the previous year. Students agreed or strongly agreed that they were motivated to go to their SMART classes and that the program helped them apply math to solve real-life problems across 75% of the surveys. Fewer students indicated neutral or negative responses for the SMART survey items than noted among THRIVE survey responses. Of those that indicated disagreement or strong disagreement. the item noted most frequently (4.3%) was related to application (We learned how to use math to solve reallife problems.). Overall, the trend towards agreement with items probing the attributes of the programs was positive. Table 7 presents detailed results for the SMART student survey. Table 7 Student Survey -SMART N = 70 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMART Items SMART helped me remember the math skills I learned last school year. SMART made algebra more fun. In SMART, we learned how to use math to solve real-life problems. I was motivated to go to my SMART class during the summer. Because of SMART, I was prepared to begin Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 78.6 Percent Neutral 18.6 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 2.9 81.4 75.7 75.7 88.6 14.3 15.7 18.6 5.7 1.4 4.3 1.4 1.4 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES THRIVE students had an opportunity to respond to four, open-ended questions as part of the survey. Student impressions of the SMART program were polled across all students even though SMART was not in session and not all students participated in it during the previous summer. SMART and THRIVE were evaluated separately using the same questions to preserve the integrity of their differences. Student responses are summarized below. 27Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 30 of 69 Question 1: Students were asked to comment on what they liked about the THRIVE program. The majority of responses reflected an appreciation of the programs use of competition and a sense that the program made math more fun/enjoyable. Additional comments suggested that students enjoyed having a program that allowed for review and expansion of concepts taught in the regular Algebra I classroom. Students also noted that they enjoyed the teachers and felt comfortable asking for clarification when necessary. Additionally, snacks and rewards were notably cited as positive influences of THRIVE. Table 8 summarizes what students liked about THRIVE. TABLE 8 What do you like about THRIVE? Description Makes math fun Uses competition/games in Provides expansion/review of math concepts Clarifies/Remediates confusing concepts Teachers are good/likeable Snacks People/friends in THRIVE classes Class size/Format Money/Rewards NA - responses did not pertain to question Enjoy using a calculator Provides a head start for following week in class Improves self-confidence/provides comfortable place to learn Class Time/Format TOTAL  Frequency 42 37 18 17 17 14 11 8 7 1 4 3 3 2 190 Percentage 22% 19% 9% 9% 9% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 2: When asked what they would change about the THRIVE program, the overwhelming majority of students responded that they would make no changes. Students who did comment on needed changes mostly cited a later start time or a more compressed time period (e.g., two hours rather than four hours) as potential prospects. Non-specific time changes (e.g., change time, time, different time) were also noted among open-ended comments but coded separately due to the large number of students commenting on previously cited specifics about THRIVE hours. Table 9 provides an illustration of student comments. The miscellaneous category captured unique comments made by individual students (e.g., field trips, guest speakers, PE). 28Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 31 of 69 TABLE 9 Whaf would you change about THRIVE? Description No change Less time Later start time Miscellaneous Class format/more varied activities Longer breaks Non-specific time change Snacks/lunch Enhance competition More time More peers/neighborhood school Rewards Earlier time Teacher changes TOTAL Frequency 57 17 14 11 10 8 8 8 5 4 3 3 2 2 152 Percentage 38% 11% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 100% Question 3'. Students were asked to comment on how THRIVE has helped them over the course of the semester. Most comments suggested that THRIVE helped students enhance comprehension of general Algebraic concepts. Many students also indicated that THRIVE helped improve their grades and improved their understanding of how to use a calculator to solve and graph equations. Additionally, students' comments suggested that THRIVE reinforced specific concepts (e.g., graphing equations with polynomials) and made the students feel that they were staying ahead in weekly Algebra classes. Of 150 responses, three indicated that THRIVE was not helpful\nnone indicated that it was detrimental. Table 10 summarizes the results. TABLE 10 If THRIVE has helped you, how has it helped you? Description Enhanced comprehension of Algebra Improved grades Use of calculator Reinforced specific concepts in Algebra Helps stay ahead in math Builds confidence/makes math more positive Miscellaneous (individual answers) Negative-Did not help TOTAL Frequency 63 20 18 16 14 8 8 3 150 Percentage 42% 13% 12% 11% 9% 5% 5% 2% 100% 29Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 32 of 69 Questions about SMART were analyzed. Response rates across SMART questions, although somewhat different, do not vary significantly. Question 4: When asked to identify the most appealing aspects of SMART, most comments were positive, yet nonspecific in nature. Examples included responses that alluded to liking everything about the program or how the program helped me (in general). A number of students (13%) noted that SMART prepared them for math in the fall and reduced anxiety when entering first year Algebra. Calculator use and team competition garnered notably high response rates (13% and 12% respectively). Some students made specific comments about the positive influence of the SMART teachers and others made comments about rewards delivered through the program. Response categories are provided in Table 11. TABLE 11 What do you like about SMART? Description Nonspecific positive responses (e.g.. Everything: How it helped me) More prepared for math/ reduced anxiety Using the calculator Team competitions The teachers Reinforcement and rewards Social aspects/visiting with peers from other schools The snacks Games and content delivery NA (e.g., I did not go to SMART\nI do not know) Format/time/class size TOTAL ~ Frequency 31 11 11 10 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 86 Percentage 36% 13% 13% 12% 6% 6% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 100% Question 5: Students also provided information about what aspects of the SMART program they would change. Over sixty percent of the responses favored no change. Of the remaining responses, 23% indicated a time change as appropriate. Of those, the large majority of comments suggested a later starting time rather than a reduced time period. One student noted a desire to reduce the amount of time spent at SMART. A few students who did not participate in SMART simply indicated such\nno additional comments were recorded among these respondents. The remaining responses indicated a desire to enhance the program by adding team competitions, extending the time during which SMART was available, and providing more applied skills for use in everyday situations. Data are summarized in Table 12. 30Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 33 of 69 TABLE 12 What would you change about the SMART program? Response No change Time Snacks NA (I did not go to SMART\nI like Math) More team competitions More applied skills Extend time/day and/or hours TOTAL Frequency 41 15 3 3 2 1 1 66 Percentage 62% 23% 5% 5% 3% 2% 2% 100% Question 6: When asked about how SMART helped students, the ovenwhelming majority of comments identified the programs purpose in preparing students for Algebra I as most important. Many responses also indicated the use of a calculator as instrumental in helping students solve Algebra problems. Additionally, students noted that SMART helped improve their grades and built confidence in math. TABLE 13 If SMART helped you, describe how. Response Made me feel prepared Use of calculator Built confidence in math Improved grades NA(I did not go to SMART\nI liked THRIVE) Reinforced specific concepts Miscellaneous (I would like field trips) Increased engagement/interest TOTAL Frequency 41 11 6 6 3 1 1 1 70 Percentage 59% 16% 9% 9% 4% 1% 1% 1% 100% PARENT SURVEY THRIVE A total of 35 parents responded to survey items pertaining to THRIVE. Of those, 57% were female and 40% were male. A total of 80% of parent respondents indicated that their child was African American, 8.6% specified Asian and 2.9% specified Caucasian, Hispanic and Other respectively. No parental respondents specified Multi-Ethnic as the ethnicity of their child. 31Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 34 of 69 Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement were consistently above 80% across all survey items. Overall, parents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE was a good program (94%), that they felt comfortable having their child attend classes on Saturdays (91.4%) and that they felt teachers in the program helped their children feel successful in math (91.4%). The neutral responses that were noted were made in response to items pertaining to childrens attitudes about math and improvement in grades. No negative responses to the items were reported. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses. Table 14 Parent Survey - THRIVE N = 35 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. THRIVE items The teachers in this program make my child feel that he/she can succeed. Because of this program, my child is more motivated to complete algebra homework. This program has helped improve my child's attitude about math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes on Saturdays. Because of this program, I have seen an improvement in my child's Algebra I grades. Overall, I think this is a good program. Percent Strongly Agree/Agree 91.4 88.6 82.9 91.4 80.0 94.3 Percent Percent Strongly Neutral Disagree/ 5.7 8.6 17.1 5.7 14.3 2.9 Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMART A slightly smaller number of parents (21) responded to the five survey items pertaining to SMART. Of those, 61.9% were female and 33.3% were male. Eighty-five percent of parental respondents cited their childs ethnicity as African-American. The remaining respondents indicated Asian (4.8%) or Other (4.8%) as their childs ethnicity. Ninety percent of parent respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked whether SMART did a good job of preparing children for Algebra I in the fall and improving childrens perception that they could succeed in math. Slightly over 85% of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement with items related to whether SMART improved their childs attitude about math and whether they felt comfortable sending their children to classes during the summer. A total of 76% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that 32Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 35 of 69 the program classes were easy for their children to attend. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with any of the items. Of those that responded neutrally, the highest number (14.3%) were noted for the item pertaining to whether SMART had improved attitudes about math. No parents indicated negative responses for any of the items. Table 15 Parent Survey - SMART N = 21 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. SMART Items Because of this program, my child felt like he/she could succeed in Math. The summer classes were easy for my child to attend. This program helped improve my child's attitude about Math. I am comfortable having my child attend classes during the summer. This program did a good job of preparing my child for beginning Algebra I in the fall. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 90.5 76.2 85.7 85.7 90.5 Percent Neutral 4.8 4.8 14.3 0.0 4.8 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES Question 7\nWhen asked to provide their impressions of THRIVE, many parents responses described it as a motivating math program (19%) targeting childrens math skills. Numerous comments suggested that parents characterize THRIVE as a program that improves general math skills (19%) and/or focuses on problem solving and/or critical thinking (15%). A number of parents comments also reflected an awareness of the programs use of motivating games and competition to foster interest in math (15%). The balance of the comments were positive and reflected an awareness of THRIVE as a supplemental alternative to the weekly Algebra I curriculum. 33Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 36 of 69 TABLE 16 Please tell us your impression of the THRIVE program. What do you see as taking place during the sessions? Description Helps child feel fulfilled/motivated about math Helps child improve math skills Focuses critical thinking and problem solving Integrates games and fun into math Non-specific positive commendation Practical application Provides individualized tutoring provides review of school curriculum Class format: small groups and team competition TOTAL Frequency 5 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 1 27 Percentage 19% 19% 15% 15% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 100% Question 2 and Question 3: Questions 2 and 3 addressed parents opinions of THRIVE. One third of the comments made about parents positive opinions indicated that it was motivating. Parents also noted that they liked how THRIVE provided additional help (17%) and made efforts to improve specific math skills (12%). Some parents reported global positive experiences and satisfaction with THRIVE (14%). Table 17 provides additional data regarding what parents liked about the program. Regarding parents' opinions about whether aspects of THRIVE should be changed, 29% 'O recommended no change and/or responded positively about the program. Of the comments requesting change, one third recommended expanding the breadth and length of the program. Specifically, these parents made note that more time (23%) should be allocated for THRIVE and that more students (10%) should be involved. Table 18 provides additional information about isolated comments for changing THRIVE. 34Case 4:82-cv-00866-\\/VRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 37 of 69 TABLE 17 What did you like about the THRIVE program? Description Motivating Provides additional help Non-specific positive commendation Improve math skills Class size, time, format Learning new strategies Games Parent gatherings Prepares for benchmark exam Teaches calculator skills_________ TOTAL ' Frequency 14 7 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 1 42 Percentage 33% 17% 14% 12% 7% 7% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100% TABLE 18 If anything, what would you change about the THRIVE program? Description No change Extend time/meet more frequently Expand program to more students More challenge Expand into summer Expand program to after school Get credit Later start Measurement of progress More communication between parents and teachers More funding More hands on learning More structure Transportation__________ TOTAL Frequency 9 7 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 Percentage 29% 23% 10% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% Two questions probed the operational aspects of the THRIVE program. Regarding notification and enrollment, parents comments indicated that their childrens schools (34%) and teachers (26%) were the primary sources of information about THRIVE. Children reportedly were additional sources of information (11%). A substantial percentage of parents also indicated that their childs participation in SMART the previous summer served as a source of information about THRIVE. 35Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 38 of 69 The majority of respondents suggested that transportation was not a problem. Of the four of respondents who viewed transportation as problematic, one indicated that bus services were not provided in her area. Two respondents noted that bus services were provided, but were inconsistent. Of the 28 respondents who did not identify transportation as a problem, none elaborated as to whether or not their children made use of the buses that were provided. Tables 19 and 20 provide frequency and percentage data for these questions. TABLE 19 How did you find out about THRIVE? Description Child's school Child's teacher Child SMART Child's friend District Math programs Mailings, flyers PTA Respondent is a THRIVE Teacher School Counselor TOTAL Frequency 12 9 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 35 Percentage 34% 26% 11% 9% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 100% TABLE 20 IVas transportation a problem? Please explain. Description No Yes. Bus provided, but inconsistent No. Weekend no problem Yes. Yes. No bus provided TOTAL Frequency 27 2 1 1 1 32 Percentage 84% 6% 3% 3% 3% 100% Parents also had an opportunity to respond to questions regarding the SMART summer program. These questions were exactly the same as those asked about the THRIVE program. Bearing in mind that fewer students participated in SMART than in THRIVE, it was expected that fewer parents would respond to 36Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 39 of 69 questions regarding SMART. Three respondents indicated that their child did not participate in SMART\nthese three respondents did not answer the remaining questions. Parents impressions of the SMART program were positive. The majority of parents responding indicated that the program exposed their children to a variety of methods for solving Algebra problems (24%) and improved their motivation (19%) tor math. Five parents made very general positive comments (14%) about the program and/or indicated that the teachers were integral in motivating students (10%) to learn about Algebra. TABLE 21 Please tell us your impression of the SMART program. Description Use of variety of teaching methods Improving motivation for math NA (response indicated that child did not participate in SMART) Non-specific positive commendation Teachers making math enjoyable Description of time spent in program Improving grades in math Motivating Teachers making math enjoyable TOTAL Frequency 5 4 Percentage 24% 19% 14% 3 2 1 1 1 1 21 14% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 100% 3 Parents were asked to comment on whether or not they would recommend changes being made to the program. Results suggest that many parents desire to extend the duration of the program (43%) and would like to expand the program to more students (14%). The remaining 43% of respondents indicated that they would make no changes. Table 22 provides an illustration of the comments regarding change. TABLE 22 What, if anything, would you change about SMART? Description Extend duration (weeks) No change Expand to more students TOTAL Frequency 6 6 2 14 Percentage 43% 43% 14% 100% 37Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 40 of 69 Parents were asked how they found out about SMART and whether or not transportation posed a problem for them to examine operational needs of the program. Results from these questions are summarized in Tables 23 and 24. The majority of parents indicated that they were notified about SMART through their childs school (59%). Of these respondents, a specific person (e.g., general math specialist) or department was noted as a source. Adult peers (12%) also were among sources of information notably contributing to disseminating information about SMART. Five respondents (30%) indicated that specific school personnel notified them about SMART\nof these, one was a SMART teacher. Transportation was not viewed as problematic. Of the respondents, three provided more specific information about how they traveled to and/or from SMART. None of the respondents indicated negativity toward bus or car. TABLE 23 How did you find out about the SMART program? Description Frequency Childs school Friends of parent Math Specialist at Childs School Childs teacher LRSD Math Dept Respondent is a SMART Teacher TOTAL 10 2 2 1 1 1 17 Percentage 59% 12% 12% 6% 6% 6% 100% TABLE 24 IVas transportation a problem? Description Frequency No No. Bus Provided No. Parents Drove TOTAL 13 2 1 16 Percentage 81% 13% 6% 100% 38Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 41 of 69 SMART/THRIVE TEACHER SURVEY THRIVE A total of 23 THRIVE teachers were asked to provide opinions and perceptions of SMART and THRIVE. Of those, 18 completed objective survey items for the THRIVE program. Seventeen of the respondents reported their ethnicity. Over sixty percent of these respondents specified their ethnicity as African-American\nthe remaining respondents identified their ethnicity as Caucasian (27%) or Other (5%). Regarding experience, the majority of the teachers responding to the survey had between 6-10 years of teaching experience and had worked with the THRIVE program for 3 or more years. Over 30% of respondents indicated having 1-2 years experience with THRIVE. Over 25% indicated having 5 or more years of experience with THRIVE. Teachers' responses overwhelmingly favored agreement or strong agreement with items pertaining to positive attributes among professional development, resources/materials, methodology and instructional delivery within the THRIVE program. Two items for which some teachers indicated neutrality were related to the extent to which they felt the program had improved their own ability or their students ability to use calculators. Overall, however, teachers responses suggest an overall positive perception of the program. This is consistent with the opinions shared from open-ended questions designed to glean similar information. Table 25 presents summary information from the objective items. 39Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 42 of 69 Table 25 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey - THRIVE N = 18 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following items: 1. I have received adequate professional development 2. 3. to implement this program. I have a thorough understanding of the objectives of this program. The students enjoy the planned activities. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 100.0 Percent Neutral 0.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Dont Know 0.0 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The facility at which the classes are held is adequate. Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed for this program are readily available. The daily briefing and debriefing sessions are valuable. The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators. The program has improved my students ability to use graphing calculators. The program is aligned with state and district math standards. The co-teacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) approaches are effective instructional methods for teaching and reinforcing Algebra concepts. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 94.4 94.4 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SMART Of the 18 surveys collected from THRIVE teachers, ten contained completed items pertaining to SMART. Demographic data from all ten suggests that this cohort consisted of teachers with more than 5 years of teaching experience. The majority of respondents reported between 6-10 years experience (60%). Teachers with 11-15 years experience comprised 20% of the respondent group and teachers with 16 or more years comprised the remaining 20% of the group. The majority of respondents indicated having four or more years experience with THRIVE (70%) and all respondents indicated having 4 or more years with SMART (100%). With regard to ethnicity, the majority of respondents specified African American (70%). The remaining 30% specified Caucasian. Respondents indicated 100% agreement or strong agreement across eight of the ten items. For two items probing teachers perceptions of how SMART improved their ability or their students ability to use graphing calculators, total agreement was noted among 90% of the surveys. The remaining 10% of the survey 40Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 43 of 69 respondents indicated neutral responses for these two items. None of the respondents indicated disagreement or strong disagreement for any of the items. Table 26 summarizes this data. Table 26 SMART/THRIVE Teacher Survey - SMART N = 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following items: I have received adequate professional development to implement this program. I have a thorough understanding of the objectives of this program. The students enjoy the planned activities. Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 100.0 Percent Neutral 0.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 0.0 10. The facility at which the classes are held is adequate. Materials (books, copies, equipment) needed for this program are readily available. The daily briefing and debriefing sessions are valuable. The program has improved my ability to use graphing calculators. The program has improved my students' ability to use graphing calculators. The program is aligned with state and district math standards. The co-teacher (THRIVE) and Mentor (SMART) approaches are effective instructional methods for teaching and reinforcing Algebra concepts. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES In addition to closed-ended items, THRIVE Teachers also had an opportunity to respond to four open- ended questions as part of the survey. The open ended items also gave the teachers who were involved with the SMART program an opportunity to provide comments regarding the program from the prior summer. A summary of these questions and respective responses are listed below. Question 1. In response to the question, What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use in your classroom? teachers listed a total of 41 distinct responses. The most frequently made comments related to strategies pertaining to games (29%) and calculator applications (22%). Strategies relating to cooperative learning, computer applications and general strategies were also noted. The results are found in Table 27. 41Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 44 of 69 TABLE 27 What SMART/THRIVE strategies do you use in your classroom? Description Games Calculator applications Cooperative learning Specific Strategies (warm-up/review) Computer applications (beyond calculators) General strategies TOTAL Frequency 12 9 9 7 2 2 41 Percentage 29% 22% 22% 17% 5% 5% 100% Question 2: In response to the question, What are the most/least beneficial aspects to the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE?, teachers listed a total of 24 responses. Beneficial aspects of the professional development portion of the SMART and THRIVE programs most frequently noted were: new strategies, opportunities to collaborate with other teachers, hands-on application, co-teaching component, and application in regular algebra class. Three comments were made about the least beneficial aspects of the program\nall three noted time constraints as a major limitation. See Table 28 for a summary. TABLE 28 What are the most/least beneficial aspects to the professional development component of SMART and/or THRIVE? Description Hands-on application Opportunities to collaborate with other teachers Application in regular algebra class New strategies Time is an issue TOTAL Frequency 7 5 5 4 3 24 Percentage 29 21 21 17 13 100% Question 3: A total of 14 comments were made in response to the question, 'If you were a teacher tor SMART during the past summer, are there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program? The overwhelming majority of comments cited SMART as a strong pre-algebra preparation program. Additionally, teachers noted the following comments about SMART: reinforcing concepts, fostering technology awareness, improving teacher relationships, and preparing students for 42Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 45 of 69 algebra. Two teachers noted a desire to expand and continue the SMART program. See Table 29 for a summary. TABLE 29 If you were a teacher for SMART during the past summer, are there any additional comments that you would like to make about the SMART Program? Description Reinforcing concepts Preparing for Algebra Expansion Fostering teacher relationships Fostering technology awareness TOTAL Frequency 6 4 2 1 1 14 Percentage 43% 29% 14% 7% 7% 100% ALGEBRA I TEACHER SURVEY SMART Demographic information from the Algebra I Teacher survey show that of the twenty-five Algebra I teachers who responded to six survey items pertaining to SMART 68% were female and 28% were male. A total of 44% of respondents specified their ethnicity as Caucasian. Thirty-six percent specified African American and 12% specified Multi-Ethnic. The remaining categories of Asian and Hispanic were not specified by any of the respondents. The number of respondents indicating that they had worked for SMART or THRIVE in the past comprised 44% percent of the total group\nfifty-two percent indicated not having worked with either program. Few respondents (8%) reported having fewer than 5 years teaching experience and the majority of respondents (total 56%) reported having 11 or more years of experience. In contrast to response trends from the parents, students and THRIVE teachers surveyed, Algebra I teachers' responses to SMART items showed slightly more varied distribution across the survey scale (Strongly Agree/Agree-Neutral-Strongly Disagree/Disagree-Dont Know). Over 80% of the teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that SMART positively impacted student achievement in math and effectively enabled students to use technology to solve algebra problems. Eighty percent of respondents indicated agreement or strong agreement when asked to determine the extent to which they agreed that SMART helped students become more confident of their abilities in algebra. A little over 72% of responses indicated agreement or strong agreement with the statement that SMART offered strategies that could be used in the 43Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 46 of 69 Algebra I classroom and 65% agreed or strongly agreed that SMART offered strategies that could be used in the Algebra I classroom. When asked to judge whether SMART had helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students, just over 48% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Eight percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, while 24% remained neutral and 20% indicated that they did not know. Table 30 Algebra I Teacher Survey - SMART N = 25 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The program has... Positively impacted student achievement in math Helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students Helped students become more confident of their abilities in Algebra Effectively enabled students to use technology to solve Algebra problems Facilitates students' meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts Offered me strategies that I use in my own classroom Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 88.0 Percent Neutral 4.0 Percent Strongly Disagree/ Disagree 0.0 Percent Don't Know 8.0 48.0 80.0 88.0 72.0 68.0 24.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 0.0 16.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 8.0 12.0 8.0 16.0 THRIVE Among responses from the 33 Algebra I teachers who responded to the six THRIVE items, 66.7% were female and 24.2% were male. Reports of teaching experience and experience with THRIVE and SMART were comparable to those noted among the group responding to SMART. The demographic distribution of this group was also similar to that noted among SMART respondents (39.4% Caucasian, 36.4% African American, and 12.1% Multi-Ethnic). Over 84% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE effectively enabled students to solve problems using technology. Eighty-one percent agreed that THRIVE positively impacted student achievement in math. Over 75% agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE facilitated conceptual understanding of algebra and helped students become more confident in Algebra. Seventy-two percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that THRIVE offered strategies that could be used in the Algebra I classroom. The same percentage of respondents (48%) as those responding to the same item about SMART agreed or 44Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 47 of 69 strongly agreed that THRIVE had closed the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students. A total of 18% remained neutral about this item, 6.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 24.2% indicated that they did not know. Table 31 Algebra I Teacher Survey - THRIVE N = 33 Percent Percent 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The program has... Positively impacted student achievement in math Helped close the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students Helped students become more confident of their abilities in Algebra Effectively enabled students to use technology to solve Algebra problems Facilitates students meaningful understanding of algebraic concepts Offered me strategies that I use in my own classroom Strongly Percent Strongly Agree/ Agree 81.8 48.5 75.8 84.9 75.8 72.7 Neutral Disagree/ Disagree Percent Dont Know 3.0 0.0 12.1 18.2 6.1 24.2 9.1 0.0 9.1 6.1 3.0 0.0 3.0 6.1 9.1 12.1 9.1 12.1 OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES To further evaluate teachers perceptions of SMART and THRIVE, four open-ended questions were administered to all district Algebra I teachers, regardless of whether or not they were directly involved in the programs. Tables 32 and 33 illustrate how SMART and THRIVE programs are perceived among ail Algebra I teachers polled in Little Rock. Since not all of the Algebra I teachers polled were SMART/THRIVE teachers, it was important to gather information about teachers awareness of both programs. Question 1: A total of 50 comments were made when teachers were asked to briefly describe their understanding of the SMART program. SMART was cited as a strong pre-algebra preparation program by the large majority of respondents. Algebra I teachers comments reflected a general understanding of the nature and target population, and several noted specific elements about its focus on promoting understanding Algebra I concepts through use of technology, particularly among at-risk populations. Results are summarized in Table 32. 45Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 48 of 69 Table 32 Please briefly describe your understanding of the SMART Program. Description Program designed to provide a preview of Algebra I concepts and build math confidence Program designed to integrate calculators Frequency 20 Percentage 40% 10 20% Identified time (day) and location of program Program designed to motivate students and make Algebra I fun Identified program for grades 8 and 9 only 14% 8% 8% Program designed to target at-risk children Program designed to address ARK and ACTAAP goals___________________________ TOTAL 6% 4% 50 100% 7 4 4 3 2 Question 2: When Algebra I teachers were asked to briefly describe their understanding of the THRIVE program, a total of 55 comments were made. THRIVE was most frequently characterized as a supplement to the Algebra I curriculum designed to bolster concepts taught in school. Teachers also generally described THRIVE program's time (Saturdays), location and relationship to SMART. Additionally, Algebra I teachers made comments about the motivational nature of the program as well as its purpose in reinforcing principles for various standardized tests (e.g.. Benchmark and ACCTAP). Results are summarized in Table 33. 46Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 49 of 69 TABLE 33 Please briefly describe your understanding of the THRIVE program. Description Program designed to supplement Algebra I concepts and build math confidence Identified time (day) and location of program Frequency 23 Percentage 42% 10 18% Related to or a follow-up to SMART Program designed to motivate students and make Algebra I fun Program designed to address standardized Benchmark tests, ARK and ACTAAP goals Program designed to integrate calculators 10 18% 9% 7% 4% Program designed to target at-risk children TOTAL 2% 55 100% 5 4 2 1 Questions 3 (Table 34) and 4 (Table 35). Questions three and four were designed to gather information about teachers perceptions of effective and ineffective components of SMART and THRIVE. These questions did not differentiate between the two programs. Responses suggested that teachers evaluative open-ended comments for both programs were similar. Responses to question 3 yielded complimentary commentary describing the efficacious elements of the programs. Question 4 yielded comments describing the programs shortcomings. TABLE 34 What do you see as the most effective aspects of the SMART and/or THRIVE programs? Description Enriches Algebra concepts in authentic contexts Integrates calculatorAechnology use Reinforces Algebra concepts Fosters motivation and integrates fun into teaching Fosters confidence and success Enhances peer relationships/collaborative learning Enhances professional development Provides tutoring for children having trouble with Algebra I Helps prepare for standardized tests Emphasizes co-teaching TQTAL Frequency 10 10 8 5 4 2 1 1 1 1 43 Percentage 23% 23% 19% 12% 9% 5% 2% 2% 2% 2% 100 47Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 50 of 69 TABLE 35 What do you see as the feast effective aspects or areas in need of improvement? Description Need to serve broader group of students Over-reliance on calculator More funding needed No direct evaluation of the program (grades) Enrollment/recruitment Too much emphasis on games Space TOTAL Frequency 9 4 3 2 2 2 1 23 Percentage 39% 17% 13% 9% 9% 9% 4% 100% FOCUS GROUP RESULTS PROGRAM PARTICIPANT FOCUS GROUP The questions asked of the selected students were designed to glean more information about their perceptions of THRIVE and the perceived effects of participation in the program. Each focus group began by asking students to describe THRIVE. A little over one third of the comments (36%) indicated that the students viewed THRIVE as a program that focused on math tutoring. An additional 21% of participants indicated that THRIVE made math more fun. Other comments referenced THRIVE as a (standardized) test-preparation program, a program designed to build specific math skills and improve grades, and/or a program that used competition and snacks to help motivate students interest in math. Some students made note of the heavy use of calculators in instruction. In a similar vein, students noted that they thought the purpose of THRIVE was to help struggling students, improve math scores, provide differentiated instruction and improve district math programs. When asked to describe more discrete details of the Saturday program, student participants frequently noted use of game play and rewards to facilitate teaching and test taking skills in Algebra 1. To get a better sense of students perceptions of math in general, respondents were asked to comment on their level of comfort or dislike in math. Almost half (46%) of the student participants indicated that they have not traditionally liked math, but have enjoyed it more through THRIVE. Twenty-three percent of respondents noted always having enjoyed math. Two students (15%) noted not liking math. One student noted having mild disdain for math and another reportedly enjoyed math but felt that Algebra I was difficult. Students were asked to provide opinions of their overall student satisfaction of the program. When asked whether or not they liked THRIVE, all respondents replied positively. When probed about why they liked the 48Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 51 of 69 program, fewer individuals provided further commentary. Of those who did, hands-on activities and the personal, comfortable environment were noted as elements that made them feel more confident. Games, rewards and use of competition in math application were also noted as positive attributes. None of the respondents indicated negative feelings toward the program in response to this question, although one student recommended that the program start later in the day. When asked whether they would recommend THRIVE to other students, half of the participants (10) responded. No negative responses to this question were noted. When asked to elaborate, the majority of respondents who did not respond with a simple yes noted that the program would be particularly appropriate for students struggling with Algebra and/or those students who desire to get ahead in Algebra. Students also were asked to comment on specific changes that they would foresee as improvements to THRIVE. Among those who responded, the most frequently noted request for change related to the time or duration of the program (4 respondents). Three students indicated they would make no changes, and two students indicated that they would like to get credit for THRIVE. The remaining responses were noted among individuals and are listed in Appendix C. Because students come to THRIVE with a variety of instructional backgrounds, the next two questions addressed whether the students felt that THRIVE changed how they approached math problems and whether new ways of studying math had emerged as a result of participating in THRIVE. Over a third of the respondents indicated that THRIVE had given them different ways to solve problems. Individual comments suggested that THRIVE helped students improve grades, get ahead in class and use calculators in problem solving. One student indicated that THRIVE made math less intimidating\nanother suggested that the practice it provided made classroom concepts easier to grasp. None of the respondents indicated that THRIVE had significantly changed how they studied math. When further probed, it was noted that students perceived this question as one pertaining to test-taking and test preparation. They indicated that they continued to prepare for traditional tests as they did before participating in THRIVE. The core purpose of the question was to determine whether students applied study strategies learned in THRIVE to Algebra I class. Although it is apparent that students felt THRIVE helped them in Algebra I, their responses did not indicate that it significantly changed their study habits. When asked how THRIVE is specifically helping in Algebra, the three most frequently made comments related to the programs role in reviewing material presented in Algebra I classes, improving grades and 49Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 52 of 69 helping apply concepts. Other comments were proposed by individuals\nhowever, all but one related to THRIVE supporting math-specific needs through basic instruction that complimented but could be differentiated from classroom practices. Three probe questions were asked as follow-up. The first probe helped elicit information about how calculators serve as facilitative devices in THRIVE. One student stated that calculators could be used as a crutch and should be relied upon less heavily\nhowever, another student noted the use of calculators as helpful in solving problems more efficiently. Additional comments included references to calculators as instruments that could be used to do anything (not merely calculations) and tools that reduce the amount of thinking\" required to solve problems. Regarding the use of games and competitions, students responses suggest that they help reinforce concepts, make concepts easier to understand, make time spent learning math more fun. and help retention. When asked how students apply strategies learned in THRIVE to Algebra I classrooms. two students noted that THRIVE gives them more practice. Other students reported learning different ways to solve problems and having information from the Algebra class reinforced as helpful. Additional comments are noted in Appendix D. Since Benchmark exams play a significant role in district-level evaluations of math programs, students were asked to comment about their performance expectations on the exams as well as whether or not they felt their THRIVE experience would enhance their performance. Over 50% of respondents said they felt ready/prepared to take the Algebra subject area exams. Three students indicated that they were unsure about whether their efforts would transfer or not and one student reported feeling that he had more tricks (strategies) for solving some of the Benchmark problems than he did before attending THRIVE. Students were asked to comment on what Algebra I would be like without THRIVE or SMART. Well over one third of respondents indicated that math/algebra would be difficult and/or that they would have to study harder to keep up in class. Other comments indicated that it would be difficult to remember concepts and problems would be more complicated. One student noted that he would not have taken Algebra this year had he not been enrolled in THRIVE. 50Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 53 of 69 MENTOR FOCUS GROUP The questions posed to the SMART mentors were designed to glean information about the mentors perceptions of both SMART and THRIVE. Specifically, the purpose was to gather data about how the programs affected students. Two of the eight THRIVE mentors attended the focus group. As mentors, their jobs were reported as conducting icebreakers with the students such as scrambled math problems and providing individual help/instruction during the class sessions. While the teacher is providing instruction, the mentors walk the room and offer assistance to any student in need. The mentors viewed SMART as beneficial citing benefits that extend through pre-calculus. In describing SMART, the mentors stated that the program is exactly what the name entails Summer Math Algebra Readiness Training.\" They noted that the SMART program trains students on the graphing calculator for their first year in algebra. It makes them successful, otherwise the kids that dont go they just buy the calculator and dont know how to use it. According to the two focus group participants, participation in SMART boosts students confidence, they begin enter algebra knowing they have a head start on the major topics like order of operations, factoring, inequalities, and stuff like that. The mentors indicated that they would recommend SMART to other students because it will help them in the long run. One mentor noted that, \"Id recommend this to students who hate math, cause you get in there, give up 2 weeks of your summer, and then come out saying 'Wow, I learned and had so much fun. Especially in the competitions.' When asked how working as mentors for SMART benefited them, the mentors attributed ail of their algebra knowledge to their work with SMART. Additionally, it was noted that the program helped the mentors learn to work with students of different ages. learn teaching techniques, and new learning techniques for themselves. When asked about THRIVE, the mentors described it as the extension of SMART. The SMART program was described as a program that, gets students going, and THRIVE keeps students going by retaining their skills, tricks, and calculator skills throughout the year. However, neither tutor had participated in THRIVE so all knowledge of THRIVE is from their peers. The mentors concluded that THRIVE must be good to get you up on Saturdays because students hate to miss it. They love it. 51Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 54 of 69 ATTENDANCE Attendance data were available for 143 Thrive students. A total of eight Thrive sessions were held once every two weeks during the school year. Attendance rates ranged from 81 % to 100%, with an average attendance rate of 90% (see Figure 1). A plurality of students {n = 64,44.8%) attended all sessions, while 30.0% (n=43) missed one session, 21.7% (n=31) missed two sessions, and 3.5% (n=5) missed three sessions (see Figure 2). SMART students (n=210) attended up to eight sessions held during the summer. SMART attendance rates ranged from 94% to 100%, with an average attendance rate of 97% (see Figure 3). The vast majority of students (n=183,87.1%) missed no sessions, while 10.9% {n = 23) missed one session, and 2% (n=4) missed two or more sessions (see Figure 4). 52Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 55 of 69 Figure 1. Thrive Attendance Rate by Session. Figure 2. Number of Students by Number of Sessions Missed: Thrive. 70  SOSO 40  10  53 3 0  2 0  0 6 4 T 0 4 3 T 1 3 1 T 2 0= T 3 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 56 of 69 Figure 3. SMART Attendance Rates by Session. Figure 4. Number of Students by Number of Sessions Missed\nSMART. 20 0  150  1 00  if' 1 83 50  HD 54 0 T 0 T 1 2 4 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 57 of 69 STUDENT PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSESSMENT 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 MATH BENCHMARK AND EOC SCORES For ninth graders, a 4 (Treatment Status) X 2 (African American vs. Other) analysis of covariance was performed on Algebra I EOC scores, using 2003-04 Benchmark scores and free lunch status as covariates. Effect size estimates were computed for the ninth grade programs by subtracting the adjusted mean for the comparison group from the adjusted mean for each program group, then dividing by the pooled-within groups standard deviation. Standardized (z) scores (with overall M = 0.00 and SO = 1.00) were computed for Benchmark Math scale scores and EOC Algebra I scale scores by subtracting the district mean from each score and dividing by the district standard deviation. Mean z-scores were then computed for comparison students and students participating in any program configuration by race to describe relative shifts in the achievement gap across years. For eighth graders, a descriptive analysis was conducted by computing the percentages of students at various levels of proficiency for each treatment condition. Because very few nonAfrican American students participated in any of these programs in eighth grade (n = 11), eighth grade comparisons were conducted only for African American students. All results for Benchmark and EOC data were derived from a pool of students whose scores on both exams were available. Algebra I EOC test: Ninth Grade. The ANCOVA model, which explained 55.9% of the variance in 2004-05 Algebra I EOC scores, revealed two significant main effects: 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (F|,a45 = 855,4, p \u0026lt;.001), used as a covariate, and treatment status (F3345 = 6.10, p \u0026lt;.001). Follow-up tests indicated that the adjusted mean scores for SMART students (M=175.58, ES = +0.28), Thrive students (AT = 187.88, ES = +0.56), and students attending both programs (M= 189.77, ES = +0.60) were all significantly higher than the adjusted comparison group mean (Af=163.42\nsee Figure 5). There were no main or interaction effects of student race. 55Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 58 of 69 Figure 5. Effect Size Estimates by Program: 2004-05 Ninth Grade Algebra I End-of-course Test. 0.70 - 0.60 - 0.56 0.60 0.50 0.40------ 0.30 0.20-------- 0.10 0.00 0.28 SMART Thrive Both Table 36 provides a breakdown of mean Algebra I test scores by race and treatment status. As can be seen in the table, all program means were significantly higher (p \u0026lt; .05) than the comparisons means within each racial category. Table 36. 2004-05 Algebra I Observed and Covariate-adjusted EOC Test Means by Race and Treatment Condition: Ninth Grade Race Program Mean Non-AA Comparison SMART Thrive Both 184.47 201.07 Adjusted Mean 163.65 178.54 SD ES African American Comparison SMART Thrive Both 186.33 187.30 155.84 163.18 45.22 45.16 52.81 40.62 180.49 192.23 202.00 172.61 187.87 192.15 39.29 53.64 35.72 150 14 0 3 581 70 13 23 -t-0.34 -1-0.54 -^0.21 -hO.56 -hO.66 N Note. All Smart, Thrive, and Both means are significantly higher than comparison group mean within racial category at p \u0026lt;.05. Note. Total SD = 43.93. Note. Scores were derived from 9\" grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 56Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 59 of 69 Supplementary analyses indicated that students in any of the three program groupings were more likely to achieve at Basic, Proficient, or Advanced proficiency levels than the comparison group, while the comparison group had a large percentage of students (42.1%) achieving at a Below Basic level (see Table 37, Figure 6). Further, as shown in Figure 7, African American students participating in any of the three program configurations (z- -0.16) scored more than one standard deviation below other students in the comparison condition (z= +0.90) on 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics, but had a nearly equal score on the 2004-05 Algebra I test (z= +0.42) relative to comparison students (z= +0.50). Table 37 Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test Algebra I Proficiency Level Program Comparison SMART Thrive Both n % within program n % within program n % within program n % within 1-Below Basic 409 42.1% 15 17.0% 4 25.0% 2 6.7% 2-Basic 347 35.7% 45 51.1% 6 37.5% 13 43.3% 3-Proficient 174 17.9% 22 25.0% 3 18.8% 11 36.7% 4-Advanced 41 4.2% 6 6.8% 3 18.8% 4 _____________________________program Note. Scores were derived from 3^ grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 13.3% 57Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 60 of 69 IVE ISON 58 Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 61 of 69 Figure 7. Mean Z-score by Program Status and Race\n2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics and 2004-05 Algebra I. Algebra I EOC test: Eighth Grade. As shown in Figure 8, African American students who attended SMART (73.3%), Thrive (69.7%), or both programs (71.9%) were more likely to achieve at Proficient or Advanced Levels than the comparison group (58.6%\nsee Table 38. Figure 8). Comparison group students were more likely than either of the three program groups to achieve at Below Basic (12.2%) or Basic (29.3%) levels. 59Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 62 of 69 Table 38 Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test (African American Students) Algebra I Proficiency Level Program Comparison SMART Thrive Both n % within program n % within program n % within program n % within program 1-Below Basic 10 12.2% 6.7% 3.0% .0% 2-Basic 24 29.3% 20.0% 27.3% 28.1% 3-Proficient 35 42.7% 60.0% 17 51.5% 16 50.0% 4-Advanced 13 15.9% 13.3% 18.2% 21.9% Note. Scores were derived from Sf\" grade students with available EOC scores from 2004-2005 and Benchmark scores from 2003-2004. 60 1 1 0 3 9 2 9 9 6 7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3996-2 Filed 12/27/2005 Page 63 of 69 Figure 8. Percentage of Students by Proficiency Level and Program: 2004-05 8* Grade Algebra I End-of-Course Test (African American Students). 60  50  40  c 03 O O Q. 30  20  10 PROGRAM ----------- COMPARISON -------- smart ---------thrive ----------- BOTH 1 -Below Basic 2-Basic 3-Proficient 4-Advanced 0  T T T T Proficiency Level 2004-2005 MATH ITBS SCORES (9 GRADE ONLY) ITBS Mathematics NCE scores: Grade. The ANCOVA model, which explained 70.5% of the variance in ITBS Mathematics NCE scores revealed two significant main effects: 2003-04 Benchmark Mathematics scale scores (Fuses =\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":7,"next_page":8,"prev_page":6,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":72,"total_count":317,"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":18},{"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":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":2},{"value":"Florida","hits":2}],"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":13},{"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":"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":"1982","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":1492,"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":11},{"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":261},{"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":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":309},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":310},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}