{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_55","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-06"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/55"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org June 28, 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 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 RECEIVED JUL - 2 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 June 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 2:~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Scott Richardson1 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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL - 2 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for June 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 June 28, 2007, 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. SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 ecatcutate6\nt6fii 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 P-MW3J-\n2011m1stnErruoos.ars1ateEoii6aation\"\nEio61at@nsmiM fo)(aW'sJ l(baailotments:of Sta ta E ounoatidffErodiog:'.ca(gjia.ted'ro\nJ'.E.Yl707$t W'.M 2001-. .sub1ect'lo:\"'oecioaicadiustmentsWefe:IDallfi D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Baied$n:t6e Jnformation a'lailatile':t6e\nADE:ca1cu1ated\nat: M\n3ffl0bl461W 06107\n, suofe'ct]o,penoojc agjijstrijeijtsl E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 ~$'\"rr1he:lntolmatio1.tavaila61eJJtiaADE\n]alculateciCMav13,1f20oifo1ii@ D676Z!w6ieclJo:oiru5cfic aaiustmentsl G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 3-1,i,200'.Z. tQtalea..$:t 3:925'!136r'AAllotineijt , :21\n4 sub1ect to perjoaic aajustmeiiJI H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 rnswwuans11ora\na6/011at\nMZ311t20QZSweta ltfimOatmeh\\s!calcillaffilJ\nfarfEYJ06107(.aCMaw3j)2001(sy6jectWfpefroa@ a8fystnieb@ifi1 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 In September 2006, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 06/07 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. In March 2007, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 In March 2007, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2007, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $2,826,768.68 NLRSD - $666,435.46 PCSSD - $2, 148,894.46 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 4 7 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the SeWement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual .as of June 30, 2007 Obligaoon fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Sefflement Agreement. Q . 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. ActualaS of June 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongrnng through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996.  A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory educatioo programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 199~ and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data  element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March '28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued} A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b} the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum . alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT} on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervision. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unit9ry status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued} The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede deseg reg a ti on. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 28 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of resuJts of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual.as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executiv summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 1~. 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its e~utive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Educafion reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. CirJ1trie~11h200Z,lnei\u0026lt;aitsas:stafirso:ara\"of~Eaucati@evjeweatafictaoofoYWID l?Mtiffifits executjvasummary focthe monthof.Qa--g/1 42 VI. REMEDIATION A Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NGA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTMP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, 'The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nar:,d signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a\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_117","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/117"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatiin 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org May 31, 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. 1 723 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 RECEIVED JUN - 4 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAT\\ON MOHITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol A venue, 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 May 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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECENEO )\\}~ - 4 1001 Off\\CE Of Q\\\\\\llG OESEGREG~1\\0\\t 11\\0tt\\1 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2007. :e~ Scott Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 31, 2007, 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. 1 723 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW JUN -4 2007 PLAINTIFFS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State  Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Based onJhe infQI!Ilafon availa6Teat AoJil 30, 2001, ~~lculated the State Eoundation -Eui]dingJo[E~{06707\nsubjectto pe,riodjc adjustmenis1 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 I 30 200 . aistributions of State Founaatio !,,.RSD - [he calculated for FY 06/07 at A. ii 0 12007 s f oiTowsl RSD-$ D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 mation avail I th ADE calculated at A i 30 2007 fo Yi eriodc adus E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2007 at,on avaiJaole the ADE calculatecl at er'oaic acfust ents It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 ailable, the ADE calculated at,Ao.....,._='-,.\n::.\n,\n,...,._\"\"\"\"'_ ...___ ____ ...,____=--...,..-=--====justments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Pistril5utions for FY 06/07 at April 30, 2007, totalea $12,479,571. Allotment calculated for FY 06/07 was ~15 171,274 subject to Qeriodic adustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 istributions for FY 06 07 at A ril 30 2007 lie allotments calculated for FY 06/07 at A ril 30 2007 subject to perioaiq acrustments were J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 In September 2006, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 06/07 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. In March 2007, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 In March 2007, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2007, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $2,826,768.68 NLRSD - $666,435.46 PCSSD - $2,148,894.46 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 schc ,1 year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 schc\"'! year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 schc ,, year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 scho')l year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase bt.:ses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongumg, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 4 7 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distrib1Jted accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for ttie buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGAT1ONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date .J1!y 1 ~ jdnuary 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. \"~tual as of May 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. t'rojecteu ~nding Date Payment d.,_ date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Proce~ .... and dir 11.,ute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected i::11ding Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Final payrn\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;nt was distributed July 1994. R. Upcr 1r\n:in request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97 /98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. .\\ ctual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element ,that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee.  Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance . was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education r-_ -\"Tls on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to  take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education pn .. .\nirams on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for tile previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education p~c6:-ams on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervision. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 111. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. cif this report. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as ot May 31, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect inf.nrmation and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standin ommittee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The comrratee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work _, the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that come !Jefore the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE ,~ in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 28 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing  30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status oflhe bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued} The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. !n October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII}. The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 3 6 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for tile month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to 'he prim~.  3 of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued)  On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its ex\u0026lt;\u0026gt;~utive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT ,., .. d its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT ,,.. .... d its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and I s executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 1 ~. 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and '.'.\n, executive summary for the month of July . . 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of1\"-esults of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the prir .. . ' : of the SE\" - nent Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 1 , 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March.  On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arl\u0026lt;ansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and tts executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to t i.ie principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the ,  ciples of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT c\u0026gt;nd its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT ~. nd its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT ,'1d its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executjve summary for the month of March. Pn MaY, 14, 2007, ttie 6rl\u0026lt;ansas State Boara of Ed!J..fation reviewed and a9-i::1roveo the PMT and its executive sy_mmaty for the month of Amill 42 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were ~onducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A Schqol Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. - Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the AD E's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their_ efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual L .. :if May 31, 2007 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove fl~mentary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwetit Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The won\u0026lt;shop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On Aug .... st 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was present\n... rj during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 99Q of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achieve,nent was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshup was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTMP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters.  54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 5 8 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service\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_108","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/108"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner Educatiin 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org April30,2007 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 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 b ~ ~:tl::\n::::J::::1 ~:~c,1/to Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 1 200/ 425 West Capitol, Suite 340fJlGRts,0Ff!cta Little Rock, AR 72201 ~r101r Rib 'N!r Ofi/Nq Mr. M. Samuel Jones ID Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little RockSchool 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 April 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ,r o11 o ~ ~Sm~ 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  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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARK.ANS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2007. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, General Counsel 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 April 30, 2007, 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 Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co!!Ec1:,vEo EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAY - WESTERN DIVISION l 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DESE~fftf:,s iuJ iifON!TORJNG V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 ~ on th~ inforl}l~tio11-avaJl4bje at ~March 317'2007\nthe ADEcalculatecf!tfie State.Eoundation ,fundiogj or,FY) )6,L07\n, subject to oeriodic adiustments'J 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 e allotments of State Founaat1on Eu 2,00Z,\n,SUbJ~eriog\"jc adjustments, D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 a._ b6LO E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 e~sed_gn the info . .  he ADE calculated at 06707, sul:fect to ts. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 i07 at March 31, was $J5,l71 .2=-7. 4... = -.:.:.l:Q-1'1,,lU,,=~~~-- H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 In September 2006, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 06/07 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. In March 2007, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal .installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 In March 2007, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2007, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $2,826,768.68 NLRSD - $666,435.46 PCSSD - $2, 148,894.46 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD -6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 4 7 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each, and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1 . Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element . that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, c1 planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with ( 1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the AD E's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued)  2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. declared the LRSD unitary and released the district from federal court supervision. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the school districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 22 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings . and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the . Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 28 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing . 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the  report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT . and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: ( 1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of Nqvember. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July.  38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. 42 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued} In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Da'l{son Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 19.99, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's  Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued} On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of . Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accoun~ability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in sc\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_1764","title":"Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), motion to refer to mediator, and corrected certificates of service.","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["2007-04/2007-06"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management (ODM), motion to refer to mediator, and corrected certificates of service."],"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/1764"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["56 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of appointment of Judge Roaf as director of Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, motion to refer to mediator; Court of Appeals, corrected certificates of service; District Court, two letter-orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    N0.478 P.2 RECEIVED !AST/sl~,;QRT ISTRrcr ARKAN~s APR O g 21117 APR O g 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT co~s w. McCORMACK C EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARXANSAS-ep...:._  lERK WESTERN DMSION DEP ci.ER\"i( UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DIS1RICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Joshua Intcrve.nors appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth - Circuit from the Order of the Ea.stem Dis1rict of Arkansas, the Honorable William R.. Wilson, entered in this case on February 23, 2007. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 501-374-3758 ::~~ CERTIFICATE Of SER.VICE I certify that on April 9, 2007, I have filed the foregoing with the Cleric of the Court and lJC?Ved on all counsel of record.  Isl John W. Walker JVHN W WALKER PA N0 . 478 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Btoadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: A.pril 9, 2007 To: Margie Poweli Office of Desegregation Monitoring Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Appeal Sauler: John W. Walker P . 1 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ ____ (including cover !1heet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL - \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this mcsimilcmessago is attmncyprivileaedandcoofidential information intended ,_ only for the use of the individual or entity named above. J! the reader of this message is not !he intended m:ipicm. or the employee or agent responsi\"ble tO deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disui.butioll or copying of this communication is strictly prolaibitcd. If you have roccived this i:oJll!JllDUcation in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the oripial message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. ,. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOA SUPPLEMENT RECEIVED APR 1 2 2007 0FACE0F IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COUR'isEGREGATION M0NIT0RING EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS Please note any add itions or deletions to the style of the case from the style listed on the docket sheet (or anach an amended docket sheet with the final style of case) Caption: Little Rock Sch et al v. Pulaski Cty Sch et al Case No: 4:82cv00866 Date: 4/11/07 Appellant (s) Joshua lntervenors, et al Appellant's Attorney: John W Walker Appellee (s): Little Rock School District et al Appellee's Attorney: Christopher J Heller ( see docket sheet for additional attorneys) Court Reporter(s): Christa Newburg, Cheryl Nelson, Elaine Hinson, Genie Power- 600 W Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Name of Person who prepared appeal: Doris Collins Length of Trial (# of days) Fee Paid? Y/N: IFP Granted Pending IFP Motion Y/N Pending? Y/N 3 Days y Counsel Retained/Appointed/Pro Se Pending Post Local Interest Simultaneous Judgment Motions? Y/N Release? Y /N Y/N Reta ined I N y y CRIMINAL CASES/PRISONER PRO SE CASES ONLY Is defendant incarcerated? Reporting Date: Please list all other defendants in this case if there were multiple defendants: SPECIAL COMMENTS MIME-Version : 1 . 0 From: ecf_ support@ared . uscourts .gov To : ared_ ecf@localhost .localdomain Message-Id : \u0026lt;88 4202@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; A Bcc : W subj ect :Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , e t al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Notificat ion of Appeal and NOA Supplement Content-Type : text/pl ai n***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed doc ume nts once without charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each doc ume nt during thi s first vi e wing . U. S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following tran saction wa s entered on 4/11/2007 11:00 AM CDT a nd filed on 4/11/2007 Case Na me : Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv- 866 http : //ecf . ared . uscourt s .gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl?26052 filer : WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4116 Copy t he URL address from the li ne below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document : _ http : //ecf . ared.uscourt s . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_ doc?4116 , 26052 ,, MAGIC ,,, 2005648 Doc ket Text : NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL a nd NOA SUPPLEMENT as to [4103] Memorandum \u0026amp; Opinion , [4110] Order [4115) Notice of Appeal ,. (NOTifICATION TO COUNSEL : REQUEST fOR TRANSCRIPTS SHOULD BE fILED WITH THE DISTRICT COURT CLERK . FORM A \u0026amp; B SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT Of APPEALS CLERK ' S OFFICE ). (dac ) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically ma i l ed to : ar:-1ayton R. Blac kstoc k cblackstock@mbbwi . com W rhilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw. ne Christopher J . Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw.com , aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj . com , li nda.calloway@jlj . com John w. Wa lker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspri nger@gabrielmail.com, lorap722 97@aol . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast . net , yeld nef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasa . gov , agcivil@arkansasag . gov , patsy . dooley@arka nsasag .gov 4 : 82 - cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , I nc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Ark ansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett - Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 - Little Rock , AR 72201 - 2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompso n \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902 - 0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following document (s ) are associated wit h this transaction: Document description : Main Document Origi nal filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=4/ll/2007] [FileNumber=884201-0 ] [9bf0d7f5cbl4d4e632bf5b496092ldf4fe3ddb9d0cb4leb23a5d6a332769b304a33ffae2dl7fc49 823802cl87560abadfce35c4f3522d90847fd465cal686d09 ]] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org ( April 30, 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 . Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 bl:!-cJ::!-11, Little Rock, AR 72201 rJ Ii; j 4; J V ~ Mr. Stephen W. Jones M4y ... CD Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 1 2007 425 West Capitol, Sl!.ite 34D4ftfllits, 0Fftct a  Little Rock, AR 72201 ~TIONn,f 'l{/TO!ifllt; 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 April 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 4~~ 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  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 DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSP/i[t:'c. WESTERNDMSION ' fl~'  i111r - D l 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dtstsnts. '9Ft/~IFF  ~io11,,, 0 V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW WITOR/Nt; PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2007. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, General Counsel 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 April 30, 2007, 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. SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARJ\u0026lt;ANSAS RICHARO SHEPPARD ARNOLO UNITED STA\"TES -COURTHOUSE 600 W. CA?ITOL, ROOM 423 UiitE ROCK, ARKANSAS ?Zl0'1'3J75   (501) 604-S140 F!K:Simil\u0026amp; {501} ~14\u0026amp; May 30, 2007 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National. Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCss_n.. et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear St.aff: CONFIDENT.u\\L Judge Andree Roaf, who has recently retired from the Arlc.a.nsas Court of Appeals, has tentatively agreed to serve as Director of the ODM. I will send a letter to this effect to the parties later this afternoon. Original to the Clerk of the Court oo: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel ofRewrd Cordislly, Isl Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. ( - ----- - ----- ---~ TO: FuNo. FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTJ:!,RN D1;sTRICI O.ft' ARKAN_SAS Teleph~ne 501-604-5140 Fa:x Number 501.-604-5149 DATE: There are ~ . pages, including this cove.- 1beet, being sent by this facsimile tx-ansniission .. MESSAGE SENT BY: /1/''f:-?vJ7 //-- Office of Judge Wm. :R. ~n, Jc U. S. District Court V 600 West Capitol, Room 4'-3 Little Rock, Arkans~ 72201 \" .,. Direct Phone Numbeis: Matt Morg~, Senior Law Clerk Valerie Former, Law Cler'..t (odd ease numbers) Mary Johnson~ Courtroom Deputy Chrirta..N~wburg, Court Reporter Eileen Hurison, Law Clerk (even ase numbers) 604-5141 604-5142 664-5144 604-5145 604-5148 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 May 30, 2007 Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. - Little Rock 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Mr. Scott Richardson Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Counsel: I'm delighted to report that Judge Andree Roaf has tentatively agreed to serve as the Director of the ODM. As you know, she has recently retired after a distinguished career on the State bench. If you have any objections to this appointment, please notify me by 5 p.m., Tuesday, June 5, 2007. She and I have not discussed salary and expenses in detail, but we must get this resolved forthwith. I have been thinking about an hourly rate with a cap. My idea is that she would bill you each month. With the Little Rock School District out of the case, I do not believe it will be a full-time job, although it may be pretty time consuming for Judge Roaf while she gets her sea legs. Page 1 of 2 - I would welcome your suggestions regarding salary/fee. Judge Roaf has agreed that, if she comes on board, she will assess personnel and office needs for the ODM. Judge Roaf will not be available for several days because she is scheduled to travel to Italy on a project for the American Bar Association. I would like to hear from you as soon as possible. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray The Honorable Andree Roaf Other Counsel of Record Page 2 of 2 Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson, Jr. ...... Case : 4 : 82cv866 OfficeofDesegregationMonitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain 6 :sage-Id: \u0026lt;920860@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; w;;ject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Letter Content-Type : text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5 / 3 0/2007 2 : 56 PM CDT and filed on 5 / 30 / 2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http: //ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26 / 1~98 Document Number: 4121 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http: //ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ show_case_doc?412l,26052, , MAGIC, , ,2005669 Docket Text: Letter to attorneys of record from Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. regarding the appointment of Judge Andree Roaf as the Director of the ODM; any objections to the appointment must be made by 5:00 p.m . , Tuesday, June 5, 2007 . (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: - layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net hristopher 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 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297~aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag . gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite .200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr A Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A . W'Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902- 0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Willi am P . Thompson A ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. - st Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-08 18 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n / a Electronic document Stamp : [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l0 957 94525 [Date=5 / 30 / 2007] [FileNumber=92085 9-0] [74433650469daf8ed4cc088524e3cd8flc6611ce0aab8619956af96e9093dlaba090389bfd9eb3b b0d07fdec140949773790b5818c4ae 9dcec0e2dd82a4a9711]] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatiin 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 May 31, 2007 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Stephen W. Jones JUN - 4 2007 John Walker, P.A. ~ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATI0?t-MOHIT0RING Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 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 May 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 f, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECE\\\\JEO .lU\"; - 4 1001 off\\Ct Of Q\\\\\\l\\G \\ltSf.\\it\\tGt\\i\\O\\t ,AO\\t\\1 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for May 2007. :p~ Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 31, 2007, 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, Suite3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS y\\lESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW JUN - 4 2007 PLAINTIFFS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING', DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. -  IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA(State  Equalization) for the current school year.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. \\ Rec~,v~o JIJN. 1 4 zO,Bl UN1TED STATES COl JRT OF A.P~s,.. 1f1F.F,ICEOF FOR TEE EIGHTH CIR.ClJI~f/ON ~_ONffOij/NG  hu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE V. - CASE NO. 07- 1008 JOSHUA INTER \\ lENORS, ET AL. DEFENDA.1\"\\JTS/ APPELLA.J.\"\\JT ':~- lWOTION TO REFER TO MEDIA.TOR Undersigned counsel has reason to believe that this matter is likely to be resolved between the parties if Appellant is allovved additional time in which to submit the papers set forth in the briefing schedule. For this reason, undersigned counsel requests the Court to refer this n1atter t tJ the ( .0urt' 3 n1ediat0r fer that o.ffice~ s issistance and to allo~:.N the briefing :;chedule filing dates to be deferred for an additional 14 days. \\ vVI-IEREFORE, Appeiiant moves that this matter be referred for mediation under the court 's mediation program and that the briefing schedule be stayed for a further brief period of l 4 days. Appellant also respectfc1lly move that the Court eJ(cuse for good cause this belated filing. RECEIVED JUN O 8 2007 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WA..LKER, P.A.  1723 Broadway Little Rock, A...ct 72206 501 -374-3758 501 -374-4187 (Facsimile) Email:j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com C'..... , , \\ \" By: /s/ John W. Walker ) ~ '/L ,v\"\\.~, t .,/ RECEIVED UJ.\\i'ITED. STATES COlJRT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2007 FOR TIIE EIGhT.d CIR.COIT DES OFFICE OF EGREGATION MONITORING LITTLb ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE V. CASE NO. 07-1008 JOSHUA INTERVENORS, ET AL. DEFENDAJ.\"l1S/APPELLA.!.'H MOTION FOR LEA 'VE TO FILE OUT OF l'ThIE AND FILE BRIEF A.i.'ffi OTHER -S-(JPPORTING PA.PERS Appellants respectfully move the Court to allow them to fiJe this motion out of time and thereafter to grant them until July 6, 2007 in which to submit their brief and supportin.g papers. Undersigned counsel was ill during much of the month of April and the first week of May, 2007. During that tir1.1e the tr;1nscript ;vas net order. It ~3 coEnseI's understanding that the transcripts have been prepared but have not been filed because payment arrangements have not been made. Tliere is no p-rejudice to the Appellees by the requested delay. \\VHEREFORE, appellants respectfully move the Court for an Order which allows them until July 6, 2007 in .;s1hich to file their brief and supporting. RECEIVED  JUl'I O 8 2007 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ElGHTt-1 CIRCUIT Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. W ALF.ER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-3 74-4187 .(Facsimile) Email:j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com 1 2 By: Isl John W. Wa11\u0026lt;:er CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ! . John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been ser1ed on ail counsel of record by using the Eiv1'ECF filing system and via United States mail on this 6'h day of fu~2~ G Bv: isl John W. Walker :,;/c-4--,-j/_i{_ l l/ f l .f:l.LJ~'-r., :.., \\ 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN G. CHILDS Mr. i\\-fichael E. Gans Clerk of the Court United States Coi.ui of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY D E LITTLE ROCK. ARI(AN\"SAS 71:ft CE!~ 'ED 'fELEPHONE (501) 374-3 758 w . FAX (501) 374-4187 JU  Elv(AIL: iohnwalkeram,@aol. com N 1 4 2007 June 8. 2007 IBS.m i~~r,r,, u Onf  i,..,w~,\"' OF COUNSEL    , . , .. v,11.un: ,,1,KOBERT McHENRY, P.A. 82 l0 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKAi\"ISAS 722!0 PHONE: (50 l) 37-1-3425  FA.-'\u0026lt; (50 1) 372-3428 EMAlL: mche111~'d(iiiswbell.net Thomas F. Eagleton U.S.Courthouse 111 South 10th Street, Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 07-1866 Little Rock Sc.hool District, et al. v. Joshua 1ntervenors. et al. Deai.'. Mi'. Gans: Purs1iai.1t to our conversation with the clerk's office this morning, enclosed you will find an original and several copies of Corrected Certificates of Service regarding the two pleadings which were recently submitted for filing in the above matter. Tha.J.11\u0026lt;: you for your attention to this matter. JWW:lp cc: Mr. Chris Heller / Js'fi\\erelY.i i l l 1 1 \\, //'Vf ;f l ., I I J ---rr 11 r._~V!/1..J I.ti..,, !rfJohn. W. Walker !), UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEJ!ECEIVED FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT JUN 1 4 2007 LITTLE:ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW.! OFFICE OF ~Iifflit'llrQ~G,EE ! V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA. INTERVENORS, ET AL . ; DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANT CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I; John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Refer to lv[ediator which was received by the Court of Appeals for filing on June 8, 2007, has been electronically mailed to: Christopher J. Heller, Counsel for the Little Rock School District heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III, Counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District siones@mvvsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones, Counsel for the North Little Rock School District sjones@ili .com, linda.calloway@ili.com Scott Paris Richardson, Counsel for the State ., Scott. richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel of record by US. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 12th day of June, 2007: '   Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: iohnwalkeratty@aol. com By: /s/ John W. Walker Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 ehpressman@RCN.com  ...... UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~ EC E IVE D FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT JUN 1 - 2007 OFFICE OF ~.MDJRIOBING V. CASE NO. 07-1866 JOSHUA INTER VENORS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS/ APPELLANT CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,' John W. Walker, certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Out of Time and File Brief and Other Supporting Papers which was received by the Court of Appeals for filing orr1une 8, 2007, has been electronically mailed to : c;hristopher J. Heller, Counsel for the Little Rock School District heller@fec.net. brendak(cv,finet, tmilter(Z4fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III, Counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District siones@mwsgw.com, aciverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen W. Jones, Counsel for the North Little Rock School District '- sjones@jlj.com, linda.callowav@jli .com S,cott Paris Richardson, Counsel for the State Scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov and to the following counsel of record by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 12th day of June, 2007: '  :tvlr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Edueational Fund, Inc. ~ New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 \\ .. . Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monjtor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 !..htle Rock, AR 72201 Respectfully submitted, JOHN\"W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkerattv@aol.com By: Isl John W. Walker .Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 ehpressman@RCN.com a Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4125 Filed 06/27/2007 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 (501) 604-5149 June 27, 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 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Mr. Heller: RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I held a telephone conference today with all the parties except the LRSD. The primary purpose was discussing Judge Roaf's appointment as the new Director of ODM. She was present during the telephone conference. Mr. Walker expressed the opinion that LRSD is still \"in the case\" for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the ODM, including Judge Roaf s salary. I had not given this point much thought, but had concluded that LRSD is \"out\" since it has been declared unitary. Unless, of course, the Court of A' ppeals declares to the contra' ry. I would like your response to this. You will probably want to order a transcript of the telephone conference before responding so that you can see Mr. Walker's specific points. Please let me have your response by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Page 1 of 1 Cordially, /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. Case : 4:82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Cap itol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To : ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  ~~age-Id: \u0026lt;940580@ared . us courts . gov\u0026gt;_ ~ bject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-0086O-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/27/2007 12:37 PM CDT and filed on 6/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4125 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4125,26052, , MAGIC ,,, 2005681 Docket Text : LETTER/ORDER from Judge Wm . R. Wilson , Jr . directing the Counsel for the Little Rock School District to respond to the telephone conference held today regarding Judge Andree Roaf's appointment as the new Director of ODM. Response is due by noon, Wednesday, July 11, 2007. (smb) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : - layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com . hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net 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 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr - hompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 - lliam P. Thompson ompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . st 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=l0 95794525 [Date=6/27 /2007] [FileNumber=94057 9-0] [013e5ad693bl345c707a2749d424a37ba2202673d6c0lb2366fe7adb6ee4b62334a7e0ld3f2a652 37ad3146ldle365c886a9aa44f9fe96fcfc76ccc4e43f92f0]] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4127 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPP.A.RD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE pOO W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 June 27, 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. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Mr. Scott Paris Richardson Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard, P.L.L.C. - LR 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. - Little Rock 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3483 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82-CV-866 Dear Counsel: RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING After reflection, Judge Roaf is agreeable to the current compensation designated for the Director of ODM with the specific understanding that she will not be expected to be at the office on a full-time basis. As you will recall, Mr. Walker suggested the salary rather than the hourly rate that I had proposed. Mr. Steve Jones and Mr. Scott Richardson agreed with Mr. Walker's suggestion, and Mr. Sam Jones Page 1 of 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4127 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 . - stated that either method of compens~tion would be satisfactory with the Pulaski County Special School District. In due course I will enter and order confirming Judge Roaf s appointment, compensation, etc. She went \"on the payroll\" today. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray The Honorable Andree Roaf Page 2 of 2 Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. Case: 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain Message-Id: \u0026lt;940 65l@ared.uscourts .gov\u0026gt; A c: W bject :Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/27/2 007 1:04 PM CDT and filed on 6/ 27 / 2007 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http: // ecf . ared.uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/ DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 /2 6/1 998 Document Number: 4127 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http: //ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin / show_case_doc?4 127,26052,,MAGIC , , , 2005686 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER re: Judge Roaf ' s compensation as director of the ODM . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 06 / 27 / 2007. (thd) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net A hristopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net ~- Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw,. com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast . net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott Paris Richardson scott .richardson@arkansasag . gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - ort Smith, AR 72902 - 0818 Office o f Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 - rt Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following docurnent(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=1095794525 [Date=6 / 27 / 2007] [FileNumber=940650-0) [505e10e2f4c60f8cec54df0f02f8f7bcb170033a756963063lfd37bd4a133b1274007f8584162ff 8fbe105317df4abe47452815715f0c9686cffbeb66e997626)) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner eEducati.;n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org June 28, 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 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 ill RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 June 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 2:;g.~ 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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2007. Respectfully Submitted, d. \\ . ~ mi~2251 General Counsel 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 June 28, 2007, 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. Sam.uelJones,ill Mitchell, William.s, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 mith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL RECEIVED JUL -2 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year'. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation.  1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    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_111","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/111"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org March 30, 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 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 Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US Disttict 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 March 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerp~ 7' 0. ~ ~ith~ 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  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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2007. Scott Smith, Bar # 9225 General Counsel 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 March 30, 2007, 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, 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR O 2 2007 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OFFICE OF PLAINTIFFffESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 J3ased on the information avai~ble at February21!, ~007 t~ ADE \u0026lt;\n:al cu lated the State fol!nd9tiqnJ:unflL11gJoJ.f'( 0_6J_Q7,~sYP~ll\u0026lt;iR~iY.t!ll~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 ' 2007 d'stribytions,oL State Founaation Fun\n- J:'13.SD - $43:-~88,\n476 - 22,576.,44, i-.:.::=---=3=5,,m.Q!l2 Jhe allotments of State Foundation Funding 28 odic adj~u~s~t!.!Jm~ec,ots=.. ..= ~\"\"-'-'== D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Based on the information available. the ADE calculate sub\u0026amp;.ct t pe E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 ased on the inf - ilable, th D I ula -~- bjec jyst G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Distributions for FY 06/07 at February 28, 2007, totaled $9,588,439. Allotm~nt ~u ated for f:Y 06/01 w~s $15, 1L1 ,274 subj~ct to periodic adjustments H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 In September 2006, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 06/07 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay tne third one-tliird payment for FY 05 06 to the Districts. In September 200 notified to a t e irst one-third payment ~W07 ~*~\"\"\" otifie9 to pa P6/ 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321 .00 NLRSD - $975,891 .96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD-$1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 In March 2007, General Finance made the second one-third payment to tbe Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. f,.t Marci, 2007, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $2,826,768.68 NLRSD - $666,435.46 ecsso - $2, 148,89 .46 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 5 l. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01 /02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. n Ma ~ tent ~.\n..~'::.-=:\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ __ ,,/!!a\u0026lt; . . at amount was i........,.=.._._. ........... 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97 /98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b} the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.} staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201 -A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the AD E's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 ' II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported . There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On Marc\nh plem ~ - \"'~\" previous I =--a::=..~\n:,- activ pesegrega 10 unitary and rel ttie ADE should continue ese re at1 filing has ast or untl an a ea as J,ou whet authorize and dete to contin districts for a distri~ts may be r _ unltary statu~ if their motions filed no later t_han October 30, 2007, or at least partially_unitary by the feder Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from t e ttorney group on legal fssues related to desegregation. The _ _ Working Group Jy1~eting is scneduled for July _s,:.~0t'g_t f.~QRin.'Tn room 201\":A at the ~DE: 22 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1 , 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 2 7 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the  Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 28 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws thai appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the  report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would : (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued} D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. I On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 41 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. 42 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored: Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NGA accreditation reports were presented to the NGA Committee, and NGA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NGA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NGA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VLF. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 50 I VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following tra ining has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued} On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001. Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 59 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2007 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE co\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_80","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2007-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/80"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org February 28, 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 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED 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 MAR 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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. U.S. 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 February 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  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 COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for February 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 February 28, 2007, 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. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 - 2007 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 B. Include all Magnet students in the res ident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 calcula ed a E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03  were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831 ,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD-$1 ,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891 .96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1 ,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1 ,074,447.23 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. . The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Cnntinued) 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 t\u0026gt;f the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of eactH, t)Ool year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,00D,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process.and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97 /98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 fur FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01 /02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black studenis and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced vis its of scho,ols in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations . The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was inclu d-ed in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were \\/isited , and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals we.re interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed b~ prin cipals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation stafftofacilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Repo rt and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the Sl ate Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring vi sits werie completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics . 1he Districts 1Provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. 1he Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a defin ition for insi ruction al programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and fi led with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strateg ic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, techn ical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives o(all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed , c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the . parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review tne  Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the AD E's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201 -A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the AD E's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized . The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith , ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 8. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation.  1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. - - In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing , no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported  to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. 8. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the StateBoard of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11 , 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July.  On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and De~ember. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed , and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning . A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregatio\"n Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children . Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful'student achievement.    In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following : 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when , (i.e. , parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing . Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing, and mathematics skills. The following train ing has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your ch ild's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell , Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield , ASE RC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading . On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended.  The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing , and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum . A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for techn ical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social stud ies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2007 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21 , 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training . The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam tra ining and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training . The AD\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_1762","title":"Court filings regarding Court order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary, letter seeking counsel's position, notice of electronic filing, and notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration.","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":["2007-02/2007-03"],"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","Joshua intervenors","School districts","Little Rock School District","School integration","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Court order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary, letter seeking counsel's position, notice of electronic filing, and notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration."],"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/1762"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["47 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) unitary; District Court, letter seeking counsel's position; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of electronic filing, notice of docket correction re: motion for reconsideration    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER DECLARING THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT UNIT ARY I. Introduction1 In early 1998, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors2 (\"Joshua\") negotiated and voluntarily entered into the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( the \"Revised Plan\"),3 as a way of settling what was then over forty years of more or less continuous desegregation litigation.4 On April l 0, 1998, the Court approved the Revised Plan, 5 which required LRSD to substantially comply with hundreds of desegregation obligations in order to achieve unitary 11 once again note that United States Magistrate Judge Joe Thomas Ray has done a tremendous amount of work on this case throughout -- for which I am profoundly thankful. 2The Joshua Intervenors are a group of African-American school children, some of whom are enrolled in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. Thus, Joshua serves as the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). Joshua's Petition to Intervene in this action was granted on May 24, 1984. (Doc. No. 565.) 3Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A. 4The complete history of this desegregation litigation is set forth in LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 997-1020 (E.D. Ark. 2002) (\"LRSD I\"). 5Doc. No. 3144. status and release from court supervision.6 Many of these obligations go well beyond what either the United States Supreme Court or the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held is constitutionally required in order for a school district to be deemed unitary. Nevertheless, by voluntarily entering into the Revised Plan, LRSD became contractually bound to satisfy all of the specified desegregation obligations. 7 Since the meaning of some of the terms of the Revised Plan were questioned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in its 2006 decision,8 I quote, as background for the following discussion, the Restatement of Contracts: ( l) 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.9 A. LRSD's March 15, 2001 Application for Unitary Status On March 15, 200 l, LRSD moved for unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with all of the obligations in the Revised Plan.10 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report11 which argued that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with most of the obligations in the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed a 6The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that the Revised Plan represents a settlement agreement which contractually obligates LRSD to fulfill the specified desegregation obligations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). In Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997), the Court characterized the settlement agreement as \"a particularization of federal [desegregation] law applicable to these parties.\" 1LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 103, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996). 8LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). 9RESTATEMENT(SECOND)OFCONTRACTS  201 (1981). 10Doc. No. 3410. 11Doc. No. 3447. -2- Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 12 On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed a Response13 opposing that Motion. I conducted a series of unitary status hearings during the second half of 2001 and the first half of 2002. During these hearings, over forty witnesses testified, and the parties introduced into evidence thousands of pages of exhibits. On September I 3, 2002, I entered a Memorandum Opinion ( the \"September 2002 Decision\") finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its obligations in the Revised Plan except those specified in 2.7.1. 14 Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to satisfy the following obligations: 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 African-American achievements. 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. 15 I found that, while LRSD had implemented numerous  2. 7 programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, the evidence established that it had done very little to assess the effectiveness of those programs, on a year-to-year basis, as required by  2. 7 .1 . The Findings of Fact in LRSD I discussed the substantial evidence which revealed that LRSD' stop administrators and Joshua both construed 2. 7 .1 's requirement that LRSD \"shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year\" to mean that LRSD must 12Doc. No. 3580. 13Doc. No. 3604. 14LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988. 15Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A -3- perform \"program assessments\" and \"program evaluations.\" 16 Witnesses for LRSD and Joshua testified that both parties understood the term \"assess,\" as used in 2.7.l, to be a term of art requiring LRSD to prepare annual assessments and evaluations of the 2. 7 programs. While 2. 7. l does not mention the word \"evaluation,\" the evidence established beyond peradventure that LRSD clearly understood that its obligation to assess the 2.7 programs required it to prepare not only program assessments but also program evaluations in order to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. B. The 2002 Compliance Remedy In subpart A of the 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I tracked the language the parties used in  2. 7 .1 and required LRSD to assess each of the programs implemented under 2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students during the entire 2002-03 school year and the - first semester of the 2003-04 school year. I did not spell out that LRSD was required to prepare evaluations of specific 2. 7 programs because the testimony of the parties during the 2002 unitary status hearing made it clear that they understood the term \"assess\" to include both assessments and evaluations of the  2. 7 programs. Therefore, to comply with subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, LRSD was expected to continue to prepare program assessments and to prepare program evaluations of the most promising  2. 7 programs that it planned to implement during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records documenting how it had gone about assessing the 2.7 programs. 16LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076-77. (\"Not to put too fine a point on it\", but since there appears to be some confusion about the required \"evaluations\", this order will be quite redundant on this point). -4- Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file program evaluations on the fourteen  2. 7 programs listed on page 148 ofLRSD' s Final Compliance Report. This Final Compliance Report, 17 filed on March 15, 200 l, detailed everything that LRSD had done to meet its compliance obligations under each section of the Revised Plan. Importantly, this Final Compliance Report reflects precisely how LRSD construed its desegregation obligations under each section of the Revised Plan. On page 148, under the heading \"Section H Program Evaluation,\" LRSD cited \"Section 2.7.l\" as creating the obligation to prepare fourteen program evaluations of 2. 7 programs. Since 1998, Dr. Steven Ross has worked extensively with PRE to improve the program evaluation process. LRSD accepted his recommendation and hired Dr. John Nunnery, who was supposed to prepare most of the evaluations of the fourteen specifically identified  2. 7 programs. 18 In the March 15, 2002 Final Compliance Report, LRSD unequivocally admits that it knew, understood, and construed the obligation in 2.7.l to assess the 2.7 programs as requiring it to prepare evaluations of some of the  2. 7 programs. 19 In the Final Compliance Report, LRSD stated that, as of March 15, 200 I, PRE20 staff and Dr. Nunnery had prepared evaluations on all fourteen of the 2. 7 programs identified on page 148. During the 2002 unitary status hearings, however, LRSD administrators admitted that only six of the fourteen evaluations actually had been completed. These fourteen evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs were supposed to have been prepared during the 1999, 2000, and 2001 school years (at 17Doc. No. 3410. 18See LRSD's Final Compliance Report at page 148 (Doc. No. 3410). 19Consistent with LRSD's explicit acknowledgment of this obligation in subpart Hof the Final Compliance Report, Dr. Bonnie Lesley and other top LRSD administrators testified during the 2002 unitary status hearing that they understood 2.7. l's obligation to assess the 2.7 programs as requiring LRSD to perform annual evaluations of some of the  2. 7 programs. 20PRE stands for Planning, Research, and Evaluation. -5- the rate of approximately four per year) using testing and p e,formance data generated during those three school years. Subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare the eight missing program evaluations from the three previous school years. Everyone understood that, in preparing these evaluations, LRSD would use student testing and performance data from the 1999 through 2001 school years to determine the effectiveness of those 2.7 programs during those school years. Thus, subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to catch up on the annual  2. 7 program evaluations, for the previous three years, which the Final Compliance Report erroneously stated LRSD had already prepared. So, subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare assessments and evaluations of 2. 7 programs during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. Because subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to prepare - evaluations of 2. 7 programs to determine their effectiveness in school years before the 2002-03 school year, everyone understood that the eight page-148 program evaluations required in subpart C could not be used by LRSD to satisfy the program evaluation obligation in subpart A, which required it to prepare evaluations of the  2. 7 programs during the 2002-03 school year and the first six months of the 2003-04 school year.21 On the record this admits ofno doubt. Finally, LRSD was given until March 15, 2004, to demonstrate that it was in substantial compliance with  2. 7. l, as outlined in subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 22 21This explains why, after it prepared the eight evaluations required by subpart C, LRSD proceeded to prepare two global evaluations of its Literacy and Math and Science curricula for the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year. These two global evaluations were clearly intended to satisfy LRSD's obligation under subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 22LRSD I. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1087-88. -6- C. The Eighth Circuit Affirms the September 2002 Decision Joshua appealed the September 2002 Decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 2, 2004, the Court entered an opinion affirming the September 2002 Decision.23 Because LRSD did not cross-appeal, it gave up any right to complain about the obligations imposed on it in subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. D. LRSD's March 12, 2004 Application for Unitary Status On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report24 seeking unitary status on the ground that it had substantially complied with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and subparts A, B, and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. On April 15, 2004, Joshua filed papers25 opposing LRSD's request for unitary status. On June 14 and 15, 2004, a unitary status hearing was held. During this hearing, it was revealed that, shortly after I entered the 2002 Compliance Remedy, numerous top LRSD administrators had resigned, including the Superintendent; Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associated Superintendent in charge of Curriculum and Education; and most of the rest of the employees in the PRE Department. LRSD' s remaining administrators testified at the hearing that because of this mass exodus they were unsure about how LRSD should go about satisfying subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. This was not brought to my attention until the 2004 hearing. Inexplicably, LRSD decided it could satisfy subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy by preparing two \"global evaluations\" ofLRSD's Literacy Curriculum and its Math and Science Curriculum. As previously mentioned, subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy used the same language contained in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, and required LRSD to assess the  2. 7 23LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). 24Doc. No. 3837. 25Doc. Nos. 3856 and 3857. -7- programs.26 After the September 2002 Decision, LRSD's administrators decided the obligation to assess  2.7 programs could be satisfied by preparing only two \"global evaluations\" of LRSD's Literacy curriculum and Math and Science curriculum. This establishes clearly that LRSD construed the phrase \"assess 2. 7 programs, \"as used in 2. 7.1, to mean that it was required to prepare program evaluations -- not just program assessments. On June 30, 2004, I entered a Memorandum Opinion (the \"June 2004 Decision\"), holding that these two global evaluations fell far short of 2.7.1 's requirement that LRSD must annually assess specific  2. 7 programs in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students.27 The best way to understand the shortcomings of LRSD's \"global approach\" to complying with 2.7.1 is through a concrete example of what the plain language of 2. 7 .1 and subpart A of the Compliance Remedy actually obligated LRSD to do. During the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years, LRSD implemented numerous 2. 7 programs to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. One such program, which was implemented in elementary schools throughout the district, was the Pre-K Literacy Program. During the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings, testimony established that the Pre-K Literacy Program was one ofLRSD's most promising 2.7 programs. IfLRSD had hired Dr. Ross or some other similarly qualified consultant to perform evaluations of the Pre-K Literacy program and three orfour other specific 2.7 programs, during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 26During the 2002 unitary status hearing, LRSD' s witnesses made it clear that they knew and understood the word \"assess,\" as it was used in  2.7.1, to mean that LRSD must prepare assessments and evaluations as part of its obligation to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs. This is also precisely how LRSD had construed its obligation under 2. 7 .1 in the years following its execution of the Revised Plan in 1998, as evidenced by page 148 ofLRSD's Final Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2001. Thus, I felt sure LRSD understood that the obligation to assess the  2.7 programs meant that it must prepare both assessments and evaluations of specific  2. 7 programs. 21LRSD v. PCSSD, eta/., No. 4:82CV00866, 2004 WL 5187587 (E.D. Ark. June 30, 2004) (\"LRSD If'). -8- school year, I would have had no difficulty finding that it had substantially complied with the program evaluation obligation contained in  2. 7. l and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Instead of evaluating specific  2.7 programs, however, LRSD's administrators tried to satisfy 2.7. l by hiring Dr. Ross and another outside consultant to perform \"global evaluations\" of LRSD's overall Literacy Curriculum and its Math and Science Curriculum. These evaluations amounted to nothing more than a survey of LRSD's complete program curricula in the areas of literacy, math, and science. Neither evaluation attempted to address the effectiveness of any of the specific 2.7 programs implemented to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. As a result, these global evaluations provided no usefal guidance on how any of the specific  2. 7 programs were working to improve African-American achievement. During the June 2004 evidentiary hearing, Dr. Ross, himself, (and the other experts who prepared the two global - evaluations) admitted that these \"step l\" global evaluations did not satisfy the plain language of 2.7.1 (which, as noted above, required LRSD to prepare \"step 2\" evaluations of specific  2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students). As was set forth in the June 2004 Decision, the obligations in 2.7. l go to the very heart of what Joshua contracted to receive from LRSD in agreeing to the Revised Plan: It is impossible to overstate the importance of 2.7.1 to LRSD's African-American students. Unless something is done to improve their academic achievement, many of them, who do not possess proficient skills in reading and math, will face difficult and uncertain futures. Because 70% of its students are African-American, LRSD should be devoting a substantial percentage of its educational resources to solving this crucially important problem that will burden the lives and career trajectories of so many of its students. It is my fervent hope that LRSD's administrators and its Board realize that LRSD must make the long-term commitment to solve this problem, not because a federal court says that it must, but because it is the right thing to do.28 28LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *20 (emphasis in original). -9- Based on the evidence introduced during the evidentiary hearing on June 14 and 15, 2004, I was at a loss to understand how LRSD could have concluded that the two \"global evaluations\" substantially complied with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Accordingly, I denied LRSD's request for unitary status.29 During the June 14 and 15, 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD administrators complained that, because subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy did not spell out precisely what they were supposed to do to satisfy the obligations in  2. 7 .1, they were unsure of how to proceed. I was puzzled by this professed confusion so, to avoid any future confusion about what the language in  2.7. l required, the 2004 Compliance Remedy spelled out the specific obligations that LRSD must meet in order to satisfy the requirements of 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan.30 However, I did so with some reluctance and only because I was genuinely concerned that, unless I restated those obligations in very specific terms, LRSD might once again fail to substantially comply with 2.7.1: In the (2002) Compliance Remedy, I was reluctant to set forth too much detail about how LRSD should structure its program assessment process. Professional educators ought to be able to do a better job than I could in formulating and implementing this process; but LRSD is found wanting in its handling of its duties under subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy.31 E. The Eighth Circuit Affirms the June 2004 Decision LRSD appealed the June 2004 Decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ironically, on appeal, LRSD argued, among other things, that the 2004 Compliance Remedy was too specific and imposed obligations that went beyond what it had agreed to do under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. On June 26, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered its opinion affirming the June 2004 Decision.32 29/d at **20-29. 30/d. at **32-35. 31/d. at *22. 32LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). -10- However, both the majority and dissent expressed concern that some aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy may have gone beyond the obligations LRSD agreed to undertake in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. F. LRSD's October 16, 2006 Application for Unitary Status On October 16, 2006, LRSD filed a Compliance Report33 detailing everything that it has done to satisfy the 2004 Compliance Remedy and  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. LRSD asserts that, because it has now substantially complied with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, it should be declared unitary and released from court supervision and monitoring. On November 16, 2006, Joshua filed Objections to LRSD's Compliance Report and Opposition to LRSD's Request for Unitary Status.34 On January 20, 21, and 27, 2007, I conducted another unitary status hearing. LRSD called fifteen witnesses who testified about LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised - Plan, as those obligations are contained in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Joshua called nineteen witnesses who testified that LRSD needed to do more still in order to comply with its obligations. The parties again introduced into evidence thousands of pages of exhibits. Because the Eighth Circuit's recently expressed concerns about whether the 2004 Compliance Remedy imposed obligations on LRSD that went beyond those contained in  2. 7 .1, I believe it is important for me to address that issue before I reach the merits of LRSD' s substantial compliance. 33Doc. No. 4050. 34Doc. No. 4058. - ------ -11- II. LRSD's Obligations Under The 2004 Compliance Remedy And Why It Was Required By 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan A. LRSD Must Reestablish Its PRE Department As previously discussed, between mid-2002 and June of 2004, LRSD allowed its PRE Department to collapse.35 During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, Mr. Dennis Glasgow, who in June of 2003 was appointed Interim Associate Superintendent of Instruction and Curriculum to replace Dr. Lesley, testified that: PRE was short of personnel . .. and ... he intended to propose to the Board that it set a high priority on hiring a team of well qualified and experienced professionals capable of reinvigorating PRE. 36 In section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to hire the well qualified and experienced team of professionals that according to Mr. Glasgow was necessary to reestablish an effective PRE Department. I required that this group of professionals include: (1) a director comparable to former director Dr. Lease, someone who hac:l a Ph.D. and experience in designing, preparing, and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations, and in formulating a comprehensive program assessment process to determine the effectiveness of the  2. 7 programs 35Dr. Kathy Lease, the director of PRE, left LRSD in the fall of 2002. Three statisticians and several other support staff left PRE in 2002 and 2003. None of these employees had been replaced at the time I conducted the June 2004 unitary status hearing. At that time, PRE was being run by one statistician, who had no real experience in performing program assessments or preparing program evaluations. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's Associate Superintendent oflnstruction and Curriculum, who had considerable knowledge and experience with the program assessment and evaluation process, left LRSD in 2003. She was replaced, on an interim basis, by Dennis Glasgow, who had almost no experience with the program assessment and program evaluation process. LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *21. In LRSD II, I found that the collapse of the PRE Department explained in large part why LRSD's remaining administrators, who had little knowledge about the program assessment and evaluation process, mistakenly determined that two global evaluations ofLRSD's overall program curriculum could somehow satisfy the obligations in  2. 7 .1, which required LRSD to evaluate specific 2. 7 programs. For a complete discussion of how LRSD allowed the PRE Department to - fallapart,seeLRSDiat 1077-81 andLRSD//,2004 WL5187587,at**9-10, *21. 36LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *21. -12- designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; (2) experienced statisticians like those who had worked under Dr. Lease; and (3) other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate an effective PRE Department. As indicated above, Section 2.7.1 required LRSD to assess, on an annual basis, the 2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. And, as I have previously explained, LRSD and Joshua both interpreted the term assess in 2.7.1 to be a termofartthatrequired LRSD to perform annual program assessments and program evaluations of the 2.7 programs to determine their effectiveness.37 Finally, this is precisely how LRSD construed 2.7.1, as evidenced by page 148 of the March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report and in its decision to prepare two global evaluations to satisfy subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy.38 37During the 2002 unitary status hearing, Dr. Lesley's testimony made it very clear that LRSD and Joshua both knew the definitions of and distinctions between a \"program assessment\" and a \"program evaluation.\" Dr. Lesley defined a program assessment as something that is \"dynamic, it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" LRSD I, 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 set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. In LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *2, I summarized the distinction Dr. Lesley made between a program assessment and a program evaluation as follows: [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 involves the preparation of an often lengthy written program evaluation which is centered around carefully prepared research questions that the evaluation is designed to answer. 381n the Eighth Circuit's June 26, 2006 decision, neither the majority nor the dissent addressed the undisputed fact that LRSD and Joshua have always interpreted the word \"assess,\" as used in  2. 7 .1, to mean that LRSD must perform both informal program assessments and the far more rigorous program evaluations in order to determine the effectiveness of 2.7 programs. As a result, the panel erroneously construed  2.7.1 as requiring LRSD to perform program only assessments -- not evaluations -- of the 2.7 programs. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d 528, 536-37 (majority), 542 (dissent). In the same vein, the Eighth Circuit suggested that \"this litigation has been complicated by -13- Similarly, while nothing in the Revised Plan explicitly required LRSD to have a PRE Department, it appears that it would have been impossible for LRSD to discharge its program assessment and program evaluation obligations under 2. 7 .1 without one. By the time of the 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD's PRE Department was no longer functioning and had only one employee, a statistician. By ordering LRSD to reestablish its PRE Department with an experienced and qualified staff, I was requiring LRSD only to restore the status quo ante regarding PRE the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court\" in the use of the terms \"assessment,\" \"evaluation,\" \"program\" and \"key program.\" LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 531-536. I respectfully disagree. From the first unitary status hearings in 2002, LRSD, Joshua, and I have all understood exactly what the term \"assess\" means in 2. 7.1. We all know that this term, which is a term of art, required LRSD to perform both assessments and evaluations of the 2.7 programs. Similarly, we all understand what a 2. 7 program is and which of the 2. 7 programs are the key or most important programs. When I required LRSD to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs in subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, LRSD, Joshua, and I all understood this would require LRSD to prepare assessments of many of the 2.7 programs and evaluations of some of the most important 2.7 programs. This explains why LRSD construed subpart A of the Compliance Remedy, which mentioned nothing about program evaluations and required LRSD only to \"assess\" the  2. 7 programs, to mean that it must prepare two global evaluations. During the 2004 unitary status hearing, Dr. Lesley back-tracked from her earlier testimony in the 2002 unitary status hearing and stated that she did not believe 2.7.1 and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to perform any evaluation of the  2.7 programs. However, she could provide no explanation for why, if she was correct, LRSD had expended hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform evaluations of the 2. 7 programs in order to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1 as documented in the March 15, 2001 Final Compliance Report and the March 12, 2004 Application for Unitary Status. Finally, Dr. Ross offered compelling testimony explaining why, as a long time consultant to LRSD, he and top LRSD administrators had always construed 2.7.1 's obligations \"to assess the 2.7 programs\" as requiring LRSD also to prepare evaluations of those programs. LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *27. As the finder of fact in the 2004 unitary status hearing, I had an opportunity to closely observe Dr. Lesley and to assess her credibility. In my 2004 Findings of Fact, I stated the following: I do not put much stock in Dr. Lesley's testimony at this last hearing. (Her testimony in the unitary status hearings in 2002 was quite helpful.) Her answers to pointed questions were often indirect and marked by semantics. I got the distinct impression that she wanted to avoid giving answers that would be harmful to LRSD's position. Since I found Dr. Lesley's testimony on this point was not to credible, there is no evidence in either the 2002 or 2004 unitary status hearing to support the notion that 2. 7 .1 required LRSD to perform only program assessments. On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence which establishes that both LRSD and Joshua have always interpreted \"assess,\" as it was used in  2. 7 .1, to be a term of art that required LRSD to perform program assessments and program evaluations. -14- Department staffing and operations -- something that was essential ifLRSD ever expected to meet its obligations under  2.7. l. I do not believe that section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy imposed a single new obligation on LRSD that was not part of what it originally agreed to do in order to discharge its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan.39 I hark back to  201 of the Restatement of Contracts quoted in the introduction. B. LRSD Must Create and \"Deeply Embed\" a Comprehensive Program Assessment Process Section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, required LRSD to use its PRE Department, in consultation with Dr. Ross, to devise a \"comprehensive program assessment process\" and then to \"deeply embed\" that process as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum and instruction program. I defined \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to mean and include both \"formal evaluations\" of key 2.7 programs and \"informal program assessments.',40 During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, LRSD witnesses testified that, each school year, LRSD implemented numerous  2. 7 programs to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Some of those programs were pilot projects that were only offered at one school to a relatively small number of students. Other  2. 7 programs had been used for several years in numerous schools and were regarded as key  2. 7 programs that appeared to offer the most promise in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The testimony during the 39lnLRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 542, the dissent characterized my requiring LRSD to hire a new team for PRE as a \"significant abuse of discretion.\" Based on the entire record -- which reflects the clear, abiding understanding of the parties before the 2004 hearing -- I do not agree. 401n LRSD II, I explained that \"[t]he comprehensive program assessment process must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs ... [and] preparing informal program assessments that involve interviews with teachers, informal evaluations oftest scores, and the other things normally associated with the more dynamic program assessment process.\" LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *32. Thus, in requiring LRSD to devise and implement a comprehensive program assessment process, section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy merely spelled out for LRSD what it knew and understood  2. 7 .1 to mean. -15- June 2004 unitary status hearing made it clear that LRSD and Joshua both had a good understanding what the key  2. 7 programs were. I do not believe that requiring LRSD to evaluate only key  2. 7 programs is a new obligation under 2.7. l, especially since LRSD had been performing annual evaluations on its most important or key  2. 7 programs since it entered the Revised Plan in 1998. The dissent in LRSD v. NLRSD, et al. 41 discussed at length the reasons why requiring LRSD to \"deeply embed\" its program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum and instruction program imposed a new contractual obligation on LRSD that was not contained in  2. 7. I. of the Revised Plan. The dissent pointed out that: (I) I did not \"identify any objective standards by which [I intended] to measure whether LRSD had succeeded in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement\"; (2) the \"deeply embedded\" requirement was \"impossibly subjective\"; and (3) I created \"the unworkably subjective 'deeply embedded' standard . .. out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy.\"42 Upon mature reflection, I wholeheartedly agree with the dissent's criticism ofmy decision to require LRSD to \"deeply embed\" the program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required LRSD to create and implement a program assessment process capable of allowing it to prepare annual program assessments and program evaluations of the  2.7 programs as a way of determining the effectiveness of those programs in imposing the academic achievement of African-American students. Nothing in either  2.7.1 or the 2002 Compliance Remedy can fairly be construed to mean that LRSD must \"deeply embed\" the program assessment 41451 F.3d at 541-543. 42/d. at 542-43. -16- process as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. 43 Additionally, as the dissent points out, trying to apply an entirely subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard is a bridge too far -like trying to reach the mirage in the desert. In 2.1 of the Revised Plan, LRSD agreed to act in \"good faith\": LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operations of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.44 In the 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I found that, in the areas in which LRSD was held to be unitary, it had \"complied with its obligations under 2.1 of the Revised Plan and that, in the future, it could be trusted to follow the Covenants and the Constitution.\"45 I now realize that, in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I should have adopted the - \"good faith\" compliance standard imposed under 2.1, rather than crafting a \"deeply embedded\" compliance standard \"out of whole cloth.\"46 The language I should have used in section B, rather than the \"deeply embedded\" standard, is as follows: LRSD must act in good faith (as explicitly required by  2.1 of the Revised Plan) to implement the program assessment process required by  2.7.1 of the RevisedPlan.47 In the Findings ofFact, I will use this \"good faith\" compliance standard 43In hindsight, I probably imposed this new obligation on LRSD because I believe it is so important for LRSD to honor the commitment it made in  2. 7 and  2. 7 .1. Of course, my personal feelings are irrelevant with respect to the plain meaning of 2. 7 .1. 44Doc. No. 3107, Ex. A. 45LRSD I, 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1046. 46LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 542. 47While I have acknowledged my error in imposing on LRSD the \"deeply embedded\" obligation, I hope LRSD realizes the need for making the program assessment process a permanent part of its curriculum -- not because a federal judge thought it was a good idea, but because it is the right thing to do to help improve the academic achievement. -17- to determine whether LRSD has substantially complied with section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, rather than the \"deeply embedded\" compliance standard contained in the June 2004 Decision. C. LRSD Must Prepare Eight Evaluations of Key  2. 7 Programs Over Two Academic School Years (2004-05 and 2005-06) As I have previously explained, on March 15, 2002, a number of months before I began the 2002 unitary status hearing, LRSD filed a Final Compliance Report which documented everything it had done to satisfy all of the obligations in the Revised Plan. On page 148 of that document, LRSD stated that, over the last three years, it had prepared program evaluations on fourteen specifically identified 2.7 programs to satisfy part of its obligations under 2.7.1. However, during the subsequent unitary status hearing, testimony established that, by June 1, 2002, LRSD had prepared only six of the fourteen program evaluations. Once again, it is important to remember that LRSD' s 2002 Final Compliance Report set forth the things LRSD had done to substantially comply with its understanding of the obligations in the Revised Plan. Page 148 of that document makes it crystal clear that LRSD construed 2.7.l 's obligation to assess the 2. 7 programs as requiring it to prepare fourteen program evaluations, over three school years (1999 through 2001). To comply with its own interpretation of 2.7. l , LRSD should have prepared approximately four program evaluations during each of those three years.48 481n subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, I required LRSD to prepare the eight missing evaluations of the specifically identified 2. 7 programs using testing and performance data generated during the three previous school years when LRSD should have prepared those evaluations. Contrary to the Eighth Circuit's characterization of subparts A and C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, there was nothing \"bifurcated\" or inconsistent about those respective remedies, both of which were based on the identical interpretation ofLRSD's obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan. LRSD v. NLRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. Similarly, there is nothing in the record from the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings which supports the Eighth Circuit's statement that: \"Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations.\" Id. at 537. -18- In the 2004 unitary status hearing, Dr. Ross testified that he believed a school district the size of LRSD should be expected to prepare four or five  2. 7 programs evaluations each year in order to comply with its 2.7.l obligation to assess the effectiveness of the 2.7 programs. This number of annual program evaluations coincided almost exactly with the average number of annual program evaluations LRSD had earlier determined that it was required to prepare, over the 1999 to 2001 school years, in order to comply with its obligations under 2. 7. l .49 Using LRSD's own construction of the number of program evaluations it should prepare each year to satisfy its obligations under 2.7.1, I specified in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that LRSD must prepare program evaluations on four key 2. 7 programs during both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. Thus, section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not impose any obligations on LRSD that were not contained in 2. 7 .1, as LRSD had construed and attempted - to implement those obligations since the time it agreed to the Revised Plan in 1998. Rather, it only required LRSD to prepare the same number of annual evaluations of 2.7 programs that: (1) it believed it was required to prepare in order to satisfy its own understanding of its obligation under  2.7.1, as acknowledged on page 148 ofLRSD's 2002 Final Compliance Report; and (2) its own long-time consultant testified was reasonable for a school district the size ofLRSD. Finally, I suggested that LRSD use Dr. Ross to prepare as many of the eight evaluations as possible. As I pointed out in the 2004 Memorandum Opinion, a number of years ago, Joshua agreed, in writing, that Dr. Ross possessed the qualifications necessary to prepare program evaluations and to act as a consultant for LRSD in its efforts to comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. 50 Since that time, LRSD has regularly used the services of Dr. Ross, and he is thoroughly familiar with LRSD's compliance efforts under the Revised Plan. I suggested that LRSD continue to use 49See page 148 ofLRSD's March 15, 2002 Final Compliance Report (Doc. No. 3410). 50LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *9. -19- Dr. Ross only because I was concerned that, if LRSD selected another consultant to prepare the program evaluations, Joshua would challenge the new consultant's qualifications, and I would be required to referee another contentious dispute. D. The General Organization and Content of the Eight Program Evaluations During the June 2004 unitary status hearing, the parties introduced into evidence Regulation IL-Rl , which the LRSD Board of Directors approved shortly after I filed the September 2002 Decision. Regulation IL-Rl established the criteria that LRSD developed and agreed to follow in preparing the program evaluations necessary to satisfy its obligations under subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy.51 Section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy contains obligations that I took directly from Regulation IL-Rl. LRSD voluntarily adopted Regulation IL-Rl to govern the organization and content of the program evaluations it prepared to satisfy  2.7.l and subpart A of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. In section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I incorporated most of the requirements in Regulation IL-RI. 52 In doing so, there were no new obligations imposed on LRSD that went beyond what it had already agreed was required to do. E. Record Keeping Obligations As a way of relieving LRSD of the record keeping obligations in subpart B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside consultants who were selected to prepare the eight  2.7 program evaluations to discharge all of the record keeping obligations that were previously imposed on LRSD. Obviously, nothing in section E imposed any new contractual obligations on LRSD. 51LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *7. 52On December 16, 2004, LRSD replaced Regulation IL-RI with Regulation IL-R. As will be discussed later, Regulation IL-Risa significant improvement over Regulation IL-Rl. -20- F. Obligation to Keep ODM and Joshua Informed Section F required LRSD to provide the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and Joshua: (I) with the names of the eight  2.7 programs that PRE and Dr. Ross selected for evaluation; and (2) a copy of the comprehensive program assessment process adopted by LRSD's Board of Directors. Numerous sections of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to keep ODM and Joshua informed of its progress in complying with its desegregation obligations. Section F merely continued that policy, without imposing any new obligations on LRSD. G. The Role of ODM Section H reiterated ODM's role in assisting LRSD to meet its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Eighth Circuit ordered the creation ofODM and charged it with the duty of monitoring and assisting the three Pulaski County school districts to meet their respective - desegregation obligations. There is nothing in section H that imposed any new obligations on LRSD. H. The Role of Joshua In section I, I restated that Joshua was expected \"to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations.\" There is nothing in section I that imposed any new obligations. I. Deadlines for Filing Program Evaluations Section J required LRSD to file the four program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year no later than October I, 2005. The four program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year were required to be filed no later than October I, 2006. J. Deadline for Filing Compliance Report Section K gave LRSD until October 15, 2006, to file its Compliance Report \"documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy.\" -21- K. No New Obligations In this section, I made it clear that the 2004 Compliance Remedy was not intended to impose any new obligations on LRSD but only to state with greater specificity the obligations I thought LRSD understood it was required to meet in order to satisfy subparts A and B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. Because of the Eighth Circuit's concerns about the scope of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, I believe this section deserves to be quoted in full: L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VIl of the September 13 [2002] Decision.53 As I have previously acknowledged, section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy added a significant new obligation, not found in 2.7.1 or the 2002 Compliance Remedy, which required LRSD to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its - curriculum and instruction program. However, with that exception, I am satisfied that the remainder of the 2004 Compliance Remedy fairly met LRSD 's request that I specify in greater detail the obligations that LRSD and Joshua both knew and understood to be contained in 2. 7 .1 and subparts A and B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy. III. Findings Of Fact And Conclusions of Law A. Burden of Proof l. In my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the June 30, 2004 Order,54 I explained why LRSD had the burden of proving its substantial compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 53LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *33 (emphasis added). 54LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *19. -22- 2. I incorporate and adopt my previous analysis of the burden of proof issue inLRSD II as my conclusion of law on that point for purposes of the current unitary status hearing. B. LRSD's Substantial Compliance with Each Section of the 2004 Compliance Remedy 1. Section A: Hire a Team of Professionals to Reinvigorate PRE 1. After I entered the June 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD acted in a timely manner to hire a highly qualified director of PRE, as well as three statisticians, two testing assistants, and a full time secretary. Dr. Sharon DeJarnette, the new director of PRE, obtained her masters degree from Columbia University and her Ph.D. from UCLA. The topic of her dissertation was the preparation and use of program assessments to gauge the progress of English language learners. Prior to being hired by LRSD, she had over five years of experience preparing program evaluations of comprehensive school improvement programs as the Research Director for the Galef Institute. 2. During the January 2007 unitary status hearings, I heard testimony from Dr. DeJarnette and three statisticians in PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Ms. Mareso Robinson, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb. All four of these employees were knowledgeable, competent, and well educated, with considerable training and experience in statistics. All four of these employees were also quite knowledgeable about preparing and using assessments and evaluations to determine the effectiveness of academic programs designed to improve the academic achievement of students. 3. Dr. DeJamette began working as the director of PRE in October of 2004. In December, mandatory downsizing of all of LRSD' s administrative departments caused her to lose her secretary. Additionally, one of her testing coordinators left for a position in the PCSSD. Because these positions remained vacant for several months, Dr. DeJamette complained that it was harder for PRE to perform its work and forced the remaining staff to work longer hours. These positions have been restored now and PRE is back to its original seven person staffing level. -23- 4. Dr. Ed Williams, a statistician who has the longest tenure in PRE, testified that, after one of the testing coordinators left in 2005, he temporarily assumed those duties, in addition to his duties as a statistician. In November 2005, Arthur Oles was hired to fill this test coordinator position. Mr. Oles left the position in September of 2006, and Dr. Williams again assumed those duties until the position was filled on October 26, 2006. According to Dr. Williams, throughout the time PRE was required to discharge obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy, it was adequately staffed. I fully credit Dr. Williams's testimony and find that LRSD adequately staffed PRE during the relevant compliance period. The temporary vacancies in PRE were simply the result of normal attrition or downsizing that routinely occurs in organizations the size of LRSD. It was never my intention to require LRSD to meet its obligations in the 2004 Compliance Remedy with \"mathematical precision.\" Rather, consistent with the language in the Revised Plan, I expected LRSD to substantially comply with its obligations. The evidence during the January 2007 unitary status hearings fully supports my finding that LRSD has substantially complied with all of its obligations in section A of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 2. Section B: Act in Good Faith to Devise and Implement a Comprehensive Program Assessment Process l. Shortly after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD began work to satisfy its obligations under section B. Dr. DeJamette, Dr. Olivine Roberts,55 and Dr. Ross worked together to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. I find all three of these individuals are very knowledgeable in preparing and using program assessments and program evaluations. And all three are qualified to devise and implement a comprehensive program assessment process for LRSD. 55LRSD's Director of Curriculum and Instruction. -24- I I I I I I I I I I 2. Together Drs. DeJamette, Roberts, and Ross devised a comprehensive program assessment process for LRSD, which was set forth in Regulation IL-R.56 Importantly, this regulation, in conjunction with LRSD Policy IL,57 makes it clear that LRSD agrees to prepare all future program evaluations in accordance with the standards developed by the national Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. During the numerous unitary status hearings held since 2002, Dr. Ross and several other witnesses have testified that these are the highest and most rigorous standards for preparing a program evaluation. I find that Regulation IL~R, in conjunction with Policy IL, substantially complies with the obligation in section B that LRSD devise a comprehensive program assessment process. 3. Baker Kurrus and several other members of the LRSD Board testified that, on December 16, 2004, LRSD's Board unanimously approved Regulation IL-R. To date, LRSD's - Board has approved Program Evaluation Agendas annually requiring four programs to be evaluated during the 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 school years. The first eight of those evaluations were required by section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. LRSD's Board voluntarily elected to evaluate four 2. 7 programs during the 2006-07 school year. LRSD Board members testified that LRSD intends to continue this practice for the foreseeable future. 4. During the 2002 unitary status hearing, Dr. Bonnie Lesley58 testified that PRE had done a good job of preparing annual assessments of the 2.7 programs. According to Dr. Lesley, an \"assessment\" was much more informal and \"dynamic\" than a \"program evaluation.\" She also made it clear that 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to prepare both assessments and evaluations on the  2.7 programs. The evidence in the 2002 and 2004 unitary status hearings 56See Joshua's Exhibit 6. 51See Joshua's Exhibit 4. 58LRSD' s Associate Superintendent of Curriculum. -25- established that PRE has generally performed well in preparing the program assessments required by 2.7.1. 5. In section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at footnote 39, I explained that the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" required LRSD: (a) to prepare formal evaluations of some of the key  2. 7 programs; and (b) to prepare informal program assessments of other  2. 7 programs. The evidence during the 2004 unitary status hearing established that LRSD failed to satisfy its program evaluation obligations under  2. 7. l -- not its program assessment obligations. Thus, sections B and C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy primarily focused on the things LRSD needed to do to satisfy its program evaluation obligation under  2.7.1. This explains why Regulation IL-R primarily discussed the criteria to be followed in preparing formal program evaluations. However, it also specifically provided that LRSD was obligated to prepare - \"summative\" or formal evaluations; informal assessments; less rigorous formative evaluations; and fast or brief \"snapshots\" of programs. Regulation IL-R noted: \"As rigor and formality diminish along the range ofreview, fewer standards apply.\"59 6. On November 16, 2006, LRSD's Board approved a Resolution which states its intention: (a) to \"continue to assess LRSD programs, particularly those[ 2.7] programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students\"; and (b) \"to continue to follow the comprehensive program assessment process approved by the Board on December 16, 2004, even after LRSD is released from federal court supervision. \"60 By approving Regulation IL-R and the November 16, 2006 Resolution, LRSD's Board has acted in good faith to implement the program assessment process required by  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. 59See Joshua's Exhibit 6 at p. I. 60See LRSD's Exhibit 5. -26- 7. Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. Ed Williams,61 and Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh62 all testified at length about how LRSD has acted in good faith to implement the comprehensive program assessment process. Dr. Roberts testified that, since the adoption of Regulation IL-R, PRE has made an annual recommendation to the Board that it adopt a program assessment agenda and the Board has always approved that agenda. Using those annual agendas, LRSD has prepared the program evaluations that I required in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, as well as additional voluntary evaluations of other 2.7 programs -- including the Voyager Reading program and the Transition to Advanced Math program. LRSD has also evaluated several  2. 7 initiatives including Avid, an in-school support system for college bound African-American students, and another initiative designed to increase the number of African-American students enrolled in advanced placement courses. Finally, Dr. Roberts testified about how LRSD has performed annual program assessments -- which are more informal and dynamic than program evaluations -- of other  2. 7 programs. 8. Dr. Roberts testified that the program evaluations LRSD was required to prepare in order to satisfy sections Band C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy greatly helped LRSD to identify the  2. 7 programs that were actually working to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. LRSD Board member Baker Kurrus testified that, even though LRSD appealed the June 2004 Decision to the Eighth Circuit, he believed the Compliance Remedy was very helpful and set forth a \"very positive approach\" for LRSD to follow in meeting its obligations under 2. 7 .1. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, the current chair of the Board, also testified that the 2004 Compliance Remedy contained the elements LRSD needed to satisfy in order to meet its obligations under  2. 7. l . As noted earlier, the Eighth Circuit ultimately affirmed the 2004 Compliance Remedy, but 61A PRE statistician. 62LRSD's Deputy Superintendent. -27- it questioned the need for the prescribed remedy and criticized a number of its requirements as going beyond what LRSD agreed to do in 2.7.1. I am pleased that LRSD's top administrators and Board members recognized the soundness of the 2004 Compliance Remedy and why the specific requirements were necessary to address the shortcomings in LRSD's initial attempt to satisfy its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations were more generally described in the 2002 Compliance Remedy. 9. Dr. Roberts made it clear that the eight  2.7 program evaluations prepared by Drs. Ross and Catterall63 were beneficial to LRSD in determining the effectiveness of those programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. In addition, she testified that LRSD has agreed to implement all of the changes and modifications to those eight programs that were recommended by Drs. Ross and Catterall. IO. The evaluations of the Pre-K program, the Smart Thrive program, the Reading Recovery program, the Year Round Education program, and the A Plus program demonstrated that all five of those  2.7 programs are improving the academic achievement of African-American students. While the evaluations of the Read 180 program, the 2151 Century program, and the Compass Learning program demonstrated no statistical benefits in improving the academic achievement of African-American students, the evaluators believed that, after making changes in these three programs, they also should show a statistical benefit in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, LRSD has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, all of the recommended changes and is continuing all eight of those programs during the current school year. Finally, LRSD has performed, or intends to perform, follow-up annual evaluations on these eight programs to determine their effectiveness after all of the recommended changes have been implemented. 63 An expert who, in addition to Dr. Ross, conducted program evaluations. -28- 11. Dr. Roberts testified' that LRSD is in the process of completing a \"Data Warehouse\" where all district, school, and student data will be maintained in a central data storage facility that will be accessible to authorized personnel, such as PRE employees. LRSD has elected to use Business Objects software to develop this data warehouse. Before the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD had used Business Objects software to manage its financial data for a number of years. In 2005, LRSD administrators decided to use this same software to create the Data Warehouse, which will eventually contain all ofLRSD's data -- including district, school, and student data. LRSD administrators chose to use Business Objects software, rather than competing software sold by TetraData. Dr. Roberts saw the competing presentations on the Business Objects software and the TetraData software, and she believes the Business Objects software can access and configure the data needed by PRE to prepare future program assessments and program evaluations. Assuming the - Data Warehouse performs as expected, this will make it much easier for PRE to perform program assessments and gather the data needed to prepare the more rigorous and expensive program evaluations. 12. Dr. Roberts testified that, once the Data Warehouse is complete, PRE should be able to access by computer all of the information needed to prepare assessments and evaluations of 2. 7 programs. As explained by Dr. Roberts, all students who have participated in any of the  2. 7 programs are \"tagged\" in the Data Warehouse so that PRE can pull up a tagged student's name to see how many 2.7 programs he or she has participated in, as well as the standardized test scores and grades for the student both before and after exposure to  2. 7 programs. This will also allow PRE to track the tagged students over time to assess how they are performing after completing each specific 2. 7 program. This should allow PRE to gauge the effectiveness of the 2. 7 programs on a more expedited basis. -29- 13. According to Dr. Roberts, LRSD has used the Data Warehouse to create overall Curriculum Maps that will provide the infrastructure upon which School Portfolios will be constructed at all elementary, middle, and high schools. Dr. Roberts believes these Curriculum Maps are necessary before LRSD can build School Portfolios in the Data Warehouse. Eventually, these School Portfolios will contain all of the relevant performance data for students in a particular school and can be used to determine how well a school has implemented a  2. 7 program, as well as how students are performing, on a school-by-school basis, in those  2.7 programs. LRSD intends to begin implementing School Portfolios at ten schools during the 2007-08 school year and complete the process over the following two school years. 14. Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Kurrus all testified at length about why they believed LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process in - Regulation IL-R as a permanent part of its curriculum. I have already explained why I should not have used such a subjective standard to determine whether LRSD had met its compliance obligations. Nevertheless, after hearing everything that has been done to make the comprehensive program assessment process a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum, as explained by Drs. Roberts, Williams, and Mr. Kurrus, I believe it would be hard to find that it has not been \"deeply embedded.\" 15. Dr. Williams testified that, in July 2006, LRSD began \"live training\" with its employees on how to using and accessing data from the Data Warehouse. While there are still some data points that need to be added to the Data Warehouse, Dr. Williams believes it will meet PRE's needs in accessing the data required to prepare program assessments and evaluations. 16. Dr. DeJarnette64 and Jim Wohlleb65 were critical ofLRSD' s decision to use Business Objects software. Both testified that TetraData was superior software that was specifically designed 64Director of PRE. 65 A PRE statistician. -30- to configure data for use in preparing program assessments and program evaluations. They were critical of the amount of training they had received in using the Business Objects software and believed that the Data Warehouse contained too many errors and was still too incomplete to allow PRE to use it as a source for preparing assessments and evaluations of the 2.7 programs. Both testified that, only a few days before the commencement of the January 2007 unitary status hearing, they tried to access the Data Warehouse to get the student data needed to prepare a hypothetical assessment of one of the 2.7 programs. They testified that, because so few of the students in the  2.7 programs have been tagged, they could get only one of the eight data points necessary to prepare the hypothetical assessment. Finally, they testified that they had invited a representative of ODM and Joshua to view the inadequacies of the Business Objects software and the Data Warehouse. Dr. DeJarnette also criticized LRSD' s delay in implementing the School Portfolios and in creating an unreliable Data Warehouse that she may not be able to use to prepare future program assessments and program evaluations. 17. Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh testified that LRSD decided to use Business Objects software because it can be used to access financial and budget data, as well as the student data needed by PRE. According to Dr. Hattabaugh, TetraData cannot be used to access financial and budget data. Additionally, Business Objects software allows LRSD to create a Data Warehouse on its own servers, which allows it to own and control the data.66 18. I fully credit Dr. Hattabaugh's explanation of why LRSD elected to use Business Objects software, rather than TetraData software, to create the Data Warehouse. I find that LRSD acted in good faith when selecting the Business Objects software, which Drs. Roberts, Williams, and 66TetraData requires school districts that use its software to store all of their data on its server in North Carolina. School districts are then charged an annual per student fee to access information from TetraData's server. -31 - - ------- Hattabaugh all believe will fully meet the needs of PRE in preparing program assessments and evaluations. 19. LRSD hired the Janis Group to create the Data Warehouse using the Business Objects software. Mr. Larry Naeyaert , the director of business intelligence for the Janis Group, was assigned the LRSD Data Warehouse project in 2005. For most of2005 and all of 2006, he worked essentially full-time in Little Rock installing the Business Objects software and creating the Data Warehouse. As a former employee of Business Objects, Mr. Naeyaert is thoroughly familiar with the operation of that software. He also is a specialist in setting up business intelligence systems and data bases. 20. Mr. Naeyaert testified in detail about how: (a) student testing, performance, demographics, scheduling, and observational data were entered into the Data Warehouse; (b) - security features have been installed to protect student data; ( c) data have been \"normalized\" to make it available in a common format, which can be matched to a particular student's name; (d) errors have been corrected in the testing and achievement data and a computer program developed to check each night for any input errors that may have occurred earlier in the day; (e) individual student \"data marts\" were created that include all of the data that PRE employees said they needed to prepare program assessments and evaluations; ( f) a student tagging system was developed to track all of the students who have been in any of the 2.7 programs; and (g) five full days of training were provided to all PRE employees.67 21. Mr. Naeyaert testified that LRSD's Data Warehouse is almost complete, although it will be necessary to update it on a continuing basis with new data. The only incomplete data, not yet in the system, are the past school year's achievement data, teacher certification data, and \"perception\" data. Mr. Naeyaert testified that, in July and October of 2006, he performed multiple 67Dr. DeJamette attended only a little over one day of that training. -32- live demonstrations using the Data Warehouse for PRE employees, and the Business Objects software was able to access the requested information from the Data Warehouse. 22. LRSD recalled Mr. Naeyaert, as a rebuttal witness, to controvert the testimony of Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb that, shortly before the January 2007 unitary status hearing, they were unable to access the Data Warehouse and obtain the data they needed for a hypothetical program assessment. Mr. Naeyaert demonstrated how he was able to access the Data Warehouse and obtain all of the data that Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb testified they were unable to access. 23. Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Wohlleb, Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Naeyaert all agreed that 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. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb 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. 24. Dr. DeJarnette testified that the Data Warehouse was necessary in order to deeply embed Regulation IL-R.68 She also believes that the creation of School Portfolios is required under Regulation IL-R. However, Regulation IL-R, which sets forth LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process, says nothing about LRSD's agreeing to create a \"Data Warehouse,\" nor does 68Joshua's Exhibit 6. -33- it mention \"School Portfolios.\"69 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 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. While this decision may be a good one, it was not required by 2.7. l, the 2004 Compliance Remedy, nor Regulation IL-R. 25. According to Dr. DeJarnette, on December 1, 2006, LRSD Superintendent Roy Brooks suspended her, and a short time later she was notified that she had been discharged. On January 8, 2007, LRSD' s Board heard Dr. DeJ arnette' s appeal and reinstated her as director of PRE, effective January 10, 2007. According to Dr. DeJamette, Dr. Brooks discharged her because, - contrary to his orders, she informed LRSD Board members in early November 2006 of perceived problems with LRSD's compliance efforts. Dr. Brooks and Dr. Hattabaugh testified that Dr. DeJarnette was discharged because she had become openly defiant to her superiors and did not go through the proper chain-of-command when she communicated directly with LRSD's Board members. Both denied that she was discharged because she believed LRSD had not met its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 26. The facts surrounding Dr. DeJarnette's discharge and reinstatement are irrelevant to whether LRSD has substantially complied with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Nevertheless, because Dr. DeJamette 's discharge and reinstatement may be raised on appeal, I will review briefly the relevant facts, which are essentially undisputed: 69The only time that phrase is even mentioned is on page 2, under one of the headings on a checklist that reads \"Formative Evaluation Process (School Portfolios).\" -34- (a) By December of 2004, a few months after she was hired, Dr. DeJamette had a dispute with her direct supervisor, Dr. Roberts, about a district-wide downsizing that caused her to believe she might lose one of her test administrators and her secretary. Following this dispute, Dr. DeJamette began complaining to Dr. Brooks about how Dr. Roberts was impeding the work of PRE. Dr. DeJarnette asked Dr. Brooks to allow her to report directly to him, but he refused. (b) During 2005 and 2006, Dr. DeJamette began to meet with Joy Springer, Joshua's primary monitor, without LRSD's attorney present. She also began sharing with Ms. Springer draft documents ofLRSD' s compliance efforts, even though LRSD' s attorney had explicitly directed her not to do this. (c) In August of 2006, PRE sent LRSD's attorney the final draft of the final quarterly update, which was dated September 1, 2006. 70 In this update, Dr. DeJarnette raised what she thought were a number of problems with LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. All of the \"compliance problems\" raised by Dr. DeJamette involve obligations that go beyond what was required under  2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (d) LRSD's attorney deleted almost all of Dr. DeJarnette's remarks in section D of the September 1, 2006 update, which criticized LRSD's efforts to comply primarily with the \"deeply embedded\" obligation in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy.71 This upset Dr. DeJarnette, who believed that LRSD's attorney was trying to keep the Board in the dark about potential problems with LRSD's compliance efforts. 10See Joshua's Exhibit 24. 11See LRSD's Exhibit 2H. -35- (e) Sometime in October of 2006, one or more Board members found out about LRSD' s attorney deleting a portion of PRE's draft of the September I, 2006 quarterly update and asked Dr. Roberts to have Dr. DeJarnette advise the Board of what happened. Dr. DeJarnette sent each Board member a letter dated November 3, 2006, along with a document captioned \"PRE Compliance History 2004-2006.\"72 (f) On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette and, a short time later, fired her. On January 9, 2006, the Board heard Dr. DeJarnette's appeal and voted 4-3 to reverse Dr. Brooks's decision and to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette. 27. I fully credit Dr. Roberts's testimony detailing the long list of things LRSD did to implement and embed the comprehensive program assessment process contained in Regulation IL-R. I credit the testimony of Dr. Roberts, Dr. Williams, and Mr. Naeyaert on the current status of the - Data Warehouse and School Portfolios, and the suitability of Business Objects software as a platform for accessing the information in the Data Warehouse. I find that much of Dr. DeJarnette's and Mr. Wohlleb's criticism of the Data Warehouse, School Portfolios, and the Business Objects software lacks objectivity. 28. I find that LRSD' s administrators have substantially complied with their obligations m section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by implementing a comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD' s curriculum. I further fmd that, in implementing the comprehensive program assessment process, LRSD has acted in good faith. 29. LRSD has gone the extra mile to ensure that its program assessment process is and will continue to be a permanent part of its curriculum. I would be hard pressed not to conclude that LRSD has now \"deeply embedded\" that process as a permanent part of its curriculum, although this standard is now abandoned. 72See Joshua's Exhibit 31. -36- - 3. Section C: Prepare Four Evaluations of Key  2. 7 Programs During Each of the Next Two Academic Years (2004-05 and 2005-06) 1. To comply with section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired Dr. Ross and Dr. James S. Catterall. Dr. Ross prepared evaluations of six key 2.7 programs: (1) Reading Recovery;73 (2) Compass Learning;74 (3) Smart/Thrive;75 (4) 2l51 Century Community Learning Centers;76 (5) Read 180;77 and (6) Pre-K Literacy.78 Dr. Catterall, another highly qualified consultant, prepared evaluations on two key  2. 7 programs: ( 1) Year Round Education; 79 and (2) A+ Education. 80 2. For the 2004-05 school year, Drs. Ross and Catterall prepared evaluations ofReading Recovery, Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, and Year Round Education. LRSD timely filed these four evaluations with the Court on February 6, 2006.81 3. For the 2005-06 school year, Drs. Ross and Catterall prepared evaluations of 2151 Century Community Learning Centers, A+ Education, Read 180, and Pre-K Literacy. The first three evaluations were filed on November 17, 2006, and the last evaluation was filed on December 15, 73LRSD Exhibit IA. 74LRSD Exhibit lB. 75LRSD Exhibit IC. 76LRSD Exhibit IE. 77LRSD Exhibit lG. 78LRSD Exhibit 1 H. 79LRSD Exhibit ID. 80LRSD Exhibit IF. 81See Doc. No. 3985. -37- 2006. All four program evaluations were filed within the time limit specified in section J of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, as extended by my Order dated August 1, 2006.82 4. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in identifying the eight key 2.7 programs that were to be evaluated. Consistent with section F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD provided timely written notice to the ODM and Joshua of the names of the eight key programs selected for evaluation. ODM and Joshua agreed to the eight key  2. 7 programs that were eventually selected for evaluation. 5. In his evidentiary deposition, 83 Dr. Ross testified that the six evaluations he prepared met all of the requirements contained in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. He also testified that all six of these evaluations were \"good evaluations,\" in that they accurately answered the research questions and reached statistically valid conclusions which demonstrated four of the programs84 - were working to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, and two of the programs85 did not appear to be working. However, Dr. Ross testified that, after LRSD implemented recommended changes, these two programs should show a statistically significant benefit in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Dr. Ross recommended that LRSD continue to offer all six of these 2.7 programs. Since Dr. Ross's recommendation, LRSD has implemented the recommended changes in those two programs and plans to perform a follow-up evaluation to determine if, after the changes, the programs are now working. After reading all eight of these step 2 evaluations, I find that they comply, in all respects, with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 82Doc. No. 4035. 83Court's Exhibit A. 84Reading Recovery, Smartffhrive, Read 180, and Pre-K Literacy. 85Compass Learning and 21st Century Learning Centers. -38- 6. Dr. Ross testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare these six evaluations of 2.7 programs. While Dr. Ross identified several discrete problems with some of the data, he did not assert that these problems affected the validity or utility of the evaluations. He also made it clear that \"School Portfolios\" were not necessary in order to access the data required to prepare accurate and reliable program evaluations. 7. In his deposition, 86 Dr. Catterall testified that PRE provided him with all of the data he needed to prepare evaluations of the Year Round Education program and the A+ Education program. He stated that the data he received from LRSD was better than the data he received from most school districts. Dr. Catterall also indicated that the evaluations he prepared of these two  2. 7 programs complied with all of the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Finally, Dr. Catterall testified that School Portfolios were not needed in order to prepare program - evaluations. 8. In her evidentiary deposition,87 Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, an outside consultant with expertise in using TetraData to construct Data Warehouses and School Portfolios for school districts, also confirmed that Data Warehouses and School Portfolios were not necessary in order to prepare a program evaluation. Dr. Bernhardt believed TetraData software was easier to use than Business Objects software, and TetraData software was specifically developed to create Data Warehouses for school districts, unlike Business Objects software. Finally, Dr. Bernhardt acknowledged that she owns stock options in TetraData. 9. During the January 2007 unitary status hearings, Joshua offered little testimony challenging whether these eight evaluations of key  2. 7 programs satisfied the requirements in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette testified that one of the high school 86Court's Exhibit B. 87Court's Exhibit C. -39- principals, who had students participating in the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers program, administered 120 end-of-course algebra exams but failed to have 40% of the exams graded. Dr. DeJarnette believed this may have affected the accuracy of Dr. Ross's evaluation of that program. She also testified that Dr. Ross did not receive all of the data from all of the schools participating in the Read 180 program because some of the servers containing that test score data were dismantled before that data could be given to Dr. Ross. She believed this loss of data may have limited the use of the Read 180 evaluation. In criticizing the accuracy of a small part of the data used in two of the program evaluations, Dr. DeJarnette makes too much of a small glitch. Her testimony falls well short of establishing any substantial problems with the data used in those evaluations sufficient to create a question concerning whether LRSD complied with the requirements in section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. - 10. In Joshua's November 15, 2006 Objections to LRSD' s Compliance Report, 88 the only challenge it makes to any of the eight program evaluations is in paragraph 5, which contains the following cryptic statement: \"[T]he evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers program contain insufficient descriptions of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the Court's Order.\"89 To the extent that Joshua was serious about challenging sufficiency of how these two programs were described, they failed to present any evidence to support this argument during the January 2007 unitary status hearing. Accordingly, I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of its obligations under section C of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 88Doc. No. 4058. 89Jd. -40- 4. Section D: Content and Organization of the Eight Evaluations of Key  2.7 Programs 1. Each of the eight evaluations was designed to answer the following research questions: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" And each of these evaluations is organized and written in a way that makes the information readily understandable to a lay person such as I. 2. 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. Dr. DeJamette made it clear in the quarterly updates and in her testimony in the January 2007 unitary status hearing that she and the PRE department supervised the preparation of the eight evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall to provide them with the data and other assistance they needed. Dr. Williams also testified that PRE fulfilled its duties in overseeing the preparation of these eight evaluations and working closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall to provide the support and assistance they requested. 3. I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section D of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 5. Section E: Record Keeping Obligation 1. After reviewing the eight step 2 evaluations, I find that Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall performed all of the record keeping obligations required in section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, during the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua did not offer any arguments or testimony directed at challenging the obligations imposed under this section of the remedy. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section E of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. -41- 6. Section F: Notice Obligations l. As I have previously stated, PRE timely provided ODM and Joshua with written notice of the eight key 2.7 programs that PRE and Dr. Ross identified for program evaluations. PRE also provided ODM and Joshua with a fmal draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented for approval to the LRSD Board. LRSD's Board approved the comprehensive program assessment process set forth in Regulation IL-R on December 16, 2004, well before the December 31, 2004 deadline. Finally, during the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua did not offer any evidence challenging LRSD's compliance with any of the obligations in this section of the remedy. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 7. Section G: Quarterly Updates l. LRSD timely filed the eight quarterly updates required by this section of the remedy. LRSD also provided ODM and Joshua with copies of these quarterly updates when each update was filed. 2. The only contested aspect ofLRSD's preparation of the quarterly updates concerns Joshua's assertion that LRSD's counsel improperly deleted information from section B of the final draft of the September 1, 2006 update that Dr. DeJarnette believed should have been included. As previously explained, in section B of the fmal draft of the September 1, 2006 update, Dr. DeJarnette raised compliance concerns involving: ( a) the Data Warehouse and School Portfolios; (b) errors and inaccuracies in some of the data contained in the Data Warehouse; and (c) the delay in completing both of those projects, which still had work that remained to be done, as of September 1, 2006. 90 Dr. DeJarnette believed the completion of both the Data Warehouse and School Portfolios were a 90See Joshua's Exhibit 24. -42- necessary and essential part of\"deeply embedding\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part ofLRSD' s curriculum. She testified that, by editing out her criticism ofLRSD' s compliance efforts in section B of the September 1, 2006 quarterly update, LRSD's attorney was preventing LRSD's Board and the Court from receiving crucial information. 3. As I have previously explained, nothing in the 2004 Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to install a Data Warehouse or to create School Portfolios. Similarly, Regulation IL-R does not mention the Data Warehouse or School Portfolios. Finally, Dr. Ross and Dr. Barnhardt both testified that a school district could embed a comprehensive program assessment process, as a permanent part of its curriculum, without creating a Data Warehouse or School Portfolios. 4. The information LRSD's attorney deleted from Dr. DeJarnette's final draft of the September I, 2006 Quarterly Update has no bearing on the question of whether LRSD has - substantially complied with the obligations contained in section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 5. I find that LRSD has substantially complied with all of the obligations in section G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 8. Section H: The ODM I. During the 2007 unitary status hearing, Joshua called Gene Jones, one of the ODM monitors, to offer testimony regarding LRSD' s alleged noncompliance. While Mr. Jones conceded that the term \"deeply embedded\" has never been defined, and that he was not sure what that term meant, he nevertheless, stated that he did not believe that LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum. Be that as it may, \"deeply embedded\" is no longer required. 2. Mr. Jones also testified that, at Dr. DeJarnette's request, he was in PRE's office several days before the commencement of the January 2007 unitary status hearing to observe alleged failure of the Data Warehouse (to provide seven of the eight points of data she needed to prepare her -43- I I I I I I I I I I I hypothetical program). Mr. Jones did not indicate that he had taken an independent look at section B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to determine whether it required LRSD to create a Data Warehouse and School Portfolios. (It does not.) 9. Section I: Joshua's Monitoring Obligations l. The 2004 Compliance Remedy reads: I want to be very clear on this point- if compliance problems arise, the parties must immediately bring them to my attention so that I can resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make \"mid-course corrections.\"91 2. On June 26, 2006, the Eighth Circuit entered its decision affinning the June 2004 Compliance Remedy.92 The Court agreed that \"Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy.\"93 However, the Court went on to say: Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD' s efforts to comply with the 2002 order.94 3. Two days after the Eighth Circuit issued its June 26, 2006 decision Joshua filed an affidavit by Ms. Joy Springer. 4. Ms. Springer is a long-time paralegal for Joshua's counsel. She has considerable experience and has developed considerable expertise in the monitoring process. 92LRSD v. NLRSD, et al., 451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006). 93/d. at 539. -44-  5. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, Ms. Springer testified, in a six-page affidavit dated June 28, 2006,95 that she had brought to the attention ofLRSD's Board her concerns about LRSD' s compliance with its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Mr. Kurrus and several other LRSD Board members testified that this was their first notice that Joshua had any concerns about LRSD's compliance efforts. This was less than 120 days before the deadline for LRSD to file its Final Compliance Report and twenty-one months into LRSD's compliance efforts. On August 17, 2006, Ms. Springer wrote a letter to LRSD' s attorney96 detailing additional concerns that she had about LRSD's compliance efforts. 6. Most of the alleged compliance problems noted by Ms. Springer in her affidavit arose during the 2005 school year. The affidavit's list of problems include: inadequate professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations; a delay in the use of questionnaires - as part of the program assessment process; delays in the completion of the Data Warehouse; Drs. Brooks and Roberts \"de-emphasiz[ing] the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy,\" by seldom, if ever, attending \"PRE meetings\" or \"evaluation team meetings,\" and reducing or failing to fill positions in PRE; and LRSD's alleged failure to meet its obligation of\"embedding program assessments\" into its curriculum and instruction program. 7. I would be hard pressed to find that Joshua's objections were timely filed in view of the Eighth Circuit language, quoted above, and in view of the language in the 2004 Compliance Remedy.97 Be that as it may, most compliance issues raised in the affidavit deal with matters that are clearly not required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy (\"deeply embedding\" is no longer required). My previous findings make it clear that I reject Ms. Springer's view of the alleged 95Joshua's Exhibit 18. 96Joshua's Exhibit 19. 91See LRSD II, 2004 WL 5187587, at *34. -45-  compliance problems which are covered by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Accordingly, I do not credit them in determining whether LRSD is in compliance. 10. Section J: Deadline for LRSD to File Program Evaluations I. As previously explained, LRSD filed the eight evaluations of key  2. 7 programs within the times specified in section K, as extended by my later orders, and has substantially complied with its obligations under section J. 11. Section K: Deadline for LRSD to File Final Compliance Report I. LRSD filed its Final Compliance Report98 on October 16, 2006. Joshua filed objections99 on November 15, 2006. 2. Thus, I find that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under section K. C. Miscellaneous: The Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow (\"QGTB\") Report I. On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department alleging, among other things, that certain LRSD senior administrators had created a hostile work environment by directing her to withhold information from the LRSD Board, ODM, and Joshua, and by advising her that, if she did not withhold this information, she would be discharged. 2. On November 6, 2006, LRSD retained the law firm of QGTB to conduct an independent investigation of the facts surrounding Dr. DeJamette's grievance and her allegations that she was ordered to withhold certain information concerning LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On November 9, 2006, LRSD's Board approved hiring QGTB and directed QGTB to continue its investigation and prepare a written report. On November 21 , 2006, 98Doc. No. 4050. 99Doc. No. 4058. -46- QGTB presented LRSD's Board with a report entitled \"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors ofLRSD\" (the \"QGTB Report\"). 3. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, LRSD introduced the QGTB Report100 into evidence for the limited purpose of establishing LRSD's good faith in responding to Dr. DeJamette's grievance alleging a hostile work environment. 4. As I have previously explained, I find Dr. DeJamette's discharge and later reinstatement as Director of PRE to be a personnel issue that has nothing to do with whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. I further find that none of the facts contained in the QGTB Report are admissible in this case to prove the truth of any of the matters asserted in that document. D. 1. Impact of September 2006 School Board Elections From the time LRSD entered the Revised Plan in 1998 until the September 2006 school board elections, Caucasians have held the majority of seats on LRSD' s Board. This changed after the September elections, and LRSD' s Board is now composed of four African-Americans and three Caucasians. 2. During the January 2007 unitary status hearing, the three Caucasian Board members, Mr. Kurrus, Mr. Larry Berkley, and Ms. Melanie Fox, all testified that LRSD had deeply embedded the comprehensive program assessment process and substantially complied with all of the other obligations in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 3. The African-American Board members are Chairperson Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Mr. Robert Daughtery, Mr. Charles Armstrong, and Ms. Diane Curry. They testified that they either did not believe, or did not have enough information to know if, LRSD had \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of its curriculum. They also 100LRSD Exhibit 6. -47- expressed concerns about whether LRSD had substantially complied with its other obligations under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Some of the African-American Board members also expressed reservations about whether it was in LRSD's best interest to be declared unitary because LRSD could lose millions of dollars of state funding that it now receives under the settlement agreement with the State of Arkansas. 4. Because the \"deeply embedded\" language has been struck as too subjective, the opinions of the Board members on the question of whether LRSD has \"deeply embedded\" the comprehensive program assessment process is not relevant. I do not find the concerns expressed by some Board members regarding the effect of LRSD's substantial compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy on other obligations to be at issue now. It is understandable that Board members would be concerned over a potential loss of state funding, but that is not, and cannot be, an appropriate consideration in determining whether the District is unitary. I do not fault the new board members for their doubts. It seems to me that these doubts reflect a heathy skepticism, rather than negative attitudes. This is to be expected of new members while they are getting their sea legs. 5. All seven Board members agreed that improving the academic achievement of African-American students is of great importance, and that the District will need to continue to implement, assess, and evaluate 2. 7 programs for the foreseeable future. They support Regulation IL-Rand believe that it must be made a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum. They believe PRE plays a crucial role in overseeing the implementation, assessment, and evaluation of 2. 7 programs. By finding common ground on these four important priorities, I am optimistic that the Board will continue to ensure that the comprehensive program assessment process remains a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum for as long as it takes to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. -48- IV. Conclusion Nine years after executing the March 15, 1998 Revised Plan, LRSD finally has achieved unitary status by substantially complying with all of the obligations contained in that document. This means that LRSD is no longer under any supervision and monitoring obligations from me, ODM, or Joshua. LRSD's Board can now operate the district as it sees fit; answerable to no one except LRSD's students and patrons and the voters who elected them to office. While the road has been long and at times frustrating -- for LRSD and for me -- I want to express my heartfelt best wishes as LRSD begins to operate, as our Founders intended, under control of the citizens of the City of Little Rock. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that LRSD be and hereby is declared completely unitary in all aspects of its operations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LRSD is released from all further supervision and monitoring from the Court, ODM, and Joshua based upon its having substantially complied with all of its obligations under the Revised Plan, the September 2002 Compliance Remedy, and the June 2004 Compliance Remedy. DATED this 23d day of February, 2007. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -49- 03/24/2007 10:26 5016045237 USDC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTlE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3326 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 March 24, 1007 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSDv. PCSSD, eta/, 4:82-CV-00866 Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Dear Mr. Walker: What is opposing counsel's position? Please advise. P.S. Please refer to Local Rul 6.2(b). Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Reco:rd Cordially, ts/ wm. R.Wilson,Jr, PAGE 02/02 03/24/2007 10:26 5016045237 USDC TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Robert Pressman Scott Richardson ODM Mark Burnette .., . .) ~ l '/ . .;;, _;;.. Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 688-8807 375-1027 374-4187 781-862-1955 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 There are -,_,pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 PAGE 01/02 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 OFRCtOF DEr!:~~U\\i\"i':.,.. :.;r:\"l'!'Off!NG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Additional Time in which to File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 4105). Joshua is given to and including 12:00 noon, Thursday, April 5, 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal. This should give the intervenors ample time to weigh the relevant considerations. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2007. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIME-Version:1 . 0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts . gov To : ared_ecf@localhost . localdomain a essage-Id:\u0026lt;872025@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; W ee : Subject :Activity in Case 4:82- cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once wi thout charge . To avoid later charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S . District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/26/2007 11 : 11 AM CDT and filed on 3/26/2007 Case Name : Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer ~ WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number : 4107 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document : http : //ecf.ared.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_ case_doc?4107 , 26052 ,, MAGIC ,,, 2005624 Docket Text : ORDER granting ( 4105] Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal ; Joshua is given to a nd including 12 : 00 noon , Thursday , April 5 , 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 3/26/07. (mkf) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: A:layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com - hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbml aw . net , nmo l er@kbmlaw.net Christopher J. He l ler heller@fec . net , brendak@fec . net , tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com, linda .calloway@jlj . com \\ John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol. com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol . com  Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardsori@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag .gov, patsy . dooley@arkansasag . gov 4:82-cv- 866 Notice has been delivered by other means t o : . Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 . Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Atto rney General ' s Office Catlett- Pr i en Tower Building 323 Cente r Street Sui te 200 - Little Roc k, AR 72201 - 2610 James M. Llewell yn , Jr Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewe ll y n , P . A. Post Office Box 818 cort Smith, AR 72902-08 18 Office of Desegregation Moni to r One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 ~ ttle Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 The following ~ocument(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description : Main Document Original filename : n/a Electronic document Stamp : [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=3/26/2007) [FileNumber=872024-0) [317a0cbedac4ald0bf5d26ac32314670103d8elca6e57249a36ac7a8b50b0ld7284fcl2f00fbbfe llc162 4b02853a0572ef935adbbc364371afbcf496f237239)) \\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2007 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  '\"INTERVENORS  INTERVENORS Based on the matters set forth in Joshua lntervenors' Motion for Reconsideration for Extension of Time Up to and Including 30 Days to File Notice of Appeal (Doc. No. 4109), Joshua's time is again extended to 12:00 noon, Monday, April 9, 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal. Mr. Walker and Mr. Pressman have had extensive experience in this type oflitigation and in,!his particular case. While the Order of February 23, 2007 1 is longer than the usual order entered by this Court, it is not, I believe, all that complicated for lawyers who have been involved in the litigation for such a len~h of time -- and the filing of a notice of appeal is a simple matter. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of March, 2007. Isl Wm. R. Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'Doc. No. 4103. MIME-Version:1 . 0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ ecf@localhost . localdomain Message-Id : \u0026lt;872438@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Alec: .,ubject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Order on Motion for Reconsiderati on Content-Type: text / plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** There is no charge for viewing opinions . ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , down l oad 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 3 / 26 / 2007 3 : 03 PM CDT and filed on 3/26/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number : 4 : 82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01 / 26/1998 Document Number : 4110 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the docume nt : http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/ show_ case_ doc?4l10 , 26052,,MAGIC,,, 2005632 Docket Text : ORDER granting [4109) Motion for Reconsideration ; Joshua ' s time is again extended to 12 : 00 noon , Monday , April 9 , 2007 within which to file a notice of appeal . Signed by Judge Wi lliam R. Wilson Jr . on 3 / 26/07 . (mkf) 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: ~ layton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Wphili p E. Kap l an pkaplan @kbml a w. net , nmoler@kbmlaw .net Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samue l Jones , III (Terminated) sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj. com, linda . calloway@jlj . com \\ John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, j springer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Bu rnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Cl ayburn Fendley , Jr c l ayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo.com ~ Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agc ivi l@arkansasag.gov , patsy . dooley@arkan sasag .gov 4 : 82-cv- 866 Notice has been delivered by other means to :Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 ~imothy Ge rard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General ' s Offi ce Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 - Little Rock, AR 72201 -2 610 J ames M. Llewe l lyn, Jr Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewe l l yn , P . A. Post Office Box 818 Fo r t Smith , AR 72902 -08 18 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - ittle Rock , AR 72201 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=l095794525 [Date=3/26/2007] [FileNumber=872437-0] [b9a0174044707lc635647c060ac8605869149660906b84412eddll8e7761841722b72d3ccd8fc78 46lef08d8ac06f5ae4e4c3825b0b0189celdecaee8a00bede]] MIME-Version : 1 . 0 R~ From : ecf_support@ared.uscourts . gov ,;;CE/ll~D To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain Ve;, - ~~age-Id:\u0026lt;872743@ared.uscourts .gov\u0026gt; /.f. Subject :Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School,~~ ~.J!JO(}iulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction OF~  Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS** JJESEOR~J\"-B;, the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges , downloact~~JN4ttON/ftf..,~ach document during this first viewing.U.S . District Court '~ Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 3/27/2007 8 : 10 AM CDT and filed on 3/27/2007 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 Filer : WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4112 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http : / / ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_ case_ doc?4ll2,26052,,MAGIC,, , 2005637 Docket Text : NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re : [4109] MOTION for Reconsideration . CORRECTION : The original document was submitted in error (illegible document format); the correct document was added to docket entry [4109] , based on the attached correspondence. (thd) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to : A:1ayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com W hilip E . Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw . net Christophe r J. Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec .net M. Samue l J ones , III (Terminated) sj o nes@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw . com Stephen W. J ones sjones@jlj . com, kat e . jones@jlj . com, linda . calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol. com, jspringer@gabrielmail . com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Cla y burn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@c omcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Sc o t t Par is Richardson scott . richards o~\" @arkansasag . gov , agcivil@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dool ey@arkansasag.gov 4: 8 2-cv -8 66 Notice has been delivered by other means t o : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educationa l Fund, Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013 Ti mot hy Gerard Gauger Ark a nsa s At torney Genera l ' s Of fi ce Ca tlett -P rien Tower Bui lding 323 Center St reet Suite 200 - Little Roc k, AR 72201 -2 610 J ames M. Ll ewel l yn, J r Thomps on \u0026amp; Llewel l yn , P.A. Post Cffi~e Box 818 f o r t Smitb , AR 7 2902-08 18 Of fi~~ 0E De s e g r ega tion Mo ni to r One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 - ttle Rock, AR 72201 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=3/27/2007] [FileNumber=872742-0] [a2ff16c6503bf6f37ce6d846e18b46a2a71bb785564ba03f3defe925a6eebd7a57f7854b71d37dc 853a64aaf31c7af693c73a93le5del77b6a9a0780acf18605]]     Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; 03/26/2007 05:55 PM To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc \u0026lt;cblackstock@mbbwi.com\u0026gt;, \"Philip Kaplan\" \u0026lt;pkaplan@kbmlaw.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@mwsgw.com\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@jlj.com\u0026gt;, bee Subject Little Rock School Distirct v. Pulaski County Special School District.et al. At Mr. Walker's request, I am resending the attached motion per your request. Looks like we are having problem with our Adobe. Thank you for your patience and cooperation. Joy Springer ., ' f:hif For John W. Walker Motion for Reconsideration.pdf ---------- ----- --------- ----~---------    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_1232","title":"Oral deposition of Victoria Bernhardt, Ph.D.","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":["2007-01-10"],"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 law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Victoria Bernhardt, Ph.D."],"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/1232"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at John W. Walker Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.4:82-CV-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT DATE: January 10, 2007 TIME: 5:59 p.m. PLACE: The John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 APPEARANCES RECEIVE JAN 19 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONllORI G On Behalf of the Plaintiff: Christopher Heller, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark On Behalf of the Defendants: 400 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker, Attorney The John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, Legal Assistant, The John W. Walker Law Firm Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box i4, Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS. I N D E X EXAMINATION OF DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT By Mr. Walker. By Mr. Heller. COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting ORIGINAL P. o . Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 PAGE . 3 . 3 .3-38 38-67 . 71 I I 1 2 - 3 4 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 ORIGINAL STIPULATIONS The deposition of Dr. Victoria Bernhardt, produced, sworn and examined at the John W. Walker Law Firm, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72206-1220, commencing at 5:59 p.m., on January 10, 2007 in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G THEREUPON, DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiffs, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Can you hear me fairly well, doctor? Cobb Court Reporting P . 0 . Box #4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs imile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL A. Yes, I can hear you\nthank you. Q. All right\nthis is John Walker. Have you ever given a deposition before? A. No, I haven't. Q. All right. First of all if any question that I or Mr. Heller ask you is unclear or you do not understand it, would you be kind enough to let us know that you do not. A. I do. 4 Q. And ah, I'll try not to talk too fast or interrupt you but I would like for you to be able to give me a full answer and I'll try not to interrupt you and Mr. Heller and I hopefully will not talk at the same time. If there's some reason that you need to interrupt the deposition just feel free to just say it on the record and then we'll stop for a while. I don't expect this deposition to be lengthy at least from my part but Mr. Heller has a right to ask you questions as well. I'm prepared to begin--is there any prelimi nary statement you want to make Chris? HELLER: No. Q. Dr. Bernard--- SPRINGER: Bernhardt. Q. Bernhardt, I called you Bernard\nI'm sorry. Dr. Bernhardt when did you first meet Dr. Karen DeJarnette? A. Oh, wow. I'm trying to place the timing\nit was before she was working at Little Rock School District so it was ah, she Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail: gl oria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . c om 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\Glt~AL was also working with-- I was working .as controller with the Gala foundation as well so it put it in ah- - oh , like either late 1999 I think . Q. All right . Are you familiar with her qualifications? A. Very much so . Q. I see. How would you describe her qualifications to 5 perform the tasks of professional evaluations and assessments? A. Ah, from my knowledge of Karen's work ah , I would say she is probably the strongest professional program evaluator that I know that's very much research based, she is extremely strong in the profession and ah, I have never known her to cut corners or do something less than full, full on\nI don't know how to describe it any other way. She has a lot of personal and professional integrity and I've always admired her work. Q. All right. What is your highest degree, doctor? A. PhD. Q. From what institution? A. University of Oregon. Q. In what discipline? A. Educational psychology research and measurement so that's basically statistics like to psychology in education . Q. All right. Are you currently on the faculty of any university? A. Yes, I'm a professor at a California State University Chico also I'm on leave to direct the education for the teacher Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORlGll~AL 6 initiative that I've been directing since 1991. Q. I see. With all due respect I have to ask you this since the court will not get to hear you directly. Would you tell me whether you have received acclaim for work as a person who engages in providing evaluations and assessments of school programs? A. Have I received consulting fees? Q. No, ma'am\nhave you received acclaim? A. A claim? Q. Yes, ma'am\nhonors and awards and things like\ndistinctions? A. Ah, yes\nyes, I have. Q. I see. And are you published? A. Yes. Q. Have you published a book or is it journal articles? A. Ah, both. I have published eleven books\nI have two more in press at the moment. Q. I see. A. And t hen several journal a r ticles also. Q. I see. WALKER: We already have, I think we have access t o your vita and we intend Mr. Heller, to make that an exhibit at trial unless there's some objection. HELLER: WALKER: In the fourth quarterly report? Yes, it is. Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 HELLER: Submitted to the court. WALKER: All right. Q. Now what was your work with the Little Rock School District and when did you begin it to your recollection? A. Ah, to my recollection ah, the work began in early 2005 and that started out with conversations with Dr. DeJarnette about how we were going to work together to ah, embed assessments throughout the district. So it started out with conversation, written proposal and then I believe my first visit with that proposal would have been ah, the spring of 2005. Q. I see. Did you have occasion to meet with her staff? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware of Dr. Ed Williams? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever have any one-on-one meetings with Dr. Williams? A. One-on-one, no. Q. Were you ever in a position to make an assessment of Dr. Williams' qualifications? A. Ah, yes--- Q. When did--- A. ah, Dr. Williams was apart of the team that came to, a four person team that came to our data analysis summer institute in Chico, California and ah, they were among fifty participants that worked with me and my staff for that, for a week, the last Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGINAL 8 weekend in July 2005 and then I've ah, seen some of his work when I visited PRE. Q. What did you understand his responsibility to be? A. I understood Dr. Williams' responsibility to be a statistician ah, somebody that helped PRE gather data, supports from them evaluations, assessment in the schools and probably a staff member that did anything that was needed to support the data needs of schools\nthat's typically what a staff member in a program evaluation and research job would do I would say in a district. Q. I see. Did you have occasion to meet with the staff on more than several occasions? A. Every time I was in Little Rock I met with the staff ah, so I know April 2006, the August / September 2005 then of course it was basically the PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette in Chico at our institute the last of July in 2005. Q. Did you discern at that time any conflict among the staff members? A. Absolutely not. Q. All right. Now with respect to your task did you have occasion to read Judge Wilson's compliance remedy? A. I d i d quite a while ago. Q. You did. In that compliance remedy he makes reference to the concept -of deeply embedding the assessment and evaluation process into the curriculum. Do you recall that? That's at Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Fa csimile e-mail : glo ria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\G\\~lAL 9 Part B, Page 6-3 of the draft quarterly report update as of September 1, 2006--you may not have that before you but ah, that's the section which is entitled devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process\ndo you recall having read that? A. Yes, and more than anything discussing how a district will go about doing that with Dr. DeJarnette. Q. All right. Could you tell me what is meant by first of all a comprehensive assessment process? A. Collect--- HELLER: John--- WALKER: Yes, Chris. Did you say something Chris? HELLER: Ah, ah, go ahead. Q. What is meant by a comprehensive assessment process? A. Well, to me a comprehensive assessment process for a district would mean that we're looking at the data that would tell us about the system ah, about its effectiveness, efficiency of operating, and would tell the district what's working, what's not working within the system, and how to close achievement gaps ah, how to measure to know if there are gaps or if elements of the system are not working, the way it actually gets implemented could be very different in any particular district but basically it means to me looking at every little nook and cranny to understand efficiency and Cobb Court Reporting p , o. Box i4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fac s i mile e - mail : gl oria.cobb@cobbcour t r eporting. com 2 3 4 5 6 7 \" 8 9 II 10 II 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 effectiveness and then to do something about it. Q. Could you explain what is meant by--well, first of all are you familiar with the term deeply embedding a process? A. Well, to me that means making it a part of the way you do business and making it a part of the daily work. Q. Is that sometimes referred to as the culture of the situation? A. It could be the culture, it could mean sustaining or truly implementing. Q. Are you familiar with any literature regarding that subject? A. Yes. Q. Is this a term that is in your opinion, one that is not capable of being easily understood? A. I think it's easy to understand on a surface level to actually do the implementation is really hard. Q. All right. On the surface level you've just given me a description of what is involved? A. Uh-huh. Q. And in terms of implementing it would you explain what some of the difficulties are in embedding the process deeply? A. Ah, the hardest thing is really cheap. You mentioned something earlier, culture ah, the hardest thing with the embedding new practices in a system, an organization, any organization is getting people to work differently because Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OR\\G\\NAL 11 culture is really about--work culture is about how we do work and in order to get people in this case using data on an ongoing basis in a way that maybe they haven't done it before there has to be new structures put in place for how we work, how we look at data, when we look at data, and probably the hardest piece and the piece that makes it happen is strong leadership and in a district it would be from the top all the way down ah, principals has to be a part of this vision, everybody has to have the same vision first of all of what it would look like kind of like if we're really doing this and then how we're going to carry it out and then that piece has to be monitored and measured as well as everything else to make sure that we are working differently and doing ah, really embedding work differently. Q. All right. So a monitoring component is essential or if the process is to be is to work and become deeply embedded? A. Absolutely. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether simple promulgation of a regulation announcing that you are going to do a certain thing is sufficient to constitute being a program evaluation p r ocess being deeply embedded into the curriculum of a school d i strict? A. Ah, just announcing that things are going to happen is not enough. Q. Does the announcement itself have value? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : ( 501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -ma i l : glor ia . cobb@c obbc ou rtreporting .com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 A. The announcement has value\none probably wouldn't. Continuous announcements would in addition to training and ah, clarification of what we're talking about in terms of describing a vision. Q. I see. A. And for example? Q. Yes. A. And providing visual or structure to do the work. Q. I see. Is the importance of the process governed to an extent or determined at least to an extent by the relationship in the organizational chart of the PRE department to the top administration of the district? A. Okay, could you repeat that again? Q. Yes. What is the relationship between having the PRE department relate to the highest echelon of the district and the concept of the process being embedded into the curriculum? A. Okay, if for instance if a department like program evaluation research was trying to implement to embed assessment throughout the district I would say there's no way on earth that that assessment could ever be embedded without the support from the highest positional in a district. Q. All right. Are you familiar with the Little Rock School District? A. Q. Yes. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the members Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the current superintendent of School, Dr. Roy Brooks, of the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, not to my recollection. Q. Have you ever had any substantive meeting with the Deputy Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh? A. Substantive, no. Q. I see. Have 3/0U had any substantive meeting with Dr. Olivine Roberts with respect to embedding the evaluation and assessment process into the curriculum of the district? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me how many such conversations you have had with her? A. Ah, I would think probably two occasions I'm thinking, you know, when I'm in Little Rock I'm usual ly there for a week so I know that I had conversations with her in April 2006 when I was there and t hen in August / September 2005 when I was there. Whether i t was one, two, or three conversations I don't know\nshe a l so a t tended some of the training that I did with the principals and her staff as well\nyeah. Q. I see. Well, were you familiar with her qualifications in general? A. Ah, very generally I did work with her ah, on a leadership Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORIGlr,.JAL conference when she was in Orlando. Q. And when she was in Orlando did she have a senior level administrative position? 14 A. I'm not sure what Orlando would consider senior level and I wasn't, I know that her position was ah, I think she's the director of Professional Development in Orlando but I don't know if it was for one area or if it was for the whole district. Q. Is that what she told you? A. That's just my recollection at this point. Q. I see. A. Yeah, she had to ah, she contacted her office and made the arrangements. Q. I understand. Were you aware that her primary qualifications were in the field of mathematics? A. No. HELLER: Object to that question\nmisstates states the premise. WALKER: Would you mind stating for the record Chris what's wrong with that? HELLER: Assumes the fact that's not in evidence and not true. WALKER: Did she not indicate that her degrees were basically in mathematics and her experience mathematics? BERNHARDT: Are you asking me? Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : glo r i a.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WALKER: I was asking Chris. HELLER: Are you asking Dr. Bernhardt? WALKER: No, Chris Heller. HELLER: No, no, she didn't. WALKER: I see\nall right. 15 Q. Now did you ever interact with her and Dr. Karen DeJarnette and the PRE team together on a substantive basis at any time while in Little Rock? A. I--yes, mostly in a training scenario. Q. I see. Was that on more than one occasion? A. Yes. Q. All right. What did you understand her role in that training to be? A. Ah, my understanding was that she also ah, she and Dr. DeJarnette were responsible for me being there and that Dr. Roberts' position is the--was/is supervisor of Dr. DeJarnette and one of the sessions--well, okay I'll just stop there. Q. All right. What happened during one of the sessions that you were about to report? A. Ah, well one of the sessions was the training with principals but another session ah, Dr. Roberts was in and Dr. DeJarnette and also the PRE staff in addition to some other administrators and principals did an assessment on a continuous improvement continuums of the district. And so there was substantive conversation about how the district gathers data, Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box J4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 ORIG\\\\lAL uses data now , have about a vision it's something that we took a great deal with, with a lot of districts around the country. Q. Is that the occasion during which you discussed the need for having a comprehensive data retention source? A. I don't--we certainly did discuss that at that point and time but I don't think that was the first time it was discussed. Q. I see. Did you make recommendations to LRSD regarding embedding a comprehensive assessment process into the curriculum? A. Yes, I did . Q. Did that involve or include development of a data warehouse? A. Absolutely\na way to pull out the data and make it accessible throughout the district, yes. Q. Did you have that discussion with Dr. Roberts as well as Dr. DeJarnette? A. I believe so. Q. Now what did you feel was needed that Little Rock did not already have? A. Ah, Little Rock like a lot of districts around the country it's very, very, very hard to pull the data together. Ah, there are data sources, there are data elements that are in nooks and crannies around the district and what they don't have it one way to pull it all together and be able to cross all Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that information to get much better information. Also, they don't have tools for a quick analysis and they didn't have a way for teachers or administrators, principals ah, district administrators, staff members to all pull the same data, all pull from the same data source any time they needed it or wanted it. 17 Q. How did you happen to arrive at these conclusions? Was it based on what you were told or did you otherwise learn that? A. Ah, it was part--it was in part what I was told and it was also in part from ah, PRE trying to put together data like ah, the institute that I mentioned that was at Cal-State Chico the last week in July in 2005 that the team attended ah, that's all about pulling that data together and understanding different report~, different analysis and I know from observing that the team had a very, very difficult time pulling that data t ogether, getting it reformatted, cleaning it and ah, trying to pull it into one source. Q. Now did you make a recommendation as to how they may go about pul l ing it into one source? A. Yes. Q. What was that recommendation? A. Oh, I recommended that they would get data warehouses and different warehousing companies, I also showed them the one that I use which is ah, it's called Easy Data Analyzer by Tetradata Corporation and ah, that warehouse would do just Cobb Court Reporting P . 0. Box #4, Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 II 24 25   everything that we wanted it to do to ah, for embedding assessments across the district. Q. Was Dr. Olivine Roberts privy to that recommendation? A. Yes, she was. Q. Did she voice any objection to it? A. Not in my presence. Q. I see. Now did anyone, Dr. Williams or anyone voice objection to it? 18 A. Not that I know of. When I saw them viewing the product they were ah, the PRE staff I should say ah, when I saw them viewing the product they were pretty much blown away with what they could do if they had such a tool for helping them with the data. Q. I see. I have heard and there's a writing and there are comments that ah, you had a conflict of interest in that you recommended that enterprise and the conflict was because you were a member of the board that developed and marketed Tetradata. Would you react to that, please? A. Yeah, I'll react to that. Let me just tell you this: Since 1991 all I had been doing was working with school and school districts on data analysis and this kind of work. And actually befor e that I was also doing it but not as intensively as I started in August of 1991. And at that point in time one of the, the major issue that came up in every single situation was I think that the schools and districts were willing to use Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com I II II I n n    5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 the data it's just they didn't have the tools to do that. So what I did in 1991 was go beat on the doors of data warehousing companies all around the country and I have billet in California so that's most of them are in Silicon Valley and at that point in time there weren't very many companies out there and they all had business solutions and I tried to talk with them about adapting their product so that it could work for schools and ah, every data warehousing company that I spoke with, with the exception of one ah, pretty much slammed the door in my face and laughed at me saying there's no future-there's no money in schools. And I said there's a future in schools, this is our future, this is what's going to, you know, get you your next engineers to keep your company going. Well, no existing data warehous.ing company was interested in working with us with the exception of Rio and basically they just said let's just give you and application and get out of my way and ah, so we used their product on a demo basis or a pilot basis I should say and we gave them all kinds of information back, we set up pilot schools all over the place, I was so excited that we were finally getting tools that would help us all do what takes months, months, and months for us to do by hand that we could do it very, very quickly. We gave them recommendations and they were like yeah, okay, just get out of my way and I, I was very, very discouraged. In late 1991 the CEO of Tetradata, Mark Bertoski called me and said we are a brand new company Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 , Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa csimi l e e - mail : gl oria . cobb@cobbcourtrepor ting. c om 3 5 8 l 10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 there's only three owners and we're trying to build a data warehouse to do everything that's in your data analysis book. And I almost hung up on the guy because I didn't know how to take the call and, and I spoke with him about what they were trying to do and I said to him the minute your product can do six things I will come to South Carolina where they're located at my expense and consult with you for a couple of days\nand I still didn't know if it was for real and that's basically how the arrangement started. I went back for two days to work with them on what I would want in a data warehouse and I stayed an entire week because it was so exciting because they were able t o do things that I've never, I've never, I never before that point and time was able to do electronically and quickly and easily. So I became their main advisor and they did want to pay me but I refused to take payment because I wanted ah, I wanted to be able to tell districts that this is the product, the only one out on the market that will do all of these things that we talk about in comprehensive data analysis work. I'm currently the chair of their advisory committee and ah, I basically I use their product and ah, mostly the advice, I don't know I advise them when they have a question or they're moving in development ah, I don't know how that's a conflict of interest for the district because I'm not an employee of the district. There are other companies that have asked me to work with them and they are not committed to the kind of development Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com II 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORl GI l~AL 21 work that this kind of analysis would require and therefore I'm not working with them. advise. So Tetradata is the only company that I Q. Are you a stock owner of Tetradata? A. Ah, I have some stock options--no, I currently am not. Q. All right. A. At one point they talked about it. Q. All right. Are you on their board of directors? A. No. I'm just on their advisory committee. Q. All right. Now do you perceive a conflict of interest in recommending that a program that you have setup be utilized for the purpose of program evaluation? A. I do not see that as a conflict of interest because it's ah, I know that this program does what we want to have happen in the embedding of assessment and ah, so it would be a likely recommendation. Q. All right. A. I'm not going to recommend something that doesn't do what we're talki ng about doing. Q. All right. Are you familiar with Business Solutions? A. Is it a company? Q. Ah, I think that you mentioned it earlier\nit may have been called Crystal Objects or Business Solutions, Business Objects? A. Ah, I am familiar with Crystal--- Q. Crystal Reports--- cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fac simile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting.com 3 4 5 6 7 ll 8 9 ll 10 ll 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Reports. Q. yes. 22 A. Ah, when I was speaking about business solutions earlier I was talking about the generic term. Q. All right. What is your experience with Crystal Objects? A. My experience in other states, I didn't experience it in Little Rock but my experience in other states is that schools and districts ah, how do I say it nicely, swear at it ah, because it's very, very cumbersome, hard to use, and you can't cross the variables that you want to cross it's very, very hard, hard to use, there's a steep learning curve and ah, it's very time consuming, it takes a long, long time to do a few analysis so nobody like, I haven't seen schools or districts really do the comprehensive analysis that we'd like to see done with the footwork. Q. Did you learn that there was opposition to using Tetradata in the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, just recently. I didn't, I mean opposition, yeah. I do know that one of the times that I was, at one time when I was there probably the April time we talked about Tetradata and show them Tetradata, the next time I'm there I heard from Dr. Roberts oh, they were going to get Crystal Reports. So I just figured it was through the analysis and they're figuring out what was going to work for them and that's not unusual but I didn't hear that there was a big opposition. Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I see. Did Dr. Roberts discuss with you the reasons for using business objects or crystal objects? A. Crystal Reports? Q. Crystal Reports, yeah. A. Yes, we just had a brief conversation about that. Q. What did she explain as the reason? A. Ah, I didn't--when she was talking to me about it in conjunction wi th purchasing another product that I think was going to do assessment for them so I understood it to be more o f a financial situation than anything and I also know what happens typically in districts is when they buy something like Crystal Reports which is really kind of like a software program that ultimately or either two years down the road they're going to re-buy\nthey will dump or drop that and buy the more robust engineered warehouse. So it didn't, I just thought that's whe re t hey were at that time. Q. I see. So they did not ask your opinion regarding the u t ility or r elative utility of us i ng Tetradata as over against what is it? A. Crystal Reports. Q. Crystal Reports? A. No. Q. I see. Did you include in your recommendation to Little Rock for embedding the comprehensive assessment process, the development of school portfolios? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ah, yes\nwell yes, uh-huh. Q. Would you explain what that recommendation really was about? 24 A. Yeah ah, whether or not a good school portfolio that would be in quote or not what this means to me is that for every school and across the whole district there would be data collected on at least four categories of data and ah, a comprehensive analysis that would describe who they have as students, how that population has changed any over time so they get to predict who, how the population was going to change in the future and see the achievement results were processed like curriculum instruction assessment, you know, how do we teach kids, how do we assess them ah, how will we know that they're meeting the standards and what are we going to do when they're not meeting the standard and production which would be basically questionnaires of students/parents and then what that data would do when they do the comprehensive data analysis to really understand where they are right now in any school or the district is then division the curriculum, the instruction, the assessment that are the process is basically this ah, that are put together to get the outcome would be developed around what we know from the data and monitored and measured over time and then a part of that is also once a school gets it, a vision then we'd have to figure out what is the leadership structure for us to within every school not just across the district, but Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phone s : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@ c obbcour t reporting.com 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i) R \\ G I '\\ I {\\ L \\,J  \\ \\ Ir\\ 25 within every school to implement that vision what professional development is acquired ah, how we going to include parents, community and business so that we can make sure that kids can meet those standards and how we can evaluate on a continuous basis to know what we're doing is making the difference that we want. Q. All right. Do you know whether Little Rock ever developed school portfolios across the district? A. I know that Little Rock developed the district portfolio which is never totally done and it, well at least we got a start on that I should say\nI think they did the demographics and the achievement piece for the district. As far as the schools are concerned I do not think they developed those or got them started. Q. Can you embed the comprehensive assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. Q. How can you do that? A. You can do it by doing all of the pieces. I mean whether or not you do a portfolio I mean it's a framework for looking at your data to know what you need to do ah, for getting a v i sion, a plan and evaluating it on an ongoing basis. So if they could do those pieces it could be embedded without them. Q. In doing those pieces does that require a lot more time and Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590-0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Fac s imil e e -mail : gloria . cobb@c obbcou rtreporting . com n n D I I I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1JRIGII I/\\L a lot more effort or is it basically the same? A. Oh, it would be basically the same. Q. So the portfolio were not absolutely necessary but just ah--how would you characterize them? 26 A. Well, the portfolio is just the framework and ah, what we were trying to do with it with schools which is what we have found in other districts is if we call it, if we're trying to develop a product it give more concreteness than saying oh, we're going to do comprehensive data analysis then we're going to get a vision, we're going to build a plan and figure out the professional development ah, school are more readily, usually more readi l y open to putting together the product so they have something to show for it but so that they have pieces all in one place that they can see the relationship of the pieces to one another. Q. Is that a correlation between the district portfolios and a data warehouse? A. Ah, absol--there's a relationship of the district portfolio and the data warehouse and that is the data warehouse would make the putting together of the data in a district portfolio easier and simplify it and ah, there's ah, this whole piece about everybody getting or using the same sources of information. Q. Have you any familiarity with the IT department of the Little Rock School District? Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria.cobb@c obbcourtreporting . com II n n I I I I 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 A. Not really. Q. Did you ever meet with anyone from the IT department of the Little Rock School District with respect to the development of a data warehouse or the development of school portfolios? A. Not that I remember. One or two of them could have been in one of the meetings or the training but I couldn't say for sure. Q. What has been your experience with IT departments with respect to dealing with program evaluation and assessment and embedding that into the curriculum? A. In general? Q. Yes. A. Ah, in general the IT guys always say that they can develop it themselves and specifically I have found that in most districts ah, if they start trying to develop a data warehouse by themselves two years down the road and millions of dollars later they're not done and--well, there's just a lot I could tell you but here's the bottom line is that while they're working on the warehouse they're not doing the work and if they're doing the work they can't work on the work that they're hired to do and if they're unless you hire lots of extra staff it usually doesn't work for the district to design their own warehouse plus now we have the tools out there, we have warehouses available that you can purchase that companies have devoted their development dollars to and it's much easier or Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1 ) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com JI 11 ll n I I I I 1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 it's much better if districts buy a product and use their IT staff to make it work within the district and ah, they have the IT staff help with ah, the programming of specific reports or standard reports that the district or schools would want and need. Q. Did you enter into a contract with the Little Rock School District? A. Did I enter into a contract\nyes. Q. What was the purpose of the contract and what were its terms? A. Ah, the purpose of the contract was to lay out the scope of work and to ah, purpose how much it would cost to do the scope of work and to get the agreement on both side that we would do this work for this much money. Q. Was the work that was recommended by you completed? A. No. Q. Can you tell me what proportion of the work remains incomplete? A. I just think we got started\nso two / thirds to three/quarters of the work still needs to be done. Q. Can it be said that the comprehensive program assessment process cannot be or has not been embedded into the curriculum of the district? A. Absolutely. Q. Would you explain that? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 q 10 n 11 12 n 13 14 q 15 I 16 17 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Ah, I would say that the structures for gathering data across the district within every school and ah, have not 29 changed since I started working there ah, so I think the use of data probably hasn't changed much with the exception of maybe student achievement assessments that Dr. Roberts was working on with her staff and visited school teams. Q. That Dr. Roberts was working on outside of PRE? A. Yes. Q. So are you saying that there was a separate assessment process underway in the Little Rock School District to your observation? A. Well I think so but this would be assessment of the curriculum and you know like ongoing assessments that would hopefully predict the assessment to us at the end of the year and in that that's not unusual that an assessment tool would be setup and curriculum instruction and assessment but that's not of comprehensive data analysis system. Q. Oh, the one that she has is not comprehensive data ana l ysis? A. It would be an element of it. Q. All right. Does it appear to you that that is at odds with the court directive remedy that all the PRE be in one source and t hat PRE coordinates the program evaluation and assessment process? A. No, that--- cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box i4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimil e e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com q u q q I n d   3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 HELLER: I object to the form of that question as well. WALKER: All right\nI'll change the question. Q. Is there a utility in having all the persons engaged in program evaluation work together? A. Yes. Q. And cooperatively? A. Of course. Q. And without dissidence? A. Yes. Q. And conflict? A. Correct. WALKER: Just a moment. I'm going to take a moment, Doctor you can stay on the line ah, Chris I'm afraid to hang up so I'm going to step out for a moment and speak with Mrs. Springer and then I'll be right back to see if I have any more questions before I turn her over to you. HELLER: Okay. WALKER: Excuse me, Dr. Bernhardt. BERNHARDT: Okay. [A recess was taken at 6:48 p.m., proceedings resumed at 6:49 p.m., to-wit:] WALKER: Dr. I'm back on the phone\nMr. Heller I'm back on the phone\nare you there? HELLER: Yeah, I'm here. Cobb court Reporting P. O. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   BERNHARDT: And I'm here. DIRECT EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Walker Can't: 31 Q. Doctor were you aware that with respect to data collection and data presentation to the outside evaluators that there was some problem with the accuracy of the data being assembled and passed on to the evaluators? HELLER: I object to that question as well\nassuming facts not in evidence. Q. Now you may still answer, doctor. A. Ah, I don't know other than what I've heard just recently about ah, dirty data if you will or bad data being sent to the external evaluator. I do know that when we were pulling the data together for the district portfolio or the district data source book ah, that a lot of that data was not clean and ah, yeah. Q. How do you know that? A. Ah, it's very easy to see dirty data in districts\nit's not uncommon, in fact every single district has dirty data which means that if you don't have a system for establishing procedures for entering data into any system that you have or in multiple systems that you have if you don't monitor it's probably going to be corrupt in some way. So like for example if a principal went into the student information system and wrote or entered some information about a student and--well Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n, i p I,, ....... II1  .1_ /\\, -...,,\\ \\_.1 I 32 like for your name they could, he could ah, the principal could put in John Walker, a teacher could write in J. Walker ah, another teacher could write in some information and code some data in there with J. Walker and somebody else Walker, J., and you would come up with four different kids. And so what it takes is a structure, a process, procedurally setup so that it's clear who's entering data and it's clear how they're going to enter the data and then it's monitored to make sure that it's done correctly. It's very, very easy to see when you start pulling together a portfolio of any sort it's very easy to see that there's dirty data even if you're not apart of the district. Usually what happens one of the first quarries that I do in a district might be looking at enrollment longitudinally or over time and, you know, I'll look at that data and go how could you have twice as many students in 2005 than you do this year? It's really is obvious when there's dirty data. If you haven't used the data ever I can guarantee it was dirty. Q. I see. And does that cause a flawed ultimate result? A. Absolutely, absolutely and there's a whole campaign nationally to get states to insure the quality of the data in all of their districts and schools because that is it's such an issue there's some data at the national level and at state levels we don't even know that have been reported for years, we don't know how inaccurate it is\nit's very common. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q. In your professional opinion what percentage of data is acceptable to be dirty and ah yes, is there a percentage or a threshold of acceptable dirty data? A. I don't know that anybody has ever put a percentage on there but ah, I just, if I could just beat around the bush to get to an answer to that. My latest book called Data Warehousing For Improving Teaching and Learning ah, I sent the first draft of the book out to twenty-five reviewers and these were reviewers in data warehousing companies, they are teachers, principals, administrators in the U.S., Canada, Australia. And I was physically asking that question, I made a statement in one chapter in the book about dirty data and how you've got to clean all the data and some of the people came back and asked the same question what is the percentage and they said they have in their experience ever never e xperienced a hundred percent clean data and so we should accept as a rule 95 percent clean data and being close enough with an error band. Q. All right. Do you discuss this in the book that you sent out for review? A. Yes. Q. What i s the title of that book? A. Data Warehousing To Improve Teaching and Learning. Q. Have you provided a copy of that to Dr. DeJarnette? A. No, I have not. Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Q. Would you ask your secretary to mail me a copy with a bill if you happen to talk to her in the next day or two? A. If--- Q. Well, that's all right\nI can ask her that myself. A. Well, I can ask her this but ah, if you want the--it's in draft form. Q. That's all right, the draft form is fine. A. We're still working on it. Q. Well, it will be useful even though it's in draft form. A. Okay. Q. And I'm sure Mr. Heller would like to have a copy as well. A. Okay, it's still a mess but it's a lot of work to do on it yet. Q. Well, I'm more concerned about the area of your book that discusses this particular problem. A. Yeah, except you're not going to see it in the version that's available right now. It's ah, because that came from handwri tten notes, some of it came from handwritten notes from the reviewer that I'm incorporating into it right now. Here I'm in Hawaii and I'm looking at it right now, I'm just writing in what the reviewer are talking to me about so you would not see that. If fact what the reviewers had asked is that I add a chapter devoted entirely to the, on cleaning the data so that piece isn't available. Q. All right\nwell, that's fine. Well, let me see ah, it is a Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4 , Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (5 01) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria .cobb@c obbcourtreport i ng.com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 serious problem you're saying when data are overly dirty? A. Sure. 35 Q. That's just life though isn't it for most people whatever the subject is, if a thing is pretty dirty it shouldn't be used. That's a commonsense approach to the use of data and everything I would think wouldn't you? A. If the data is dirty yeah, I'd be cleaning it and setting up procedures and policies to make sure that it's entered correctly and then monitor it. Q. I see. Are you familiar with the questionnaires used in the process of the Little Rock PRE? A. Ah, I know that there are some, I personally have not seen the final version of what they're using or I don't remember them\nI have seen them. Q. Did you assist in the development of the questionnaires? A. I assisted with the first version and after that my staff member worked with them directly. Q. What's the importance of questionnaires in the comprehensive assessment process? A. Questionnaires add that wind from students, staff and parents to find out how programs, schools, districts can improve basically and if there's--it can tell about climate, it can talk about leadership, how students are treated, how staff are treated, it covers usually or we would want them to cover whether or not there's vision, a plan in place, and ah, get the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72 164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Fac simile e -mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 system setup for success. Q. All right. Can questionnaires sometimes be referred to as surveys? A. Yes. Q. All right. And can questionnaires or surveys or by whatever name those type things may be called can they be subjected to professional validation? A. Yes. Q. How would you go about doing that? A. Ah, well there's two things you'd probably want to assess on a questionnaire and one is validity and the other is reliability. And validity is about are we asking the right questions, are we asking the questions that will get to what it is you want to know and that would be content validity. And to get to content validity you basically have to administer the questionnaire to many people of background somewhere to ah, who you really want to use it with and ah, basically have them review it, take it ah, talk to them ah, that's one way of getting the content validity. And ah, reliability says that if you give the same instrument over and over you're bound to get the same results. In other words everybody, if one person reads the question they will read it in the same way so that it's clear, it's not misunderstood, it wouldn't vary over time. And so if they're looking for reliability when you give the questionnaire over time you be getting essentially the same Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 4, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 results. Q. Were you aware of a group called the Public Education Foundation in Little Rock? A. In Little Rock? Q. Yes. A. No. 37 Q. Did anyone inform you that there were program evaluations or assessments being undertaken by persons other than Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette? A. Ah, if they did it didn't register. Q. Is a formative assessment a part of program assessment and evaluation? A. When I think of a formative assessment I would be thinking of assessments that teachers would use in the classroom with kids and it would be apart of curriculum instruction and assessment, certainly program evaluation and research should have access to that data and should work along with them in a typical district. Q. I see. Should the information that's assembled with respect to formative assessments be included in a data warehouse? A. I certainly would add it into a data warehouse . Q. And would this require therefore that all of the persons who are involved in any kind of assessment or evaluation process would at least have to know what each other is doing? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com II q    1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 A. Somebody would have to know what everybody is doing\nyes. WALKER: doctor and I think you. I see. I have no more questions, CROSS-EXAMINATION Questions by Chris Heller: Q. Dr. Bernhardt this is Chris Heller, I'm a lawyer for the Little Rock School District and I've got a number of questions for you based on what you just told Mr. Walker. First of all, where are you located at the moment? A. I'm in Hilo, Hawaii. Q. Okay. And is there anyone there with you? A. No. Q. What did you do to prepare for this deposition? A. Ah, put my other work aside and I went back to look at ah, my proposal, the proposal for Little Rock School District and looked at some of what I did in the last year and a-half with Little Rock. Q. Anything else? A. Ah, I looked at some of Dr. DeJarnette's notes, most recent notes ah, but I, frankly I'm here to work so I haven't had a lot of time t o study them. Q. Anything else that you did to prepare for this deposition? A. Not that I can think of. Q. What notes do you have from Dr. DeJarnette? A. Ah, mostly there's a memo to you I think these were mostly Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  things that were in report or ah, quarterly reports which I just skimmed and ah, there's a status, there are status reports--- Q. How did you get that--- 39 A. there's one that ah, I think they're probably attachments that you or Mr. Walker was referring to earlier about the status of the hiring of PRE staff and ah, mostly our proposals. Q. How did you get those notes? A. Ah, they were faxed to me. Q. When? A. Yesterday. Q. By whom? A. By my secretary when we--I was flying all day yesterday all day so I didn't talk to anybody they just were here when I got here--- Q. When did you first receive those documents--- A. except that I knew from my secretary, from a call with my secretary that there would be a fax with some notes. Q. When did you first receive those notes? A. When I came. Q. These were not notes that you already had in your office in California? A. Ah, somewhere like the proposal that we developed\nthe proposal, the contract that we had and that's all I was really interested in refreshing my memory on what we, our role was. Cobb Court Reporting p , o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com q Q Q Q II n n  3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q. Well, are there some documents you have with you today that you reviewed to prepare for this deposition that you have not previously seen before you got to Hawaii? A. Oh, yeah. Q. What are those? A. Ah, well the status of the September 1st , 2006 where PRE is so I think you probably have a copy of, there was a compliance remedy memo to Beverly Griffin from Karen ah, there's a memo to Chris Heller about the needs for a data warehouse or a data base to look at demographic student learning perceptions and financial data, and school process data and ah, basically that one. HELLER: I want to make all of those documents an exhibit to your deposition so would you keep the entire set of documents that you got from your secretary that you reviewed for this deposition and either ah--- BERNHARDT: That's fine. HELLER: one of you ah--- BERNHARDT: She'll have better copies than I have. HELLER: We'll make arrangements so that they can be properly appended to your deposition. Q. When is the last time you spoke with Dr. DeJarnette? A. When did I speak with Dr. DeJarnette ah, last week because ah, to try to look at my calendar to see if I could do the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 u 8 9 ll 10 n 11 12 n 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposition. Q. Did you call her or she called you? A. To see if I could come to Little Rock. Q. Pardon? A. Or if I would be willing to do such a thing. Q. And she called you to ask you to give a deposition? A. Ah, she, I don't know--yeah, I guess so\nshe was asking if I would be willing to or interested in or available to talk about the school portfolio and our proposal and what we had intended to do. Q. How many times have you talked to Dr. DeJarnette in the last three months? A. Ah, that was the first time--I think that was the first time in that three months. Q. Have you communicated with her by e-mail or any other means during those three months? A. Well e-mail occasionally but I'm on the road 170 days usually a year so, you know, I don't get into the small talk. Q. When is the last time you spoke with anyone else from the Little Rock School District? A. Probably when I was there last which according to my records would have been April. Q. Did I hear you correctly that you've only been to the Little Rock School District twice, August 2005 and April 2006? A. That's what I saw on my calendar when I quickly looked at Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com a n u n n I   8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 it this morning but that doesn't sound right, I think I've been there. Maybe it's only twice but I was trying to, it felt like I should have had a third date with them but I couldn't find it, so I didn't prepare for the--- Q. But did you discuss with Dr. DeJarnette any of the issues that Mr. Walker just questioned you about during your last conversation? A. During our last conversation we didn't have a lot of time because I had an appointment and ah, like within fifteen minutes of when we were talking and we were also looking at the calendar more than anything. Ah, I just asked what kind of information you would want in a deposition from me and how I could prepare and ah, she basically said that you would want to know about the school portfolio process and data and data warehousing and what I know about that. Q. So between April of 2006 and this latest conversation with Dr. DeJarnette you haven't had any substantive communication with anyone from LRSD? A. We would have I think ah, after April, after I was there in April we had a long conversation about our contract and the proposal and what was happening in the district as far as ah, our work and the trainings that we had proposed and mostly Brad Guise of my office had longer conversations with the PRE team about working with them on their questionnaires. Q. What work did you or--were your, your ah--- cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box #4 , Sweet Horne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones: (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 A. Brad. Q. right, your ah, I don't know--what track of entity is education for the future? A. Education for the future is a not for profit organization that operates out of the California State University Foundation. Q. What's your position in that organization? A. I'm the executive director. Q. What work did you or EFF actually perform for the Little Rock School District? A. Ah, during the weeks of August 30th to September 2, 2005 I worked with PRE staff--it seems like there should be another date before that but I just couldn't find it today but I worked with PRE staff on their portfolio and ah, and did some training sorted or--- Q. What portfolio did you work on with PRE staff in August or September? A. District so there actually their district data as far or first book that was put together during the institute in Chico at the end of July of 2005. And then in August/September I did training with principals on looking at data on how to analyze and use data and what data and--- Q. How many principals were tracked? A. Umm, I don't know for sure. Q. Is it fair to say that you and your team at EFF trained Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com q q q n I II   6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 three or four representatives of PRE in how to develop a district portfolio? A. Ah, yes. Q. And that was done in July of 2005? A. Yes, and actually were doing it. Q. And actually the port folio itself was developed in part during the work at EFF in July of 2005? A. Correct. 44 Q. And then you trained principals in August and September of 2005 in the use of data? A. Yes. Q. For what purpose? A. Ah, to understand how to analyze it and how to look at all data, to look at their system and to get them setup to create their own portfolios for their schools. Q. Okay. And then what was done in April of 2006? A. Ah, from what I remember ah, April would have been the time ah, I worked with PRE to set up the understanding about the company and this is the work that we're going to do and I believe it was in April that we did ah, that I worked with like Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette and a lot of people I can't name right now, administrators and some of the schools in doing an assessment of the district on a continuous improvement continuum and I also facilitated some training done. Q. Now you said to Mr. Walker that--well, first tell me what Cobb court Reporting P. 0. Box #4, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com I u n II II n  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 training did you facilitate then? A. A big picture of conference data analysis, what data are important, why that data is important and then how that could lead to student achievement improvements in the district. Q. Okay. Do you recall even by category of people who was trained in those things? A. Ah, I would not be the best one to tell you about the positions of the people. But ah, I think it was Olivine's staff, Karen's staff, some principals and I know there were other people from the district office but I couldn't tell you what their positions were. Q. What's the last date you have any direct knowledge of the content of the Little Rock School District's portfolio, the district's portfolio? A. The l ast time I saw it would have been probably September 2nd_ Q. And why did you see it on September 2nd? A. Because it was September--oh no, that wouldn't be true. It would be April, the last date I was there which would have been April 2006 because it was ah, I saw it because the PRE staff was really, really excited to show me the bound version of it and they wanted me to go through the data and I did an analysis of the data and ah, told them what I saw in the data, some of the things that I saw in the data. Q. Okay. And in fact you made certain data statements for Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box #4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa c simile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporti n g . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 example such as ah, observations about the composition of special education and discipline and things like that? A. Yeah. Q. And you said you have not seen LRSD district portfolio since April of 2006? A. No. 46 Q. You don't know what the contents of that district portfolio are today? A. No, I don't. I understood that they were updating it but I don't know if it did happen or I haven't seen it. Q. And is the work you did or you do probably reviewing the EFF ah, reflected in written agreements contracts? A. Ah, yes. Q. For the work we just talked about how was EFF compensated? A. Ah, a daily rate and ah, is that what you mean? Q. Pardon? A. Are you asking about ah--- Q. What basis, is it a proposal for a particular project or do you recall how much EFF--- A. It was a proposal that started I believe September 2005-- I'm not looking at the first date ah, 2005 through the spring of 2006 and it was for training, analyzing data ah, daily rate of air, hotels, per diems, ground transportation and you asked about ah, the second part of the question? Q. Oh, just whether, I think you've answered it, whether there Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 was a specific fee for a specific proposal or whether it's done on some other basis such as a daily rate? A. It was a daily rate and we considered these proposals ah, that's what we think is going to happen but we still only charge what really did happen. Q. Is there any work, other work that you've proposed but your proposal was not accepted by the district? A. No, this proposal was accepted, the one that I'm referring to was accepted. Q. Okay. So are you saying that there was nothing else that you proposed to do that the district declined to accept? A. No. We work together to create it, talked about what they wanted to have happen in the end and then work their way backwards into thinking about what it would take to get there and from what I understood from our conversations about what was possible in other words could be pull out teams of teachers or would we just have to work with principals ah, I created the proposal and sent it to them and maybe we refined it at the time back and forth especially dates--- WALKER: Chris let me interrupt you for a minute. Ah, I think it would be useful for us to have maybe a court reporter break for maybe five minutes. HELLER: Okay. WALKER: Thank you. That you, doctor. HELLER: Dr. Bernhardt if you could just--- cobb court Reporting P . O. Box t4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimil e e -mail: glori a . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i\n. f Jr\\'~- 48 WALKER: You can just stay on the line, you can just leave the phone up doctor--- HELLER: Okay. WALKER: And go about your business and we'll come back on after Ms. Cobb has a few minutes to take a breather. BERNHARDT: Okay. WALKER: Maybe you could use one too Doctor. BERNHARDT: Yes, I could. WALKER: All right then. BERNHARDT: Okay, I'll be back. [A recess was taken at 7:24 p.m., proceedings resumed a t 7:29 p.m., to-wit:] WALKER: We're back in. Dr. Bernhardt are you there? you a r e. BERNHARDT: Yes, I am. WALKER: All right. We're ready to resume if REPORTER: Thank you. HELLER: Okay. CROSS-EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Heller Can't: Q. Ah, is there any work Dr. Bernhardt that you or EFF performed for the Little Rock School District that we haven't discussed? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. BOK 14, Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gl oria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 II 13 14 n 15 n 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No\nI don't think so. Q. All right\nso if there was an answer I didn't hear that. A. Oh no, I said no, not to my knowledge. Q. How many school districts are you familiar with Dr. Bernhardt across the country that have in place school portfolios right now? 49 A. I would have to take a guess at that because a lot of my training would be in sometimes whole states or regions where there are multiple districts that come to it and then and there might be three hundred people in the room and I don't know exactly what they implemented ultimately but I would say there's, well at least two hundred. There are districts that are also putting together portfolios based on publications that I maybe haven't met since in national conferences people come up and tell me that they're doing it and I wouldn't know any other way. Q. How many districts that you've worked with that have planning, research and evaluation department of the size and quality of the one in LRSD? A. Ah, I don't even know how to estimate this\nlet me just give you some background. Q. Okay. A. In 2006 I worked in 21 states and was on the road 151 days\nnow that's lower than the previous fifteen years. And a lot of these might not be on an ongoing basis\nI see lots of districts Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 , Swee t Borne , AR 7216 4- 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : glor ia .cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 JI 10 JI 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 so and I've never counted but there are districts, large districts like Little Rock used to have program evaluation and research departments or bigger ones maybe ten years ago but now they're probably dwindling across the country it depends on where you are and what state you're in I'd say the size of the program evaluation district department and whether or not assessment is included in it or separate. Q. Is it fair to say in your experience that most of the districts which might have a planning research and evaluation department with the, of the size and resources of the one in Little Rock would be districts larger than LRSD? A. What's the enrollment of LRSD right now? Q. About twenty six thousand students. A. Yeah, about thirty thousand ah, again that just depends on state, region, but I would say it would be average or maybe even bigger than some. Q. Are there any other school districts in Arkansas to your knowledge implementing school portfolios? A. At this point in time to my knowledge, no. I have worked in Arkansas before and did overviews of school portfolios but it wasn't a long-term engagement to know if they ever did anything with it. Q. Okay. Do you know whether any other school districts in Arkansas have data warehouses? A. Ah, I don't know. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria. cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 10 11 12 13 14 11 15 11 16 17  18 19 n 20 21 22 23 24 25 nR10111A i 1..j i 11...J 1 L 51 Q. Is it common for districts around the country to send their data on a regular basis, by that I mean every week or every other week to some central location within a state education department for storage? A. For storage? Q. Well, for--- A. No. Q. in other words the, whatever repository of the data would be at the state level rather than at the district level? A. No. And ah, where most districts the size of Little Rock are going right now is to data warehousing that would upload data every night from the student information system. Q. Can you give me an example of another district the size of Little Rock that would be doing that ah, be engaged in that process at the moment? A. Yeah, one in Grand Juncti on, Colorado\nSan Jose Unified in San Jose, California ah--- Q. How many students in San Jose--- WALKER: Well, let he finish the answer Chris, she was giv ing--- HELLER: Okay. WALKER: ah, she's mentioned two, Grand Junction and San Jose. A. I know that there are lots of districts in North Carolina and South Carolina that are--oh, there's lots of district that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 , Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Fac s imile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 3 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rJ R I G ! i\\J A L 52 are, these are the ones, I'm just mentioning ones that I have worked with. Q. About how large is the San Jose, California? A . Ah , 3 2 , 5 0 0 . Q. Geographically as far as you know what would be the closest district to Little Rock that is ah, has school portfolios in place? A. That have school portfolios in place? Ah, there'd be lots of districts in Missouri. Q. Okay. A. In fact I've been working in the southeast corner of Missouri the last couple of years\nI'll be there next month. WALKER: Is that what they call Little Dixie? BERNHARDT: That's not the way I've heard it described. WALKER: Well, they have, it's a little name up there up near Blytheville. BERNHARDT: Oh, this is by Cape Girardeau. WALKER: Yeah ah. BERNHARDT: They call below Cape Girardeau the boot hill. WALKER: No, that's over closer to Fayetteville. BERNHARDT: Oh, that's not it\noh no, it's different\nyeah. HELLER: I think she's right and you're wrong Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-ma il : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 u 8 p 9 10 JI 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 John, Cape Girardeau is right up on the Mississippi River. WALKER: Okay, well I'm wrong\nI'm glad to be. Q. Dr. Bernhardt have you ah--- A. Oh, Houston--oh, that's not close to Little Rock. Go ahead. Q. Did you have the opportunity to review any of the program evaluations that were done for the Little Rock School District by Dr. Ross and Dr. Katiyar? A. No, I did not. Q. You know Dr. Katiyar? A. Personally, no. Q. Does EFF perform program evaluations of academic programs? A. We do but what we--we do but we like to do is work with districts to do their comprehensive data analysis and build their capacity to automate evaluations of different programs. Q. Now we've, we've--do you see any distinction between the t erm evaluation and the term assessment? A. Yes. Q. Okay, what's the difference between those two things? A. Ah, assessment to me means more like doing assessments of student learning or that's what comes to my mind when we talk about assessment. Evaluation, program evaluation would be to me talking about or doing the work of looking at the effectiveness of different programs and if they're meeting their intention. Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So is there a different then between what I'd call a formal program evaluation and the general use of data on a regular basis in a school district to improve student learning? A. Would there be a distinction, is that your question? Q. Yes. A. I would make a distinction. I would hope that the comprehensive data analysis work would include the evaluation so that there's ongoing ah, there are ongoing measurement of quality. There's ah, there's also room for program evaluation to always be done by a third party, somebody that's objective and looking in instead of--looking from the outside in instead of the inside out. Q. But it's possible to do a program e valuation for e xample without having school portfolios in place? A. Yeah, the term school portfolio is just the framework basically and ah, yeah, you could do an evaluation without any, without schools ever looking at the data. Somebody could do an evaluation of someone without the schools having looked at it. The difference with the por tfolio framework is that schools are looking at, building the story of the school with data and looking at adjustments\nin a sense they're doing program evaluation when they do that work themselves. Q. Well, that was going to be the other side of the point. You can have valuable information from having some type of school portfolios in place and without ever doing a formal Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4, Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 program evaluation of the way a program operates across the district? 55 A. Yes, as long as everybody knows how to do it, why they're doing it, and are really looking at all the data\nyes. Q. Right. So program evaluations can exist without portfolios and portfolios can provide valuable information that doesn't necessarily amount to what you would call a program evaluation as the program is implemented in schools across the district? A. Yes, except to that last piece\nI'm not quite sure if I heard that correctly. Q. Well, actually I'm talking about something that's in our compliance remedy where our program evaluations are supposed to look at the programs as they're being implemented in schools across the district. So--- A. You can look at it from inside or you can look at it--- Q. that's why I, I, I, real l y my point is and tell me if you agree that ah, school portfolios don't necessarily do that for you\nthey don't do that at all\nthey don't provide you program evaluation of for example early childhood on a district-wide basis? A. They would provide--if, if done well a portfolio would have al l the data necessary to do the evaluation. Q. And so would a data warehouse? A. Absolutely. Q. Okay. So ah--- Cobb court Reporting P. o. Box 4 , Sweet Rome, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. There's an element of somebody looking, analyzing and knowing what they're looking for and what they're looking at that would be the piece missing. 56 Q. Right. And you said several times that school portfolios is just a framework and really a school portfolio is a type of school improvement plan is it not? A. I'd say it's a process and it's a product and it's a framework\nyeah. Q. And there are other types of school improvement plans that might use data to improve student achievement that might not follow exactly your outline of the school portfolio? A. That's correct. Although a good school improvement process should have a lot of the same elements of a vision, plan, a profess i onal development leadership to prepare you--- Q. Would you say that the requirements in Arkansas for the development of improvement plans at each school? A. I'm sor ry\nI didn't hear all of that. Q. Are you familiar with the requirement in Arkansas for t he development of school improvement plans at each school? A. Ah, yes. Q. Do you know what type of information is required of each school as a part of that requirement? A. Ah, I ' d have to say yes, I do and I'd also have to say I would want to look at it again. Q. Have you heard the acronym ACSIP, A-C-S-I-P, plan? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimil e e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 3 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Do you know what those are? A. Ah, yes, generally. Q. What are they? 57 A. Aren't those the plans that the state are requiring of the schools? Q. Right. And do you know whether or not those plans are required to contain the same type of information that you would recommend in a school portfolio? A. Yes. What, in fact I would say that school portfolio would go above and beyond that because the school portfolio are the framework of what we're talking about for data analysis is usually a lot more comprehensive than what states minimally require. Q. Do you know specifically what's required in Arkansas? A. Not right now. Q. Okay. Let's talk generally then. These types of schools improvement plans the states require would contain at least some of the information that you would like to see in a school portfolio? A. Right. Q. Most typically student achievement, demographic information and maybe some perception of that? A. Yes\ncorrect. Q. And that information itself if properly analyzed can be Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501 ) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (5 01) 490 - 0926 - Facsimil e e-mail: gloria.c6bb@cobbcourtrepor ting .com 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 useful in improving student achievement? A. Yes. A I Q. And are you familiar with the acronym SOAR in the Little Rock School District, S-O-A-R, student online assessment reports? A. Yes. 58 Q. Is that what you were referring to when you talked about Dr. Roberts being involved in other types of formative stuff? A. If that was what was just developed this last year because I know she was working with the pre-helm committee this last year. Q. And let me ask you if that process is to do quarterly assessments that are aligned with the state benchmarking plan to determine individual student problem, teacher problems, school or district-wide problems ah, is that the type of thing you would recommend that school districts do? A. Absolutely\nyes. Q. And isn't that a good example of using data to improve student achievement? A. It is--yes. It is not a com--that is an example of using data to improve student achievement. Q. And do you know whether or not that SOAR is currently being implemented in every school of the Little Rock School District? A. No, I do not. Q. Have you provided any written reports to the Little Rock Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 , Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  r-,,. I 0\" I I ' ) l ~ l l J l l J r/\\\\, .._'. _ 59 School District concerning any of your recommendations? A. To like the board? Q. To anyone? A. Ah, not to my knowledge other than the proposal at the very beginning. Q. But for example regarding any process necessary to embed an assessment process are any other recommendations you may have made none of those would be written recommendations? A. Well, in the proposal on setting it up ah, essentially that's what our proposal or contract is all about is, you know, what I though after discussing with PRE what it would take to embed a comprehensive assessment process. Q. Okay. How much time did it take to develop a school portfolio? A. Ah, about a year . Usually it all depends upon how available the data are. Q. And what process should be followed to develop a school portfolio? A. Ah, I'd say the first--well, if you're thinking from my prospective or from a school prospective ah, let's me just say then ah, the first thing I do is collect the data to find out where are we right now and ah, that's the piece that takes the longest. There are a few things that can be done simultaneously ah, not everybody at a school or a district needs to be going out collecting the data\nyou just need a Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 '\\ small team working on that. At the same time you could be creating this vision at a school and the district if necessary and ah, and then development of a plan that's based on the vision and the data. Q. And so would the school portfolio be different for each school in the district? A. It should be because the data are different, they have different kids and the vision--the structure should be the same, the contents would vary depending upon each school\nwho they have as students, who they have as teachers, how they line up the teachers to students, their vision, the plan that they put together, how they work together. Q. So isn't it possible that some districts may be concerned about some issues more than other schools, I mean some schools may be concerned about particular issues than other schools and that may result in a difference even in the types of data they maintain in their school portfolio? A. That's true although there are guidelines for what data we ought to be collecting at least on an overview look and then as there are issues that come up definitely the data ought to be getting deeper and deeper, dig deeper into that forest or into what's going on\nfind out what's really happening to get to the root cause. Q. I asked you before and I think you said you or your company had done program evaluations, have you published any work on Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phones : ( 501) 490-0066 - Off\n( 501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting .com 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 the subject of formal program evaluation? A. Ah, I just covered it a little bit in my books in terms of if you do this comprehensive data analysis work you would be setup for program evaluation needs assessment. Q. Right. And so is that what you say the relationship is between the comprehensive assessment work and a program evaluation that the comprehensive assessment work that's done puts you in a position to do a program evaluation? A. Absolutely. Q. And then part of your work with LRSD was not to perform any program evaluations was it? A. No, but in a ah, by setting up a comprehensive data analysis they should be setup to do their own program eval uation\nyes. WALKER: Thank you, Chris. Q. The, you worked with PRE and other I think to develop questionnaires for the Little Rock School District\nis that correct? A. Yes, but mostly my staff, I know Brad Guise worked with them on the content. Q. And you talked with Mr. Walker about the content validity and reliability. Ah, have those questionnaires been tested for content validity? A. The ones that Little Rock revised? Q. Well, let's say for example the ones that are used as Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 , Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs imile e -mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourt reporting . com 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 examples in your book? A. Yes, they are\nthey have been. Q. And how was that determined? 62 A. Well, we took about ten thousand students, for example the student questionnaire administered the questionnaires over time to get the reliability and validity ah, interviewed students. Q. So was that a determination that was made by EFF rather than some outside evaluation of the content validity? A. Right. Q. Is the same true with respect to reliability? A. Yes. Q. Now you work with I guess government entities such as school districts more than any other type of entity don't you? A. Yes, also I would say regional offices of that in the last few years\nregional offices where districts come to come together, yeah. I would say there would be probably our biggest contractor. Q. Have you seen a problem in districts maybe changing administrators or changing boards or the election changing the course of a school district with respect to how it approaches its curricular or evaluation or assessment type issues? A. Yes. Q. You understand it's fairly difficult for a government or entity to change and therefore the direction the entity goes will change as well? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Sweet Home, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (50 1) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail: gloria .cobb@ c obbcourtreporting . com II - 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 A. Absolutely and that's one of the reasons I have a hard time telling you how many districts in our country would be using portfolios right now because I might be working with an administrative staff that is very gung-ho portfolio, school portfolio, district portfolios and then the superintendent changes and next year there is no portfolio or it might be just the opposite. leaders change. Yes, we see all kinds of changes happen when the Q. In Little Rock I mean you made the statement that generally assessment can't be embedded without the highest level of support\ndo you know whether in Little Rock the board supports the process of program assessment? WALKER: Now let me object to that for the record of course. We're talking about two different boards, one that was Mr. Heller's board and one that's not Mr. Heller's board. So the board we are talking about has to be identified. Q. Well, at any point in time Dr. Bernhardt do you have any reason to believe that the Little Rock School District Board of Directors doesn't support program assessments? A. No. Q. Any reason to believe that the superintendent doesn't believe in program assessments? A. No. Q. You testified that you made recommendations to LRSD about deeply embedding a process, is that correct? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box 14 , Swee t Home , AR 7216 4-0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(50 1 ) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facs i mile e -mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcour t r e porting . com 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 A. Yes. Q. I think we've established that those were except as to what's contained in your proposal the recommendations wouldn't be written? A. Ah, I would say not but this is the clearest ah, the clearest documentation at the time. Q. And what do you say, I take it that you have your proposal in front of you, what do you say there that you propose to do for LRSD? A. Ah, I have it right in front of me. That I was going to do some training with school teams, district team on the portfolio and comprehensive data analysis and ah, we were going to work with each school in the district on questionnaire services and ah, a lot of it the training and follow-up training on the first part of the change was of course understanding how to look at data, what data, would that data would lead to continuous improvement ah, other parts of the training would be about getting a vision and plan and ah, and then just having the follow-up sessions to monitor and continue with the training with the school team. Q. Is there anything else in that proposal\nany other substantive aspects of that proposal? A. When I look at it those are the biggest pieces of work for me to do. Q. Okay. When you made that proposal were you aware of the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Home, AR 72 164- 0004 Phones : ( 501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n( 501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail : gloria . cobb@ c obbcourtreporting . com 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I I ('1Dif'.:'f f !\\ i t requirements in the compliance remedy concerning a comprehensive program assessment process? A. Yes. Q. And so that's the only writing we have that reflects something you said to the district about what saw would be necessary for deeply embedding an assessment process? A. I believe so. 65 Q. Now tell us about certain things that you felt were needed by LRSD ah, a way to pull data together, tools for quick analysis, ways for teachers, administrators and others to get data from the same source and you said this was based, verbally this assessment of need based firmly on what you were told. Can you tell me who told you there was a need for any of those things? A. That there was a need for any of those things? Q. Right, I mean you believe that--- A. Or a need for the tools? Q. You know whether or not LRSD currently has all of those things in place? A. In ah, in working with the staff at PRE as we talked about putting together--well, one of the proposals and I think this was done in person that's why there's not a lot in writing, as we're talking about how we would go about getting all of the data together this is a very common discussion as I work with districts. Ah, one approach would be . to have schools go out Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4, Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phones: (501) 490-0066 - Off\n(501) 590-0975 - Cell (501) 490-0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria.cobb@cobbcourtreporting.com 3 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 and try to pull the data together or to have the district pull all the data together and in ah, provide you know the district do it first and then provide some data for the schools what they can pull together which I would highly recommend because it's much better to have few people pulling it, trying to pull together all of the data and then supporting the schools that way than having schools try to go get the same information from one person or four people. And in those conversations we talked about okay, what about your demographics, your student information system rollup in other words the student information system is the transactional database that would be in every single school and we would want the school's data to roll up into one district student information system and so we were already talking, we were already talking this talk with the districts and what about perceptual data and what about student achievement data it's out of the same location is that accurate is the demographics on the student achievement in the student achievement files accurate ah, so that we could do desegregations easily and--- Q. You know--- A. and--- Q. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. A. ah, you know what kind of program evaluations, we talked all these things all the time and they, there were data pieces all over the place or in different l ocations and that's how we Cobb court Reporting P. o. Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell ( 501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria. c obb@cobbcourtreporting .com 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talked about warehousing. WALKER: Now let me interrupt again. I think we're going to loose the court reporter because she's gone beyond the time that we promised, we had said was two hours. How much longer do you have Chris? 67 HELLER: Probably no more than 30 minutes. WALKER: Doctor, can you be available for thirty minutes tomorrow? BERNHARDT: No, I cannot I am--unless what time are we talking here? WALKER: Late at night, you know, any time at your convenience. BERNHARDT: I'm working with a group of schools tomorrow until about 3 o'clock--- HELLER: There's a school board meeting here, John. BERNHARDT: I wouldn't be available 3 p.m., so--- WALKER: Pardon? HELLER: 3 o'clock Hawaii time puts us into a school board meeting here tomorrow night. BERNHARDT: But I wouldn't be available until 4 o'clock tomorrow. WALKER: I think we're going to--Chris can you try to compress, I mean, you know I mean this is a trial for Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14, Sweet Borne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e-mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtre porting . com 3 5 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 all practical purposes this is a trial deposition so could you, I mean do what you want to do but ah, I think Ms. Cobb is going to have to go\nshe's out of it. things as well. She's had a long day and other HELLER: Well, let me just ask Dr. Bernhardt what we can do, I mean what would be, I mean is there a convenient time we can finish this up for her before we get to trial? BERNHARDT: And when is the trial? HELLER: The 20th  WALKER: Well, you're not going to be a part of his case Doctor, so it could be, it will be before the 22 nd--HELLER: Well, I need to know, I need to know what she says. deposition. WALKER: We may not choose to use Dr. Bernhardt. HELLER: I still want to complete the WALKER: Well, I understand but you know, she has at least until the 26th or 21th--2sth or 26th . BERNHARDT: The earliest I could do this would be Saturday / Sunday or Monday. WALKER: Well, the judge is, we think we can do it, I think I'm available on Saturday or Sunday. the 14 th . HELLER: I can do it Saturday the 13th or Sunday Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 , Sweet Borne, AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490- 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490- 0926 - Facsimile e -mail : gl ori a . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I  69 BERNHARDT: I have to move locations on Saturday ah, so it, I'd have to do it either before or after. WALKER: Well Chris I mean I think that you've gotten to the point of where--well, I don't know why don't you take another 10 minutes and see if you got some more real questions. HELLER: Well, we're not, I'm just barely getting into some of the stuff that you asked John, I mean it's going to be a solid 30 minutes, I can promise you that. I don't want to mislead you. WALKER: Well, we're looking at maybe an hour and a-half then if you say a solid 30 minutes, so why don't we try to resume it for Sunday the 13th? t he v ictim. different? BERNHARDT: Saturday the 13th? WALKER: This coming Sunday. HELLER: Sunday is the 14th . WALKER: The 14th  HELLER: What time? WALKER: Dr. Bernhardt sets t he time since she's Dr. Bernhardt? BERNHARDT So ah, are you talking four hours WALKER: Yes, ma' am. BERNHARDT: Ah, on Sunday I could do it at 9 a.m., I could do it anytime on Sunday. Cobb court Reporting P. O. Box #4, Sweet Horne , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590 - 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Facsimile e - mail: gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com I I I I I 1 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 HELLER: Would that be best 9 a.m., your time, I suppose it would have to be. So 1 o'clock our time, John. WALKER: 1 o'clock our time will be fine. BERNHARDT: Okay. HELLER: Can we arrange this the same way\nI don't how you two got this--- WALKER: Yes, we'll arrange it the same way. HELLER: All right, great\nI'll be here. WALKER: That will give you an advantage so you have some better, some more questions. HELLER: It will give us all an advantage because I can ah, hopefully streamline things a little bit. Bernhardt. WALKER: Thank you very much\nthan you Dr. BERNHARDT: Okay. HELLER: All right\nthank you Dr. Bernhardt. BERNHARDT: You're welcome. HELLER: Thanks John. WALKER: Bye-bye. BERNHARDT: Bye. [A recess was taken at 8:11 p.m., January 10, 2007 to resume at 1:00 p.m., on Sunday, January 14, 2007.J * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . 0 . Box 14, Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phones : (501) 490 - 0066 - Off\n(501) 590- 0975 - Cell (501) 490 - 0926 - Fa c simile e - mail : gloria . cobb@cobbcourtreporting . com 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 I I I 71 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, DR. VICTORIA BERNHARDT, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me, a voice writer, and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impart i ality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to prov ide any service not available to all parties to the act. 1 ./ _j/. /. 1 My Commi ssion Expires: January 16, 2007 , $!') \\, (, ,\" J 1-1 /lli-\u0026amp;u c~ . Gloria Y. p::obb, Notary Pul::!lib\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1226","title":"Oral deposition of Ed Williams, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"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","Court records","Education--Finance","School employees","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Meadowcliff Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School administrators","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Ed Williams, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1226"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . LRC 82--866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF MR. ED WILLIAMS JANUARY 9TH, 2007 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushmanreporting@aoI . com PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEIV JAN 19 2001 Off\\CEOF DESEGREGAi\\ON MON\\TORI G APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY , ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK , LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P .A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P . RICHARDSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 2 3 I N D E X STYLE AND NUMBER 1 APPEARANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STIPULATION PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Examination by Mr . Walker ............................ 5 Examination by Mr . Heller ............................ 76 Deposition concluded ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . 78 EXHIBITS l. PRE ' S Compliance BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 4 ED WILLIAMS PRODUCED , SWORN , AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker , 1723 Broadway , in Little Rock , Arkansas , beginning at 10 : 50 a .m. on January 9th , 2007 , the above- entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , said deposition being taken purs  ~ , to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , by agreement of counsel , at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q State your name , please . A Edward Remly , R-- E- M- L--E- Y, Williams . Q Dr . Williams , how long have you worked for the Little Rock School District? A Since September 1 , 1998 . Q Have you been providing primarily statistical services for the district during that time? A I have a much more extensive job description than just that . Q I understand but would you say that your primary work has been in the area of statistics during that period of time? A Q Yes . All right . And I take it that you ' ve also been serving as director for the last six weeks? A I ' ve been interim director since December 1 , 2006 . Q Now , before you were made interim director of PRE , did you have any discussions with Mr . Hattabaugh or Dr . Roy Brooks? A Since they ' ve been in the district , yes , I ' ve had conversations with them . Q Did you have any discussions about your becoming director of PRE on an interim basis before Dr . DeJarnette was removeci from the position? A No . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 Q What was your relationship with Dr . DeJarnette before she was removed from the position? A Dr . Karen DeJarnette was my immediate superior . Q And what was the nature of the working relationship between you all? A We had discussions about our roles and performing my JOC, functions . She assigned duties to me to perform and I performed them to the best of my ability . Q A Q A Q Did you get along well with her? Yes . Did you have professional respect for her? Yes . Did you ever have occasion to meet with the superintendent , outside her presence , regarding program evaluation? A I don ' t recall . Q Did you ever have occasion to meet with the superi\"~~ ~  outside her presence, regarding any subject at any time after she was hired? A Yes , I recall some instances . Q Can you begin by reporting each instance that you met with the superintendent after she was hired , without her presence? A I know of one . I 'm just trying to recall if there were others . Q A When was that meeting? The one I recall with the most detail would have taken BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 place in either April or May of 2006 . Q Did he invite you to his office? A I recall that he did , yes . Q A Q You did not take it on your own initiative to go there? No , I don ' t recal l that . What was the subject of the meeting? A It dealt with doing the statistical analysis for what I call the Meadow- Wak project but it would have been the Meadowcliff- Wakefield Teacher Merit Pay Project . Q Is that the project funded by Mr . Walter Hussman? A If I recall , that project was jointly funded by the school district and Walter Hussman . Q What is the source of your recollection? A I think , if I recall , it was just general conversation in the spring of 2000 . Although , that could have come from Dr . DeJarnette , some of that could have been board meetings . I can ' t - - I don ' t recall specifically . I think it was just general -- Q What was the statistical analysis you were called upon to perform? A Each school had a different statistical model in determining student growth so that ' s what we discussed to ma:~ sure that my role in doing that analysis was clarified. Q A Who else was present at that meeting? I don ' t recall if anyone else was present . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Did he tell you the purpose of this statistical analysis? No . No, I don ' t recall that we discussed why it was done . Did you prepare a statistical analysis , pursuant to his request? A Yes , I did . Q A Q A Q Was that analysis reduced to writing? Yes , it was . Is it in a form which can be reproduced? Yes . What is it called? 8 A There were two separate reports , one for each school , and I think it was something like Meadowcliff -- I think it was either Meadowcliff and then Wakefield Teacher Pay for Performance or I don ' t think it used the term merit pay . I don ' t recall the specific title of the report but it dealt with -- it ~~- _ separate report for each school . Meadowcliff Teacher -- they changed the name of that program and it ' s called Teacher Challenge Project now but it was like Teacher Pay for -something like that. Q Okay. What was the statistical analysis methodology that you utilized in performing this task? A As I recall, we had two different models and the model at, if I recall correctly because I don't have my notes in front of me, the model at Meadowcliff looked at individual student growth on the total test battery on the Stanford 10 using national BUSHMAN COURT RSPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 curve equivalent scores from the fall administration to the spring administration . The Wakefield model dealt with us i ng t he same score , total battery and national curve equivalent scores , but looked at classroom averages in growth from the fall administration to the spring administration . Q Di d you perform an analysis? A Yes . Q Did you make any conclusions when you performed your analysis? A I don ' t believe i n the report that there was a conclusion section of that report . I don ' t recall that being in there . Q A Q A Q Was this in the nature of a program assessment? No . Was this in the nature of a program evaluation? No . What was it that you were evaluating -- well , what was it that you were measuring then , other than the movement in test scores from one period in a school year to another? A As I recall , both models looked at chance in student scores from the spring to the fall . Q On that basis , was it to be determined if there were material changes this reflected the achievement of teachers for purposes of determining merit pay? A The analysis that I did was to determine the student growth from fall -- did I say spring to fall? I meant to say fall -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q A You said fall to spring . Okay . Thank you . Fall to spring . teachers were paid based on a schedule . Q Who determined the schedule? From that analysis , A If I recall , for Meadowcliff we used the same schedule as 10 we did for the '04 -'05 Teacher Pay for Performance Report and the Wakefield payout -- I don ' t recall who all was involved in making that decision . I don ' t reca l l . There were a number of people involved . I was not a part of that decision- making process . Q Let me understand this . There were payments to be made to teachers , provided student -- in one situation , student average test scores increased\nis that fair to say? A Would you mind repeating that , sir? Q Yes . Teachers were to be rewarded with pay increases at one particular school for showing an average class improvement or improvement in test scores on an average basis within a class from one point in time to another point in time in the school year? A As I recall, it wasn ' t a pay increase . It would have been similar to a -- Q A bonus? A - - bonus or incentive pay . Q Okay . Now , would you not ordinarily, Dr . Williams, expe~ r children to have their averages changed as the year goes on if BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 any teaching is going on at all? A I would think that would be a normal expectation that scores would increase . However , based on a standardized test score , there is a little bit different look at things . Q I see . Is it fair to say that also when you were dealing with this that you were dealing with only those teachers who dealt with academic subjects? 11 A If I recall , the model included pay outs for every employee in the school , irrespective of whether they were a teacher or not . Q Okay . So if there was an improvement of students in a particular class , then irrespective of whether a person worked in any class , all the people got paid extra? A If I interpret what you ' re saying , did the janitors get paid Q A Q Yes . Yes , sir . Do you know whether the rest of PRE was involved in this statistical presentation? A You mean in their report writing? Q Anything . First of all , did you discuss what you were tasked with Dr . DeJarnette? Did you tell her what Dr . Brooks had asked you to do? A Yes , I recall I did at some point , yeah . Q Well, when you began it , did you tell her what he had asked BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 you to do? A If I recall , the initial conversation about doing the analysis included Dr . Roberts and Dr . DeJarnette and myself and maybe the whole team was there when the subject was brought up about doing the analysis . Q At that time , did Dr . Roberts -- Dr . Brooks was not present\nwas he? A No . Q Did Dr . Roberts take the lead for the district on this subject? A Yes , based on the chain of command , yes . Q I see. Now , did Dr . Roberts explain why she got you involved or why Dr . Brooks got you involved , rather than Dr. DeJarnette directly? A As I recall , the protocol was for -- just to give you some background , the previous year we had -- there was an external person that did all the data analysis and there was no oversight by anyone . Whatever they produced was what the pay out was based on . A concern was that - - and there was some timeliness in terms of getting that analysis done , if I recall . The school district wanted to do the analysis this year and then have an expert double-check the data that we had ran in terms of ~ne statistical analysis . Q My question is : How is it that Dr. DeJarnette was circumvented? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q Dr . DeJarnette was , in fact , circumvented in terms of this task being assigned to you\nisn ' t that correct? A If I interpret your question as to why Dr . DeJarnette did not do the statistical analysis herself , she typically -- over the course of her time in the district , those types of things are assigned to those people most qualified to do those kinds of jobs , a true statistician . Q In terms of protocol , since you talked about protocol , the protocol of the district is for a person to relate to that next person at the next level , isn ' t it , instead of jumping over levels and getting assignments or making reports? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . That ' s a compound question . BY MR . WALKER : Q But you understand the question? That is the protocol , isn't it, Dr . Williams? A In this particular instance , with the Meadow-Wak project , Dr . DeJarnette had very little or no interest to be involved in the project at all. Q I understand. Did she tell you she had no interest in it? Did she tell you that? A That's the dialogue that I had -- that was my BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 interpretation of the dialogue that I had with Dr . DeJarnette . Q I see . Did Dr . DeJarnette make that report in your presence to either Dr . Roberts or to Dr . Brooks? A What report? That she had no interest in the project . I 'm not sure . Was this a time-consuming task of yours? 14 Q A Q A Q I would say no because it fell into my field of expertise . Didn ' t take much time? A I 'm trying to recall how much time I actually spent on tte project . The actual analysis took the least amount of time. Q Not the analysis . It ' s the data gathering\nisn ' t it? A I didn ' t gather the data . Q A Q You didn ' t gather it? No . Who gathered the data? A If I recall, whoever was the test coordinator at the time disseminated the test materials and sent the test materials to the testing company and then the testing company sent the results back to us . Q A So you made the analysis yourself? Yes, and we had an exterior statistician validate my results . Q A That analysis was computer- determined\nwasn ' t it? Yes, sir. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Q So you didn ' t really make a statistical analysis . It was a computer statistical analysis\nwasn ' t it? A Yes . We used S . P . S.S . Q So what did you do with respect to this analysis , other than program some numbers? A That would be a very simplistic way of answering what I did , yes , sir . Q And you all paid somebody the previous year a lot of money to do that? A I don ' t recall what was paid to that person . Q Who was that person the previous year , the external person? A It was a fellow that worked for the co-op in Camden . He has expertise in running the testing software and I can ' t reca1: his name right now . I 'm sorry . Maybe in a couple of hours it will pop into my brain . Sorry . Q That ' s fine . Now , let me ask : Before you became interim director , had you ever been responsible for supervising any group of employees within the Little Rock School District? A Q Not that I recall , no . So you have no previous experience in the school district or in education as a supervisor of employees? A Yes , I have extensive experience supervising employees in the education setting . Q A Can you tell me what educational setting that was? Yes , sir . I ran a three-year grant program at the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 University of Arkansas-Little Rock . 16 I was the director of that project . It was called STEPS , Successful Transition to Employment for Post - Secondary Students . two people . I supervised a staff of Q Two people . Do you have any educational training in program evaluation? A Yes , I do . Q Do you have your vitae? You didn ' t bring that with you? A No , but it ' s in the 1st Quarterly Report . Q I see . Does that vitae disclose that you have training in program evaluation? A It lists my degrees and my education , yes . Q Do you recall where you took a course or courses in program evaluation and assessment? A Q A Q At the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville . Was that in your undergraduate or graduate program? Graduate program . I see . Had you ever had any responsibility for program evaluation and assessment before you became interim director? A Could you repeat that? BY MR . WALKER : Will you play the record back , please? (Record played back at this time) BY THE WITNESS : Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 BY MR . WALKER : Q When was that? A It would be in my roles and responsibilities as a research statistician and a statistician with the Little Rock School District . Q In that role , did you supervise employees? A No . Q A I see . All right . You did apply for the position I mean , that was just with my Little Rock work . I have done research and evaluation prior to coming to the Little Rock School District . Q For any public school district? A On contract with another school district , no\ndealing with data from school districts , yes . Q Did you provide the statistical data that Dr . Bonnie Leslie relied upon before 2002 , which was presented to Judge Wilson by Mr . Heller? A I 'm unclear as to the types of analysis that Bonnie Leslie I 'm uncertain of what you ' re talking about . Q Did you provide the statistics to her , with respect to student achievement , that she relied on in her presentation to the court? A I 'm not familiar with her testimony to the court so I -- Q Are you familiar with the district's report to the court on Pre- K literacy? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 A Yes , I am . Q Did you provide the statistics to Dr . Leslie regarding Pre- K literacy? A I don ' t recall providing any information directly to Dr . Leslie . If I provided any information , it would have been to the person that wrote that report . Q I see . Were the data that were presented in that report accurate and complete? A I ' d have to go back and -- that ' s the one that was written by Dr . Eddie McCoy? Q Yes . A I ' d have to go back and look at that report . I 'm not up to speed on that report . It ' s been four years . Q I see . A I would say off- hand that it should have been accurate , yeah , but I don ' t know . I ' d have to go back and look at the report to lay my eyes on it again . I 'm unfamiliar with that report right now. Q All right . Have you read the court ' s order regarding program evaluation and assessment in this case? A Are you meaning the court ' s compliance report? Q It ' s called Compliance Remedy , yes . A Q A Yes , I ' ve read it . When did you first read it? Probably , well , fairly soon after it was available for BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reading . Q A Q A Q Have you had discussions regarding that with Dr . Brooks? On the Compliance Remedy? Yes . No . Have you had discussions regarding the Compliance Remedy with Dr . Roberts? A Nothing specific . Q With Mr . Hattabaugh? A No . Q I see . With Dr . DeJarnette? A Yes , extensive . Q I see . Was this one-on- one or was it in group meetings? A If I recall , it began one-on-one . When she first was hired , she and I had a meeting and went through the Compliance Remedy and then discussed those issues that came up in the Judge ' s order . Then , as the days and weeks progressed , it was less one-on-one and always with groups as those people came on board and we started to implement the Compliance Remedy . I see . Team meetings . Things like that . 19 Q A Q Do you have any experience in preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations? A Q Yes , I have done those . Where have you done those and where can we see them? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 A If I recall -- are you talking about just within the Little Rock School District? Q Well , let ' s start with Little Rock . A Let me think . I did one on HIPPY , some year - round evaluations . I did one on middle school transition . There could have been others but those are the ones I recall the most. Q Do you recall who worked under your supervision in preparing and overseeing the formal program evaluations in those areas? A Q A Q A Q I didn ' t supervise anyone . I see . Whom did you report to? Dr . Kathy Lease . That was my immediate supervisor. So you reported to Dr . Lease? Yes . Were those the program evaluations that were either lost or misplaced or not utilized in the court proceeding? A Q I 'm unsure of that question . Let me put it another way . Were they ever -- were those draft reports? A Are you talking about the 2002 -- Q Yes . A My recollection is that I turned all that information over to Dr. Kathy Lease and, what happened after that , I don't know in terms of reports to the courts . Q I see . Did you have extensive experience in overseeing the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 preparation of program evaluations? That ' s yes or no . A Yes . Q Is that the experience you ' ve just described? A You aske d me about my experience in the Little Rock School District and I replied to those questions based on what I recall my experience with the Little Rock School District is in terms of program evaluation . I mean , there ' s other things . Q Are there programs in the Little Rock School District that are designed specifically to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? A I didn ' t catch that. I 'm sorry . BY MR . WALKER : Could you replay that for us? (Record played back at this time) BY MR . WALKER : Q A You can answer when you want to . I lost my train of thought there . I 'm thinking all over again , sorry . The programs that we have implemented , national research and in some of the readings I have done , has shown that they have a positive impact on the achievement of AfricanAmerican students . So , to answer your question , we implemented those programs . My understanding is , we implemented those programs based on the national research but we needed to determine if those programs , while they may work in another case city in the United States , do they have the external validity in BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 terms of improving the academic achievement of African- American students , as the national research says they do . In a roundabout way , sir , yes , we have implemented programs that will -- we feel should impact the achievement level of AfricanAmerican students . Q Can you identify any programs that are specifically defined and designed by the Little Rock School District for the purpose of improving African- American , specifically , African-American student achievement? A If we ' re talking about the eight program evaluations that we did , all eight programs are either national research programs or based on models of national research designed to improve and impact the achievement level of African-American students . Q Do you recall reading the reports that were submitted by Mr . Heller to the court indicating that there were a number of programs that the Little Rock School District was implementing that were specifically designed to improve academic achievement of African-American students? A Q What was the date of that report , sir? 2001 - 2002 . A There ' s a possibility that I read that report . years ago. That ' s five Q Did you understand, for instance, the City- Year Tutoring Program to be designed specifically for improving African - American student achievement? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 23 I 'm not familiar with that program . That ' s fine . Did you understand the 21st Century Community Learning Program in Mabelvale School to be designed specifically to improve African- American achievement? A It is my recollection , in looking at their website on the current 21st Century , that those activities are designed -- the activities that each individual school can implement are designed to improve the academic achievements . Q A Of African- American students? I believe so , yes . If I recall , looking at their current website . I ' d have to - - Q Isn ' t it true that all the programs that you all have in the district are designed to improve the academic achievement of all students rather than simply African- American students? A It is my understanding that the programs that we ' ve chosen are programs that the national research has shown to improve the academic achievement level of African-American students . It is in all likelihood that the implementations of those specific programs will have an impact on all students ' achievement . Q So your understanding is that when you focus on improving the academic achievement of African - American students , white students don't suffer\nisn ' t that correct? A I think there ' s been enough written about the data nationally and the data with the Little Rock School District to affirm that , yes, those types of programs that we are BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 implementing are having an impact on all students . Q Now , are you familiar with the various programs that are set forth in the compliance report , 2001 - 2002 , to the court? A Q A Q Yes . Wait a minute . Yes . Sorry . You just said 2001 - 2002? No , I 'm not familiar with every one of those programs . All right . Now , Have you ever had a one - on - one 24 conversation with Joy Springer regarding program assessment and evaluation? A I don ' t recall having a one - on- one conversation with Joy Springer . Q A Q A Q Have you ever had such a conversation with John Walker? One-on-one? Yes , sir . Not that I recall , no . Have you ever been privy to any one- on- one conversations regarding program assessment and evaluations between Ms . Joy Springer and Dr . Karen DeJarnette? A You mean one- on-one where it would be Joy , and Dr . DeJarnette and myself? Q A No , that ' s not what I mean but I ' ll just take that -- Okay . Then I can rescind my answer . To answer the previous two , yes , I ' ve been meetings where I responded to questions by Joy Springer and John Walker , yes . Q I see . Those have been meetings where -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 A I don ' t consider those one-on- one . Q Now , have you ever been in a meeting where just you and Dr . DeJarnette were present with Ms . Springer? A I don ' t recall ever being in a meeting like that . Q Or where Dr . DeJarnette and you and Mr . Walker were the only ones present? A Q A I don ' t recall , no . Has Mr . Walker ever asked you for any private information? No . The only conversation I recall ever having with Mr . Wa l ker was an FOI request . Q I see . You have passed Mr . Walker in the hall and in other places and exchanged pleasantries\nhaven ' t you? A Yes , I have . Q Now , were you informed by anyone that you were not to cooperate with ODM or Joshua in the last two years? A I don ' t recall ever being instructed not to talk to ODM. was instructed not to talk to Mr . Walker or the Joshua Intervenors unless our attorney was present . Q A Who gave you that instruction? Attorney Chris Heller . Q I see . When did he give it to you? A I don ' t recall the specific date . It was an e - mail and it I was probably in the fall of 2005 , maybe spring of 2006 . I don ' t recall exactly . Q I see . What precipitated that e-mail? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A I don ' t know . Q I see . Did you and the staff of PRE meet to discuss that e - mail from Mr . Heller? A I don ' t know if the staff discussed it . I know that Dr . DeJarnette and I had a discussion about it . Q I see . And what was the - - A I can ' t recall if we brought it up in a staff meeting . It ' s in all likelihood that we did . Q What comments did Dr . DeJarnette make about Mr . Heller ' s e - mail to you regarding that subject? A I don ' t recall any comments by Dr. DeJarnette on that . Q A Q A What comments did you make to Dr . DeJarnette on that? I just reiterated what the e - mail said in my own words . I see . Why did you do that? I just felt that it was important that we -- I just felt that it was important that that information be clarified . Q I see . Did you get clarification from Dr . DeJarnette regarding that? A No . As I said earlier, I don ' t recall her ever making a comment on my reiteration of that . Q Did you go to her to raise the subject? A If I recall , we just happened to be in the office -- well , I think she had the e - mail on her desk and showed it to me or something like that . I was in there for something else and that just came up in conversation . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 l l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 27 I see . What is the responsibility that you assumed for the 7th and 8th Quarterly Reports that were submitted to Joshua , ODM, and ultimately, the court? A I provided to Jim Wooleb any appropriate information that was pertinent to my role as the team leader and as the facilitator to any of the evaluation meetings and then was asked to peer review, if possible , the reports . Q A Q I see . You were the team leader? I was a team leader , yes , sir . I see . Why were you making these comments to Wooleb? A Mr . Wooleb was -- one of his roles was to write the quarterly reports . Q So you had no responsibility for writing the reports? A I provided him information and documents that could be inserted in the reports . Q I understand . But you had no responsibility for writing the report\ndid you? BY MR . FINLEY : Other than what he just testified to? He ' s testified he provided information and peer review\ndidn't he? BY MR . WALKER : That ' s a coaching objection . BY MR . WALKER: Q Did you have any responsibility for writing -- you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand what I mean by writing? A Q Yes . Did you? 28 A I wrote -- I may have written documents that were inserted into the quarterly report but the entire report , it ' s compilation was the responsibility of Mr . Wooleb and we provided, each of us , depending on our roles , provided him with written i nformation to be inserted into the report . Q So Mr . Wooleb had the respons i bility for preparing the prel i minary draft and submitting it to Dr . DeJarnette , is that fair to say? A Q He was responsible for compiling the information . I see . Now , who had the responsibility for preparing the report , the quarterly report? A Q PRE . That ' s right . You remember the Compliance Remedy said that PRE was to prepare the compliance report\ndo you not? A Yes . Q That wasn ' t a task of Dr . Roberts\nwas it? I ' ll give you the report to refresh your memory. A PRE is an entity of the Little Rock School District and -- Q No . I 'm asking you to look at the document . Did not the judge say that that was a PRE delegated duty? That ' s different from the evaluations . Let ' s take a minute break to look at that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Off the record) (Back on the record and the following testimony was given , as follows , to- wit) : 29 BY MR . WALKER : Q A Q A Q A Does that refresh your recollection? Yes . Whose responsibility was it to prepare the report? The judge asked that PRE submit written quarterly updates . To whom? To the judge and to ODM and Joshua? Yes , but PRE is an entity of the Little Rock School District . I 'm not asking your interpretation. If it says PRE , it's sans LRSD . Q A Q That ' s your position . Now , nobody above Dr . DeJarnette had any responsibility for doing this task\ndid they? First of all, did anybody above Dr. DeJarnette, meaning Dr . Brooks and Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts , participate in these meetings that were held regarding program assessment and evaluations that took place in the last two years? A Did they attend team evaluation meetings? Q Yes . A Yes . Dr . Roberts and Mr . Hattabaugh did . Q Did they do so before the year 2006? A I Id have to go back and look at the minutes of the meetings . I 'm uncertain on that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Isn ' t it fair to say -- And I know Dr. Roberts accompanied Dr . DeJarnette to 30 Memphis to discuss the comprehensive program assessment process Q Well , I 'm talking about only the ones where Ms . Springer or Mr . Walker or both of them were present . Isn ' t it true that , until recently , Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts were not present in those meetings? A As I recall , they , as did Joshua , attended more of the year two , Step II Program Evaluation meetings than in year one . Q Now , Ms . Springer has been to more of those meetings than Dr . Roberts\nhasn ' t she? A I ' d have to go Q Just on your recollection . I 'm not asking you to go and check your notes . Based on your present recollection , isn ' t that true? A In all likelihood, it probably could be . Q All right . A I did actually look at some data on that and I think that Joshua attended about 30 to 40 percent , if I recollect , I don ' t have the data in front of me but about 30 or 40 percent of the year one meetings and about 80 to 90 percent of the year two meetings . Q What caused you to make that kind of assessment? Was it in anticipation of your testimony in court? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q 31 I was curious about attendance . What are you going to say to the court when you are called to testify , whenever you testify regarding program a s sessment and evaluation? Please just give me a statement of what it is . A What program assessment and evaluation -- Q Well , you ' re going to be called as a witness\nare you not? A Okay . Q And you were , until last night , the director? I guess you ' re still director until they let her go back to work . Have they told you that she can ' t go back to work until next week? A I 'm understanding that Dr . DeJarnette is -- I don ' t know if they used that terminology . That ' s not the terminology they used with me . Q Are you informed that she will not report to work until after the 16th of this month? A Q A Q A Q A Q I was told that she will be coming to work next Tuesday . Who told you that , by the way? Dr . Roberts . When did she tell you that? This morning . I see . What else did she tell you this morning about that? That ' s all she told me . I see . Did she tell you why she was being continued on suspension, despite the school board ' s ruling last night? A No , she didn't . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 Q Did she tell you what you were supposed to be doing in the meantime? A Yeah , continue on with the work that we ' re doing . Q And what are you doing? A We ' re doing feasible , modified and ongoing assessments of the year one Step II evaluations . We ' re compiling data on the Vision -- data to report on Vision and we ' re starting testing , we ' re starting mid- year testing . Q You ' re also starting mid- year testing? A This week . The test data -- the test materials arrived yesterday . Q So you are in charge of that until next week? A Q A Q Yes . That ' s a responsibility of the director of PRE . Did she give you any written directions? No . Did she meet with you or did she talk with you on the telephone? A Do you mean today? Q A Q A Q A Q Yes . Both . So when did she mee~ with you? This morning . For how long? Five minutes. What did she say to you this morning? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 A Just that Dr . DeJarnette would report next Tuesday and continue on with the work that you ' re doing . Q I see . Now , what will you say to the court about the program evaluations and assessments being embedded in the fabric of the school district? A That the IL- R is our comprehensive assessment process . Q I have asked a question . Would you respond to my question? Do you consider that responsive? BY MR . FINLEY : If you don ' t consider it responsive , ask him another question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Do you consider that responsive? A Yes , I do . IL- R is our comprehensive program assessment and it deeply embeds program evaluation in the Little Rock School District . Q When was that IL- R developed? A It was developed beginning with the meeting that Dr . Roberts and Dr . Karen DeJarnette had with Dr . Steve Ross per the request of the court . Q So that as of that date , the process was embedded? A No . Through work with - - Q I see . A If I recall, that process was approved by the school board in December of 2004 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-511 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 Q When did the process become embedded in the fabric of the d i strict? Can you give me a date when it became embedded? A It would be embedded when the school board approved that deeply embedded program assessment process -- Q So that ' s all the school - - is it your opinion that all the school board had to do at that point was approve the resolution? That ' s yes or no . A Their approving the regulations formalizes the deeply embedded comprehensive program assessment process . Q So that ' s all tha t needed to be done? Is that your opinion? A The district regulations are the backbone of the institutionalization of all policies and procedures in the Little Rock School District . So , yes , that is the overriding central decision that had to be made by the district board of directors to formalize the deeply embedded program assessment process or to approve the comprehensive assessment process that institutionalizes program evaluation with the Little Rock School District . That was reaffirmed at the June , July board meeting with an affirmation to continue program assessment . The combination of those two pieces , the formalization as well as the institutionalization of the comprehensive program assessment process , followed up by a commitment to resolve -- I can ' t remember the exact name of that document -- a commitment to resolve that, irrespective of what happens this month , the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 school district will continue to evaluate programs for the expressed outcome to determine the impact of those programs on the achievement of African- American s~udents . 35 Q So your position is that the only thing that is required is f or the board to pass a resolution and then to reinforce that resolution one time\nis that fair to say? That ' s what is meant by embedding? A There were not two resolutions . One was approval to formally ins titutionalize program evaluation , i . e ., the comprehensive program assessment process within the structure of the Little Rock School District . You follow the regulations . Q I see . Are you familiar with IL- R? A Q A Q A Yes , I ' ve read it . What is meant by IL-R? Is that a board policy? It ' s a regulation . Is that a board policy? A policy/regulation , yeah . When you go to the website and look it up , that ' s what pops up . Q That ' s what pops up? A Well , you go to board -- go to the website and I think it ' s policies or something . Q Give me you opinion of the difference between a policy and a regulation . A A policy is a very broad stroke at something . Regulations are those things that will be implemented to address that broad BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 stroke . Q A Q Did the board approve IL- R? Yes , December of 2004 . That ' s my understanding . Or did the board approve I L? A It ' s IL- R. Q So you ' re not familiar with policy IL? 36 A That ' s the one from 2002 , I think . That ' s a former policy . Q All right . What i s meant by the term, in your opinion , to deeply embed , as used by the district court? A That an entity , an initiative , an idea is institutionalized . Q What does that mean? A That it becomes a part of the culture of an institution or entity . Q When did it become the culture -- when did program assessment -- the process that you say is underway become part of the culture of this school district? At what point? A When the board approved the regulations in December of 2004 , that institutionalized the process . Q I see . Doesn ' t part of the embedding process require that the principals be informed of it , school principals? That ' s yes or no . A My understanding , because I got something in the mail the other day , when the district approves a policy or regulation then that policy or regulation is sent to just about everybcay . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So , yeah , I guess that ' s how they send that policy out to all the principals . Q Have you ever been in any meetings by PRE with all the principals of the school district regarding the evaluation and assessment process now underway? A Yes . There have been two meetings . Both of them -- yes , 37 there were two meetings . One in January 2005 and one in January of 2006 . Q Did you conduct those meetings? A No . Q Who did? A I think it was in conjunction with Dr . Steve Ross , because , actually , Steve Ross came over and discussed the programs to be evaluated , and then the whole team was there and talked , Dr . DeJarnette , Jim Wooleb , Tracy Robinson and myself . Q Did you speak? A Q A I recall I spoke a little bit , yeah . What did you speak about? I can ' t remember . I ' d have to go back and look at my -- I don ' t know . Q A Q A Q Who is the better -- you have some notes , you say? No , I don ' t . You said you had to get them . I know . I don ' t have any . I wanted those notes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I 'm sorry . I don ' t know why I said that . I don ' t have any . Q Okay . A I was thinking that they videotaped that but they didn ' t . I apologize for that mistake . Add a little humor there . I got your blood up -- Q It definitely did . Who is a better witness to talk about program evaluations in a comprehensive sense before the court , you or Dr . DeJarnette , in your opinion? A Given the communications and ongoing meetings we ' ve had, I think that any member of our team would be equally apt to give a good overview of that . I think Dr . DeJarnette would have an advantage because she has been the director for just about or right at two and half years . When you move up a level , you know you ' re what would you say -- you ' re privy to more inside and out ' s . I mean , she was privy to -- she met with Dr . Steve Ross and I didn ' t . I can ' t say actually was said in that meeting so , yeah , in a bigger picture , she could add in those nuances . Q Well , she had the responsibility for overseeing all these people in their various roles\ndidn ' t she? A Yes , she was the director . Q And you did not have that responsibility\ndid you? A That ' s correct . Q I see . So you are giving an opinion based on your observations of those other co-workers ' activities rather than intimate knowledge in association with it\nisn ' t that fair to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 say? A No , I -- the comments I made were based on the fact that Dr . DeJarnette was privy to more conversations with people involved like Dr . Roberts , Steve Ross , Dr . Catterall than the team was as whole . What I did say was there no reason that non~ of the team members couldn ' t give a very good overview of tha~ process . Q Are you saying that Maurecia Robinson can give the same overview of the process as you? That ' s yes or no . A I see no reason why not . She was involved in all the team meetings and she was privy to all the same information that I was . Q She never spoke with Ms . Springer\ndid she? A I don ' t know . Q And you never spoke with Ms . Springer so you can ' t give the same overviews , as Ms . Springer has so much knowledge about process . You understand that she supposedly has a lot of information about the process\nright? A Who? Q Ms . Springer . A Q I presume that she would , yes . I see . Have you read Ms . Springer ' s affidavit in this matter? A I have read a affidavit and I 'm -- oh , the one that was supplied as a court document? I think there are couple of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 affidavits out there . Q Can you say yes or no to the following : That Ms . Springer regularly brought to the attention of the PRE a need for program assessment to be comprehensive , focused and deeply embedded into the district ' s curriculum and instructional programs? Did she do that? A Q A I don ' t ever recall Ms . Springer using that terminology . That ' s fine . What terminology did she use? I 'm just trying to think of the comments she made . I think the comments she made were concerned about in some of the meetings we like the pre-Kone , that ' s one she asked about making sure we had a program description in there . I 'm trying to think what else she said . I don ' t recall her using that extensive terminology in terms of comments made in the meetings . Q You don ' t want to rely on your memory for what took place at any of those meetings\ndo you? A Q A Q We have notes of the meetings . You do have notes? Who has notes of the meetings? They're in quarterly reports . Other than the quarterly reports , are there any other notes? A Not that I'm aware of . Q I see . Those notes don ' t address what Ms . Springer said\ndo they? A I'd have to go back and look at the quarterly reports on BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 what was said but I thought there were comments in there , you know , Joshua asked this question and made a comment . I thought they were in there but I ' d have to go back and re - read them . Q Were questionnaires to be used as a part of the comprehensive assessment process of the court or required by the court? A The judge required that the data that we gathered not be only test data and that we gather a wide range of different types of data to use in that process . Survey ' s would have been one of those pieces . Q I see . Was that done before the fall of 2006? A Oh , yeah . Q So you disagree with Ms . Springer when she says it is further noted that the use of questionnaires , which the cour~ expected, Page 62 , footnote 39 of the Compliance Remedy to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process , will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006? Do you disagree with that? A When I read that -- Q Do you disagree is my question . That ' s all . I 'm not asking for an explanation . Do you disagree with her -- A Well , I have to - - if I 'm going to answer that then I need to answer with an explanation. Q Well , you can but , first of all , you can tell me whether you agree or disagree . That ' s my only question . Do you disagree with Ms . Springer? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . FINLEY : He can also do neither . or disagree. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can say neither . That ' s fine . 42 He doesn ' t have to agree Say neither . A I presume -- yes , because I presume what she meant dealt with the district portfolio but we have using surveys . Surveys have been an intrical part of all -- yes , all eight program evaluations so we started those surveys . If that ' s what she meant then the answer is no . If she was talking about surveys used in the eight program evaluations - - because using surveys in all eight program evaluations So you disagree with her . That ' s fine . Well , I mean , I 'm uncertain what she meant . we ' ve been Q A Q That ' s fine . Now , do you disagree with her that PRE contemplated the use of a data warehouse to either supplant or complement the use of a portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction program? Do you agree or disagree with that? A That the data warehouse would supplant or what? Q A Q Complement . Complement. One or the other . The use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction program . Do you disagree? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I don ' t agree with that whole statement , no . That ' s fine . What is your disagreement? Portfolio assessment . It ' s not an assessment . process . Well assessment is a process\nisn ' t it? It ' s a Q A A lot of things are a process . A portfolio is not an assessment . In that terminology , the portfolio is our process but , yes , the data warehouse can compliment and it does complement the district portfolio . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette not indicate that this data base would not be ready for some time after June 13th , 2006? A I don ' t recall her ever saying that to me . Q When will the data warehouse be ready? A The data warehouse was up and running at the end of July 2006 . Q Was Dr . DeJarnette aware of that? A I presume . She attended one of three days of training on the use of the data warehouse in the middle of July . Q A Q Did you attend that training? Yes , sir . Who else attended the training from PRE? A Maurecia Robinson , Jim Wooleb , myself . Dr . DeJarnette, like I said , attended one of three days of training . What was in the data warehouse at that time? 43 Q A We had the student demographic universe set up . I think we BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 had the financial informat i on , we had Crystal Reports , there was another it was just called Demographics , I think , Universe . There were some other ones also but they weren ' t appropriate for what we would use them for . There was like -- I think when I popped it up in July , there were like eight universes . Q I see . When were those universes created? A Over a period of time . From the time the school district brought in a consultant to normalize the data . When was that? I don ' t recall that exactly . What year was it? I think it was early 2006 . Q A Q A Q I see . So at least , as of early 2006 , the data were not available for use in embedding the process at least in any comprehensive form? A No . Q They were not? A Yes , the data was available . Q But it was in many sources at that time? A No , it was in -- most of the data that the district has that is embedded is stored in the district ' s mainframe computer , which we call the AS400 . That data has always been available . By the way , we ' ve had Crystal Reports since 1992 . Q I see . So there was no real need for a data warehouse then , was there? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Yes , there was . What is the reason? If you had all this data available , why would you need a new data warehouse? A Have you ever bought a garden house that ' s a half- inch 45 diameter and turn it on and it takes 10 minutes to fill that bucket of water? Then you go out and buy that one - inch diameter water house and it takes a minute to fill that bucket of water . Which one would you rather have? That ' s the analogy to using the AS400 compared to the data warehouse . When we did data requests for the program assessments or program evaluations , it usually took a week to get the data . With the data warehouse, seconds . Q Were you familiar with the data warehouse that was completed by Dr . Burnhart . A Other than just some sales presentations , no . Q Was she trying to make a sale? A She talked about it while were out in California and she invited - - the people from Tetra-Data attended that meeting . Q Did you ever inform anybody in the school district that she had a financial interest in selling this particular program? A I don ' t - - I know she ' s on the board of Tetra or was o~ board . Tetra was sold and I think she still has some kind of relationship with the company . She was on the board of directors of Tetra so I don ' t know what kind of -- if they were paid to be on the board or not so - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever have a discussion regarding this with either Mr . Heller or Dr . Brooks or Dr . Roberts? A Q That she was on the board? Yes A No . I know Karen , at a meeting that we had with Mr . 46 Hattabaugh and Dr . Roberts , told them that she was on the board . Dr . DeJarnette told them that she was on the board . Q Did she say she was on the board or did she say that she was on an advisory board? A I don ' t recall . Q A I see . Now that Tetra has been sold , maybe it ' s just an advisory board . Q A Q How do you know Tetra was sold? I went to their web page and it said they were sold . I see . When did you learn that? A About a month or a month and a half ago . They were sold this summer in July or August to another larger software company . Q So that means - - do you know whether Dr . Burnhart went with the sale? A Yeah , because her name was associated with the new company ' s web page dealing with Tetra . Q What did it say about her? A I don ' t recall . I ' d have to go back and look . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 Q But whatever it said allowed you to conclude that she was a part of the managing group of Tetra - Data? A Well , she was involved with Tetra - Data . I don ' t know what her roles and responsibilities were . Q Do you agree with Mrs . Springer that there are various factors which suggest that the vision of the current administration of LRSD de - emphasis the importance of PRE and the Compliance Remedy? A No , I don ' t agree with that . Q I see . Do you agree that , in March of 2005 , PRE did nc. any longer report to the superintendent? A The reorganization , I think , was effective July 1 of 2005 so , no , I don ' t agree with that statement . Q I see . Do you agree that Dr . Roberts and Dr . Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminished the ability of PRE staff to make the Compliance Remedy their major focus? A I don ' t agree with that statement . Q What additional -- do you agree that there were some additional responsibilities imposed upon PRE afcer the tP~  of the year 2006? A Based on my interpretation of job descriptions , there were no additional job responsibilities imposed . Q I see . No adaitional tests placed by those people upon PRE? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A You mean in addition to our work on the Compliance Repcrc~ Yes . Yes, we had other jobs . Like I said , my interpretation of my job description , those were not additional . of our job , the work we did . They were part Q Did you have - - do you agree that the responsibilities that were placed upon PRE included the preparation of school improvement plans for a large number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as a part of the school improvement effort? Do you disagree with that? A I disagree with the terminology . Q But do you disagree with the substance of it , whatever the terms used? A Q A We did do some additional surveys . The question is : Do you disagree? That ' s all . I don ' t agree with the way the statement is written . I mean, there are some truths and non-truths in there , I think . Q Now , going back to your water hose analysis , with a small water hose you can only account for so many students , is that fair to say? A It had nothing to do with -- the analogy had nothing to do with that . It had to do with speed . Q Well , I understand . But the speed relates to students and it relates to student data\ndoesn ' t it? A With modern computers and dealing with that kind of binary BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 data or that kind of data , the numbers -- in other words , to transport 2 million pieces of data is milli , milli , milliseconds compared to hours . There ' s a blink of an eye to transfer a million versus a hundred thousand . Q Well , why was it so important for you all to spend -- if your data system was adequate , why was it so necessary for Dr . Roberts and the others to try to implement this new data system? BY MR . FINLEY : I 'm going to object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q You can still answer . A When I 'm talking about speed , I 'm talking about the speed I can get from the IRC . It ' s called a pipeline . Now , if I worked downtown , there I could get the data just as quickly but - - in other words , if I worked downtown and we didn ' t have the pipeline -- well , actually , the AS400 now is out at Metro. worked at Metro , I could get the data because that ' s where~:.~ AS400 is . Q Well , why is there such a controversy about which data source to use? BY MR . FINLEY : What do you mean by data source? BY MR . WALKER : If he can answer the question , that means he -BY THE WITNESS : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 j 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 I think he means Tetra - Data via Business Objects . BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer . A The district has had a long standing relationship with Business Objects . We ' ve used Crystal Reports for a number of years , since 1992 . When I came on in '98 , within a few years there was a discussion about doing some kind of data warehouse and we talked with -- most of our discussions dealt with NCS , that ' s who makes the AS400 . There were then discussions aoc, doing a data warehouse , prior to 2004 when Dr . Karen DeJarnette was hired as director of PRE . One of the ideas that she brought in or one of the concepts she brought in was to fully implement a data warehouse . The idea to implement a data warehouse in its current state is Dr . DeJarnette ' s idea . Q Do you disagree with it? A No . Q Do you find utility in it? A Yes . Q Do you support it? A Yes . Q Is it necessary and important? A It ' s necessary and important in that it makes my job mu ch quicker . It ' s not necessary -- I mean , we can get the data if we want to wait for it by using a radar request through our information services department . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Q You are aware that a number of errors showed up in some data being submitted to the outside evaluators\nis that fair to say? A Q I 'm not clear what you ' re talking about . Do you recall taking responsibility for passing on faulty data to the evaluators? A Q A I 'm not aware of any faulty data that I passed on . That ' s fine . All the data that I passed on was approved by Dr . Karen DeJarnette . Q So if she says otherwise , y ' all have a difference of opinion? A When we did the data cleanup for the Benchmark data , I sent her the data cleanup files and asked her permission to send the data cleanup files in . That was our last chance to clea~ - data . She gave me her permission to send those cleanup data files in . So when the data files are available , yes , they had her permission . They had her approval that they could be sent on to the evaluators . Q Did you previously send data to the evaluators? A Yes . One of my roles was to do that . Q Now , had you sent data that had not been cleaned up to the evaluators? A All the data we sent to the evaluators , we made what we felt was a reasonable attempt to make sure that it was clean a nci BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 appropriate data . Q When you say we are you talking about you and somebody else or are you talking about yourself? A Well , no , Mr . Wooleb was involved in some of the databases that were sent out . Q Isn ' t it fair to say that on one occasion you were so busy that when some data came in that you , without checking it, forwarded it on to the evaluators? A I don ' t I 'm not saying it didn ' t happen but I don ' t recall . I don ' t recall that occurring. Q Is it fair to say that you have a reputation for being careless with your work? A No one has ever said that to me , no . Q What is the process for providing data to the evaluators? A The protocol for that begins with discussions with the, in the case , with the external evaluators to determine the types of data that they need to complete the program evaluation. Da~ a , based on those discussions and those agreements , as that data became available then it was sent to the external evaluators . Q As it became available to you? A Q Yes . Available to the PRE Department , yes . Did you share that data with Dr . DeJarnette at that point when it became available to you or did you send it on directly , yourself , to the outside evaluators? A If I recall , all the databases that I sent to the outside BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evaluators were also sent to Dr . DeJarnette . Q You recall that? But you sent them to the outside evaluators before clearing it with her\ndid you not? A No . If we ' re talking about the data that was cleaned up the last cleanup I asked her if it was appropriate to send in the cleanup data files , which would signify that that was the last opportunity to clean the data and she gave that approval . Yes , she approved - - when the data was available , she had already given her approval that the data was cleaned so I sent it off . Q A Q Have you ever spoken personally with Dr . Catterall? Yes , I have . Have you ever met with Dr . Catterall personally? A Yes , I have . Q Has he expressed an opinion about whether the evaluation process has been embedded? 53 A I don ' t recall that part of the discussion that I had with him . Q A Have you ever had such a conversation with Dr . Ross? No , not that I recall. Q How do you know that PRE notified ODM and Joshua of the names of the eight programs selected for evaluation? How do you know that? A As I recall , I think that was a team meeting with Dr. DeJarnette. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 Q Were you present in that meeting? A Yes . I mean, I think in general she just made a comment like , yeah , we made the choices now and make sure you notify the proper people . Q Did you participate in making those choices? A In making the choices? Q Yes . A I offered feedback on -- yes . Q Did you participate in making the choices? Feedback is different from being involved in the decision- making\nisn ' t it? A No . Q All right . What else will you tell the court when you testify as the district ' s expert witness? A Well , if asked to , I will describe in as much detail as I can recollect I will describe in detail with our compliance with the court ' s remedy. Q All right . Tell me what else you have done to comply with the court ' s remedy than what you ' ve already set forth that any member of the team can explain as well as you , as you said earlier . Did you not say that? A Yeah . I mean Q What else can you say? A What else can I say that the other team members can? Since they were privy to -- at least the other two team members were privy -- I 'm talking about Mr . Wooleb and Ms . Robinson -- they BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 were privy to the same information in terms of team meetings and the whole process . There would be an expectation that they could also describe to the court our process in complying with that remedy . Q I want you to go ahead and tell me the rest of what you will say in court . What else will you say about complying with the remedy? A Okay . I ' ll talk about revitalizing the PRE Department . We'll talk about choosing the year one and year two Step II Program evaluations . We ' ll talk about the process of how those evaluations were conducted and our interaction with the exterior evaluators . We ' ll talk about the comprehensive program assessment process was developed and institutionalized, deeply embedded by the school board ' s actions. We ' ll talk about our quarterly reports to the board . We ' ll talk about making sure that ODM and Joshua were properly notified per the remedy . Q Will you talk about the fact that the testing coordinator position was left open for approximately a year? A I don ' t think it was -- was it that long? Q Let ' s say six months . A If asked , yeah . Q I see . Was that testing coordinator position importanL L~ the work of the PRE? A Q Yes . Would six months hiatus in having that position unfilled BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 affect the work of PRE , in your opinion? A Given the timing of the six month hiatus , continuous , it was -- no . It wouldn ' t affect the work of PRE? Not when that position was vacant , no . it wasn ' t Q A Q I see . There was a period when a Mr . Olds was hired as a replacement for the testing coordinator\nisn ' t that correct? A Yes . 56 Q Do you agree or disagree that he resigned after about three months on the job? A Q I disagree . That ' s fine . Do you disagree that as of October of last year -- as of September of last year , the testing coordinator position had not been filled? A I agree . Q A Q A Do you disagree that that was important to the process? That there was no one there in September? Yes . No , it didn ' t impede the process , the assessment process . Q Now , is there a vacant position now for a statistician? A I wouldn ' t call it vacant . They have applied for an additional statistician , yes . Q A Q I see . How many statisticians are there right now? There are three . You and who else? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Mr . Wooleb and Ms . Robinson . Q I see . Who made the decision to ask for a fourth one? A I 'm uncertain . When the announcement was posted , I asked Dr . Roberts and she informed me it was an additional statistician . Q Who made the decision that it was necessary? I don ' t know . Is it , in your opinion , necessary? I think it would be extremely helpful , yes . Would it have been an extremely helpful a year ago? 57 A Q A Q A No . The department was capable -- given the frame up that we were under a year ago , we had adequate staff . Q What changed it then to make it more helpful now than a year ago? A Well , the fact that we are picking up -- we are doing the modified assessments of the year one and then we will be doing the year two and then , of course , the deeply embedded process . Q So you need more staff to deeply embed something? A Q A Q No . You don ' t? We need more staff to implement that . Well , isn ' t deeply embedding also involved with implementation? A Deeply embedding is the institutionalization of a process or initiative . That is different than implementation . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Do you know anything about how the process of the evaluations will be conducted in the future? A Yes , I do . Q What will happen in the future? A We will follow the comprehensive program assessment process . Q Will you continue to use outside evaluators? A I f that is an option , yes . Q Well , wait a minute . What is your understanding of what will happen? Will you be using outside evaluators or will you be using inside evaluators? A If you read the comprehensive program assessment process, 58 the role of the external evaluator is determined by the team so the role could be anywhere from a technical writer to actually completely the evaluations , like was done with Steve Ross and James Catterall . It depends on the evaluation team . That ' s a decision by the team to make . So, yes , it could run the whole continuum of being advisor to doing the whole process . there ' s seven or eight in the IR-L . I think Q Well , if there is a present need for another statistician , would not there have been a need six months ago for another statistician? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR. WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 Q You can answer . A Given the way the court remedy was where we -- the decision about the role of the external evaluator was decided by the court that , no , we had adequate staff to complete the court compliance remedy . Q You had adequate staff then so what happened in the intervening six months to make you not have adequate staff to complete it? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : Q What has changed in that six month period? That would be between September and now , August and now . A Well , we just recently have completed the last program evaluation done by an external evaluator and , as we had said in both quarterly seven and eight , that we will continue on with modified , feasible and ongoing assessments of those eight program evaluations . That has changed. That is a major change . We ' re taking on that role that we didn't have in the past. Q Has ODM staff expressed to you a view that there is a problem with compliance in embedding program assessments into the curriculum and instructional programs of the district as contemplated by the court? A I don't recall either one of the individuals saying that to me. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Do you know whether they ' ve said that to Dr . DeJarnette? No . I was not privy to that conversation . Tell me what Mr . Gene Jones has said to you about ODM ' s observations regarding program evaluation . 60 A The only thing I recall was it was an off - the - cuff comment about how we should be able to get out of court this time . Q When did he say that? A In the hallway . We were walking to a meeting , I think . Q You and who? You and Mr . Jones? A Gene was behind me . I think we were in a meeting with our departmental team and the meeting was finished and we were walking out and he made that comment . Q Who else was present? A Q A I think Karen DeJarnette , Mr . Wooleb , Maurecia Robinson . What did Dr . DeJarnette say? I don ' t recall . Q Have you met with Mr . Gene Jones as team outside the presence of Joshua regarding compliance? A Q Yes , I believe so . When did you do so? A I don ' t know the exact date . I think that day was one of them . Q What month was that? Approximately what time period was it? A It was probably in the spring of this year . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q The spring of Yeah . I 'm sorry . Spring of 2006 . Are you are that Dr . DeJarnette , upon learning that an extension of time was necessary to file certain reports , made contact with Mr . Heller regarding that? 61 A Yes , I believe that there was conversation with Mr. Heller about the fact that we probably, because the fact the data wasn ' t going to be here in time , that we possibly needed to file for an extension. Q A Q A Q A I see . Do you know what Mr . Heller ' s reaction to that was? He filed an extension . He did? That ' s my understanding . Did he promptly do so? I couldn ' t tell you when it was . timely manner . I mean , he did it in a Q What ' s the most positive thing you can say about Dr. DeJarnette ' s leadership of PRE? A Dr . DeJarnette brought in two good ideas : the data warehouse and the portfolio, and she had knowledge in working with the people that developed those and I thought those would be very helpful in supporting the infrastructure of our comprehensive program assessment process . Q What's the most positive thing you can say about her administration of the department? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 A She assessed the individual qualities of each of the people in the department and delegated work to those people based on those assessments . Q What ' s the most positive thing you can say about her evaluation of the staff of the PRE? A I ' ve been evaluated once . I mean , I don ' t understand that question . Q That ' s fine . A Q A She evaluated us , yeah . Did you object to her evaluation of you? No . Q What ' s the most negative thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette ' s administration of the PRE Department? A I ' ve never framed my relationship with Dr. DeJarnette in that manner . Q So you can ' t say anything negative about her administration of the department? A About her administration of - - Q What ' s the most negative thing you can say about her qualifications? A I read her vitae . She ' s qualified to be the director . Q What is the most negative thing yo can say about her administration of the PRE Department? A Q I just never framed my relationship with her in that way . What's the most negative thing you can say about Dr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DeJarnette in any way? A You ' re asking for a personal opinion there . Q Yes , sir , I am . That ' s the only opinion you can give because there is not district position on that\nis there? So what is your opinion? A I ' ve never really formed an opinion of Dr . DeJarnette . Q Well , form one now . What is your most negative opinion regarding her that you may be called upon to give in front of the court . A I guess on two occasions she said she was going to do something or she said she wasn ' t going to do something and I think it was two occasions that she didn ' t. Q What were those two occasions and what did she do? A She wasn ' t going to send the e-mail of the compliance 63 history report to the board . She told me that flat out and she did it . The other thing was something similar to that . Q When did she tell you that? A I thinks he told me on a Wednesday or a Thursday and sent it out on Friday . Q Do you know what intervened between the time you had the conversation and that Friday? A No . Q Did she tell you why she wasn ' t going to send an e-mail to the board? A I 'm sorry? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q What was the reason that she told you that she would not send the e - mail to the board? A She had asked my opinion and I told her that I thought it was a carthetic event and that she shouldn ' t send it and she agreed with me on that . Q What was it that she was sending? A Pardon me? Q What was it that she ultimately sent to the board? mail was that? A It was an Adobe file . It was three pages long and it talked about -- I think it was titled History of Compliance or something like that . Q A Q Is this the document? Yeah . I think that is it , yeah . It looks like it is . I want you to go through this compliance history and tell me what - - first of all , had this compliance history been compiled by PRE? A No . Q Who compiled this? 64 A It was my understanding that it was compiled by Mr . Wooleb and Dr . DeJarnette . Q A Did you disagree with it? Yes. Q Did you disagree with the contents of it or did you disagree with the wisdom of sharing it? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Both . Q I see . I want you to go through this and bring my attention to the ones that you disagreed with , starting with Page 1 . BY MR . WALKER : We ' ll attach this as an exhibit . (Exhibit 1 marked for identification) BY MR . WALKER : Go ahead when you ' re ready . 65 Q A Okay . la . Dr . DeJarnette was on the committee that worked on the reorganization and it was her decision to do away with the secretary and the two people that were eliminated . Q Who told you that it was her decision? A She did . Q She told you it was her decision? A Q A Q A Q A Q She was on the committee and she wanted it done . She wanted it done? That ' s fine . Did she telt you that? I recollect her saying that , yeah . Okay . Go ahead . What else? lb , inadequate staff . That's on Pagel? Yes . lb . All right . That ' s fine . A That is not my understanding of whac happened with Mr5 Dillingham . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 Q Okay . What else? A 2a . We do have a policy for managing data that begins when students register with the school district . There ' s a policy for registration . 2b is spurious . There ' s no evidence there to indicate -- where ' s the evidence that we have any data errors? Q What else? A C is -- why didn ' t Karen check and correct any old dac~ : Q When you had this conversation with Dr . DeJarnette , was it just the two of you or was Mr . Wooleb present when she said she wouldn ' t send it to the board? A I don ' t know who all was present . Mr . Wooleb may have been present . Q I see . So it becomes a question of recollection\ndoesn ' t it? Your recollection versus hers and his? A Yes , obviously . Most of this is . Q All right . Go ahead . We ' re on Page 2 now , number three . And you ' re telling me what you disagree with as a fact in her compliance history . A 3a , I 'm not aware of LRSD rejecting our plans to implement the data warehouse . at the end of July . In fact , the data warehouse was implemented Q Go ahead . What ' s next? A 3b. Data is data . Crystal Reports -- actually, Business Objects is actually used by school districts around the nation . In fact , I talked to one . I think it ' s Norfolk , Virginia that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uses Business Objects , same as we do . 67 3e, it ' s my understanding in talking with Richie Robinson , because she attended a meeting on those surveys , when she ' s talking about the surveys for Education for the Future , there is no validity or reliability on those surveys . 3f , I am not aware of any attempt by the Little Rock School District to oppose the project of doing wellness priority in the annual ACSIP plans . 4a , Dr . DeJarnette early on routinely asked Counsel Heller to review the updates and to make changes as necessary so any changes made on the 8th quarterly were just an extension of other changes that were made in other quarterly reports . Q Were you present when she asked Counsel Heller those things? A Q A I saw e-mails . Are those e - mails the best evidence of your recollection? Uh huh . Q All right. A I 'm not aware that the board did not receive copies of the draft of the 8th quarterly . In fact , 4c actually says that , PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the board for its review . Q A Let me just run through this . Do you disagree with~ ~~ You got to let me read it. Given that I did not ha ve ~ . conversations with Joshua , other than within the team meetings, I can't address the fact that there ever was a chill or the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 chill went away or whatever it was . My only interaction with Joshua was in team meetings and then passing in the hall and saying hello . I did not experience any lessening of responsiveness from LRSD ' s counsel . I disagree with b . I don ' t think it was at odds with the remedy . LRSD - - okay -- Sc . L?SD Q A Do you disagree with it? I don ' t disagree with it but they ' re not part of the evaluation teams , Joshua and ODM are not part of the evaluation team . Q A Q It doesn ' t say that . C doesn ' t say that\ndoes it? I 'm just clarifying my answer . I understand that . I 'm asking if you disagree with it and it simply says LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions of which PRE notified Joshua , ODM , LRSD and its counsel . Do you disagree with that? A Joshua attended few -- I told you they only attended 30 percent of the year ones . It improved in year two . Where is the data to support that? Q We ' re just asking what you disagreed with . You understand this came from the compliance history that was submitted in the draft report . Now , obviously you ' re at odds with the people who prepared the compliance history\naren't you? BY MR . HELLER : I 'm going to object to the form of that question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR . WALKER : Q Let me put it another way so there won ' t be -BY MR . HELLER : My only point is , what draft? This wasn ' t part of the compliance history in any draft report . BY MR . WALKER : Q Well , let me ask you : Did you participate in developing this compliance history? No , I did not . Okay . Did she share it with you? A Q A Yes , she did . We had a discussion and she agreed with me that it was a carthetic event . Q Did she use the term carthetic? A I said that and she agreed with me . Q I see . Is that a term you normally use , Dr . Williams? A I am a licensed professional counselor . Q I understand but is that a term you normally use in your every day conversations? Yeah . Carthesis is term that I use very appropriate. 69 A Q I see . Let ' s go back . You also applied for this position that she got and you were upset when you didn ' t get it\nis 1.  that correct? A Q No . That ' s fine . Now , you ' ve got a pay increase coming as a result of taking over the interim position\ndon't you? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I was notified on -Yesterday? -- yeah --that would probably occur , yeah . Q You were also notified that you could expect to be the director as of yesterday , weren ' t you? A No . 70 Q I see . Are you disappointed that you won ' t be the director now? A Q A Q her? A Q A No. Do you think you can work with Dr. DeJarnette? Yes . Even though you ' re saying all these negative things about These are not negative things about her . I see . Let ' s go on . As I stated , this is a carthetic letter , something that you write because of the feelings you are experiencing at the time . Typically, it has a very therapeutic -- typically , it would have a very therapeutic benefit to it . Q Are you a psychologist? A No , I'm not . Q That ' s just an opinion\nisn't it? A No . I ' m a licensed professional counselor. Psychotherapist. Q Are you trying to give a psychotherapist's opinion to her BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537~5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 regarding her conduct? A No . I am not her psychotherapist . Q Do you agree that the relations between -- this is Number 7 A Q A Q A Q LRSD and the PRE ' s director deteriorated? Where are we? Number 7 . Do you agree with that? My experience Yes or no . I don ' t agree with that . No , I don ' t . I understand . Do you know if she was threatened with dismissal by the superintendent? Can you answer that? A I never heard the superintendent threaten her with dismissal . Q A Q Were you present at any cabinet meetings? Have I been to any cabinet meetings? Were you present in any cabinet meetings where she was present? A No . Q A I see . Well, one . There was one cabinet meeting I was pr':::'3.,': when she was present . Q Do you disagree that LRSD counsel was unresponsive and evasive to her? A Q I disagree with that . Okay . Was LRSD counsel responsive and unevasive to you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when you had contact with them? A The very , very few times that I responded to Mr . Heller, was responsive to me . Q Do you know whether she engaged her own law firm to give her advice? A She said she had engaged an attorney , yes . Q Are you aware that she filed a grievance with the LRSD Human Resource Department? A Yes , Karen told us that she filed a grievance . 72 ,__ - !.i.C:: Q Do you disagree with her recommendation that it ' s important that first of all , for restoration of administrative support , in addition to test coordinators based upon a review of responsibilities , requires an administrative assistant? A Q A It ' s my understanding from what she told me -Do you disagree? That was her decision to eliminate the administrative assistant ' s job so -- Q A Q She told you that? Yes . I see . Was anybody -- oh , you said you don ' t -- that was just one-on-one between you and her? A I believe there were other people present , Mr. Wooleb and Ms . Robinson and then the committee members . Q So basically , you didn't agree with this compliance history that was prepared by her and Mr . Wooleb? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A In general , no , I did not agree wi~h it , no . I see . Now , did you prepare your own compliance history? No , I did not . 73 Q Have you prepared any writing to aid her in addressing the difficulties that she was obviously experiencing with the administration and/or Mr . Heller? A She didn ' t ask me to write anything and I didn ' t really experience -- Q Did you offer any advice to her regarding those matters? A Q A Yes . What advice did you offer to her? When we read the original the compliance report , we felt that there were some inaccuracies , possible inaccuracies in that compliance report that Attorney Heller had written . My advice was to write a very terse and direct e-mail to Mr . Heller explaining our concerns . She did that . She got an immediate reply from Mr . Heller . Q I see . So you ' re basically saying that you wouldn ' t have taken the actions that she took if you were the director A What I 'm saying is that I did not experience - - Q Please , listen to my question. Are you saying that you , based on what you know , would not have taken the actions or made the comments that she made had you been the director of the PRE Department? BY MR . FINLEY : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What actions and comments are we talking about? Would he have drafted the compliance history? BY MR . WALKER : 74 Yes . Thank you , Mr . Finley , you ' ve been helpful . BY THE WITNESS : I was not the director and I am not a fortune teller . I have no idea how I would have responded as director . I do have extensive management experience but I 'm not sure how I would have performed in the last two years . BY MR . WALKER : Q All right . Do you know whether LRSD had a definitive plan for the use of assessments being generated by the Compass Learning Program? A The Compass Learning Program generates results in data and that data -- Q My question -- I 'm not asking you to explain . Do you know it ' s simple -- do you know whether LRSD has a definitive plan for the use of assessments being generated by the Compass Learning Program? Do you know? A I don ' t know if they ' re using the data though . Q All right . Do you know whether the school administration has kept Joshua and ODM timely informed of the activities of PRE? Do you know? A Yes , via the quarterly reports . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Only by the quarterly reports? Is it your position that the only information Joshua was to get was in the quarterly reports? A Oh , no . Q I see . A You asked me how they were informed . Q All right . Now , is it your understanding that Joshua was supposed to be provided the same information as ODM? A It says right in here that as things evolve and as things are produced that we are to notify ODM and Joshua as those things evolve . Q Now , what information in PRE did you all have that can be said to be privileged and not shared with Joshua? What public information was it that you all generated that was not to be shared with Joshua? A I can ' t think of anything off- hand that would be public information that we wouldn ' t share with Joshua because it ' s public . Q Let me ask you this then : What is the harm in Joshua talking to you or Dr . DeJarnette regarding this information? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY MR . WALKER : You can still answer . 75 Q A In an evaluation team meeting it would be appropriate since BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 I 3 I 4 5  6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you were an invited guest . Q Wait a minute . What about one - on- one? Let me put it another way . Let ' s assume somebody is just a patron , Walter Hussman , for instance , and he comes and asks you what is going on with respect to PRE , can you tell him? 76 A I would , first of all , Walter Hussman has never done that . Q Well , let ' s assume it ' s Walter Hussman . If he did that , would you tell him what he asked? It being public information? A If it ' s public information , yeah , I would discuss it with him . Q I see. Well , why would you tell Walter Hussman and not John Walker? A It was my inLerpretation that the attorneys representing Joshua are adversarial . Q That ' s right . BY MR . WALKER : I have no more questions . Thank you . CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Referring to Exhibit 1 , Paragraph 3g , do you disagree with that statement? A Yes. LRSD has not impeded compliance with embedding assessment . Q That ' s your position? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I  1 2 = 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 Q Okay . I want to look at Paragraph Sc of the same document where Dr . DeJarnette reported that LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions . Who is LRSD? A It ' s about 4 , 000 employees . Q Okay . Well , of those 4 , 000 employees , were there several of them at every single evaluation session? A Yes . Q So it ' s true that LRSD attended every evaluation session? A Yes , if LRSD is defined as all the employees , yes . Q Do you understand that PRE is a separate entity outside of LRSD? A No . BY MR . HELLER : That ' s all I have . WHEREUPON , the deposition concluded at 1 p .m., January 9th , 2007 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 78 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I , KELLY S . ADCOCK , Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public , do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability , taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto . I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto , nor financially interested~ or otherwise , in the outcome of this action . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th day of January , 2007 . KELLY ,IS . '11.DCOCK Certified Court Reporter My Commission Expires : #643 04/15/14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1224","title":"Oral deposition of Olivine Roberts, Little Rock, Ark.","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2007-01-09"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Olivine Roberts, Little Rock, Ark."],"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/1224"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs . LRC 82--866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1 , ET AL MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORAL DEPOSITION OF OLIVINE ROBERTS JANUARY 9TH, 2007 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING 620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushmanreporting@aoi . com PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ft~CEIVED IAN 1 9 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAllOH MONllORlHG APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF: MR . CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY , ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK , LLP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: MR . JOHN WALKER , P .A. 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72206 STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL: SCOTT P. RICHARDSON ASS I STANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 CENTER STREET SUITE 1100 LITTLE ROCK , AR . 72201 2 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr. Walker .. ... . ..... . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . Examination by Mr . Heller .... ..... . . .. .. . .. . .... .... . Further examination by Mr . Walker . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. . Deposition concluded . .... . ... . ... . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 85 86 90 91 3 4 OLIVINE ROBERTS PRODUCED , SWORN , AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker , 1723 Broadway , in Little Rock , Arkansas , beginning at 2 p .m. on January 9th , 2007 , the above - entitled cause now pending in the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , said deposition being taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure , by agreement of counsel , at the instance of counsel for Joshua Intervenors . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 -I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q State your name , please . A Q Olivine Roberts . Dr . Roberts , where did you get your doctorate degree? A University of Central Florida . Q Do you recall your dissertation? A Yes . Relationship Between Student Learning and , I think , Leadership at the High School Level , something to that effect . It was instructional leadership . The correlation between instructional leadership and the principalship at the secondary level . Q Where did you attend college? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q University of Central Florida . Where did you attend graduate school? University of Central Florida . All if it was at the same institution? Yes . Were you a cum laude graduate or above at college? For my masters and doctorate , yes\nundergrad , no. I see. When did you first meet Dr . Brooks? 2000 , if I 'm not mistaken . And where were you working at that time? For the Orange County Public School System. What was your job? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 5 I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 A At that time , I was the math coordinator supervisor for the district , math/science . Q Were you an area coordinator or were you city- wide coordinator? A This was for the ent i re district at the time . Q A Q A Q Was that elementary or secondary? K- 12 . Now , a coordinator is not like a director normally? No , not here -- it would not be aligned to that , no . I see . So that was a mid- level management position , would you say? A I would not say it was management . It was more a support position . Q Support . Okay . Did you report to a person with a higher sounding title? A Q A Q I reported to -- yes , the director of curriculum . Did the director of curriculum report to somebody? The associate superintendent for curriculum . Okay . Did you ever hold a position higher than coordinator when you were in Florida? A Yes . I was the senior administrator for curriculum and instruction for the south learning community. Q A Q That ' s an area? Yes . All right . So you moved from coordinator to another BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 I 3 I 4 5 I 6 7 ~ 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 position above that? A Yes . Q Still below director of curriculum? A Yes . I reported directly to the director . Q So you were not a senior administrator when you came here? A I was a senior administrator for Orange County , yes . In terms of a senior administrator at the cabinet level? Is that what you ' re asking me? Q Yes , that ' s what I mean . A No . Q I see . So you ' ve never been in a cabinet position before you came here? A No . Q I see . How long had you been an administrator when you came here? A Four years , going on five . Q So you ' re more or less a novice? A I would not say that , no. Q All right . In the field of education , to me -- 7 A In the field of education, one to three years is considered novice. Q I see . Have you written any books or anything? A No , I ' ve not written any books, no . Q Have you published any articles in any learning journals? A No , I ' ve not published any , no . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I I I Q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Have you been a co- author of anything anywhere subsequent to your dissertation ? A That was published, no . Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I see . Have you conducted any studies on any subject? Yes . Are those studies reported anywhere ? University of Central Florida has copies of them . All right . So that ' s part of your dissertation? And my thesis . And your masters thesis? Yes . I see . What was your thesis? The Integration of Math and Science Curriculum . That ' s pretty general . For what purpose? To increase student learning . But that wasn ' t part of the title? No . It was to integrate the mathematics and science curriculum . At the time , integration was the focus . Q What integration are we talking about? School desegregation -- A Q A Q A No , the integration of the math and science curriculum. Meaning , both of them together and -- Yes . How do you teach them together . --causing them to be taught together? Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q All right . BY MR . FINLEY : Teach them to get along . BY MR . WALTER : Teach those two subjects to get along . pretty good , Mr . Fi nley . BY MR . WALKER : Q Al l right. Have you ever taught school? Yes . Where at? Conway Middle School . I s that in Orange County Yes , it is . Seminole Community College . What did you teach at the community college? Intermediate algebra . So you ' re really a math teacher? That is my area of discipline , yes . That ' s A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q I see . Have you ever -- is the Seminole Community College a majority white community college? A I would say yes . I don ' t know the demographics of the college . Q A But the staff was mostly white\nwasn ' t it? I was an adjunct . I worked at night so I have no idea . Q And the school where you taught , was it majority white or black? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Majority white . I see . So you ' ve never taught in a majority black school system before , have you? A Orange County is not a majority black system so , no . Q I see . What is your experience for dealing with 10 remediating educational disparities between African-American and white children? A Since the achievement gap is a national phenomena , we have the same phenomena in Orange County. Q No . What is your experience is my question . What is your experience in dealing with remediation of achievement disparities between African-American and white students? A In my role as the senior administrator for curriculum and instruction and also my role in supporting the mathematics curriculum, it was my charge to increase the student learning , at that time, within the district for African-American as well as Caucasian students . Q I see . It was sort of like Mr. Heller suggests, you want to improve the education of all students? A Isn ' t that why we ' re in education? Q For all students? A Isn't that why we ' re in education? Q No. No . No. We're not debating . So your emphasis was upon increasing the educational achievement of all students? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q I see . It wasn't focused on remediating achievement disparities that were pre-existing between black and white students? Is that fair to say? A It is fair to say that , for those students who had deficiencies , one of my responsibilities was to identify interventions that would bridge those deficiencies . Q I see . Are you aware of any school district that has effectively dealt with narrowing the achievement gap between African-American and white students? A Q Yes . Would you name some of them? 11 A Brazosport , Texas\nAldine , Texas\nI want to say Charlotte- Mecklenburg . These are the ones that I ' ve studied. Q A Q A Q A Have you read the Swann Decision? Pardon? Have you read the Swann Decision? No , I've not read the Swann Decision . You ' re not familiar with Swann versus Charlotte Mecklenburg? No . Q And it ' s your position that Charlotte had materially narrowed the achievement gap between black and white students? A There was some evidence indicating that they were on the road to closing that gap, yes , based on the articles that I've read . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Are you talking about newspaper articles? No , sir . I 'm talking about journal articles . Tell me which journals you are referring to . A I would have to go back and research . I can ' t recall the 12 publication of the articles . These were a few years back when I was doing my dissertation so , if I may come back and respond to that . I do know that Brazosport , Texas has closed the -continues to narrow , I should say , not close , the achievement gap . Q Is it your position that Brazosport is a majority African- American school district? A I think there are some African-American students as well as Hispanic students . Q A Q it? A It ' s majority Hispanic\nisn ' t it? But they ' re -- Just my question. Brazosport is majority Hispanic\nisn ' t Yes , it is . Q All right . And this other Texas place is also majority Hispanic\nisn ' t it? A Q Yes, it is . Do you know any place that you have studied or received information on , other than the three that you have mentioned , where the achievement gap between African- American students and white students has been addressed effectively? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 A The 90 - 90 - 90 study that was conducted by Doug Reeves identified schools , not necessarily districts . Q I 'm dealing with districts now . I ' ll just ask you to tell me the districts , any district . A I do not know the district at the moment . Q All right . Now , you can ' t say that there are no districts that have dealt with this\ncan you? A Repeat your question , please . Q You cannot say that there are no districts that have effectively dealt with addressing the achievement gap between African- American and white students\ncan you? A I cannot say that there are no districts that have not dealt with it . Q I see . Are you aware that at one time Little Rock made material gains in addressing the achievement gap between white and black students? A Q Please define that. The gap was being narrowed considerably during the time Mr. Paul Mason was here. Were you aware of that? A Was that before NCLB? Q A Q A Q National Conference of Black Administrators? What is NCLB? No Child Left Behind . No Child . Okay. That ' s Mr . Bush ' s initiative? Yes , it is . This was before then, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 A Okay . So therefore , the standards movement was not in affect then . Q Well , how can you say that? A Because standards did not become a national initiative unti l then . Each s tate did not have set standards across the - country . Q Did somebody tell you that? A Pardon? Q A Q A Q A Di d someone tell you that? If you do the research - - What is your research source? Pardon? What is your research source for that conclusion? If you look at the standards Q I 'm asking for your research source for the conclusion you just uttered . A In 1983 , after a Nation at Risk was published , that ' s when that became the , I would say , the catalyst for the standards movement . The NCTM , National Standards , were not published until 1989 and states did not start adopting those standards until about , I want to say , '99 , 2000 . Q That ' s your opinion . A No , those are facts . Q You don ' t know really much about the history of the educational achievement or lack of achievement in the Little BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 Rock School District\ndo you? A Before Q Before you came here . A I have looked at the data . I have studied the data and , yes , there were some spikes but , again , when you look at the NCLB , and that is critical -- when the Arkansas Department of Education changed the testing tool that was being used , we then saw a decline . When they went from the SAT 9 to the ITBS to the Benchmark , there was a very drastic decline . Q A Q A Q Decline in what? In student achievement . Whose achievement? Black or white? Both African- American students and Caucasian students . Well , there couldn ' t be a real decline . It ' s a decline in the way it ' s measured on a particular test\nisn ' t it? The achievement is the achievement . It ' s just a question of who measures it and how\nisn ' t it? A The achievement should also parallel and we saw , again , between ITBS , SAT 9 and the Benchmark assessment that there was a drastic dip when the Benchmark was first administered, in relation to the SAT 9 . Q I see . Let me go back . You don ' t hold yourself out as an expert on remediating the achievement gap between black and white students\ndo you? A I see myself as an expert in student learning . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q That ' s yes or no . I see myself as an expert -- Please answer my question . Do you hold yourself out - BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s not required to answer your questions yes or no . BY MR . WALKER : Q Yes or no . Do you hold yourself out as an expert on 16 remediating achievement disparities between Afri can- American and white students? I 'm not aski ng how you see yourself . Do you hold yourself out as having an expertise -- A I hold myself as an expert in address i ng the deficiencies of students having difficulty learning . Q I see . Now , have you read all the court decisions in the Little Rock case? A I have read some of them . Q Can you tell me the ones you ' ve read? A I ' ve read the remedy that was issued in 2002 -- was it 2002? The one that -- 2004 . I read the last court -- the one where Bonnie Leslie and -- I forgot the lady ' s name that was over PRE at the time . I read some of those transcripts . Q You read the transcripts or the decisions? A Q A I read some of the transcripts and the decisions . How do you define transcript? What the person testified to that was recorded . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 8 9 q 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 Q So you read Dr . Leslie ' s testimony? A Yes . Q I see . Were you -- did you form an opinion as to whether or not much of the information presented by Dr . Leslie was based upon fabricated information? A No , I did not form an opinion . Q Let me ask you : What was your last salary in Orange County? A Approximately , $68 , 000 . Q And what was your first salary here? A I want to say 1-05 . Q That ' s a big jump . $40 , 000 . Did you know Dr . Brooks in Florida? A Yes , I did . Q What was your relationship with Dr . Brooks while you were in Florida? A He was my supervisor . Q I see . So you reported to him? A He was the area superintendent . Q That ' s yes or no . A I did not report directly to him , no . Q How many levels removed from him were you in the administration? A Three . Q So that meant that you were five from the senior administrative level of the school district? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No , I was four . It was the associate superintendent , the executive director and then myself . Three . I 'm sorry . Q Did they have area superintendent A Q A Q A Q from The executive director . Was he an area superintendent? Yes , he was . I see . Were there assistant superintendents? No . All right . That ' s fine . So you were four levels removed A No , I was three . Again , it was the area superintendent , 18 the executive director who reported to the area superintendent , and I reported to the executive director . I was the third person . Q A Q And Mr . Brooks reported to whom? The superintendent . So that meant you were at the fourth level of administration? A Q Okay . If you want to view it that way . Now , did you apply for the job here or were you pre-selected? A I had to apply . I went through an interviewing process . Q I understand you did but he told you he wanted you and asked you to apply\ndidn ' t he? A He asked me if I would think about applying for the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 position , yes . Q I see . Now , can you tell me the worst thing that you can say about Dr . DeJarnette as a professional? A I do not speak negatively about my colleagues or people who report to me . Q Well , you have to evaluate them so , in terms of the evaluation process , what is the worst thing you can say about her in terms of her qualifications? What ' s the worst thing you can say? A The evaluations that have been done in the past have been moderately good . Q A No , I 'm not Again , I will not say anything negative about anyone . Q Doctor , you have to answer my questions . In terms of her qualifications , what qualifications does she lack in order to perform or fulfill the responsibilities that she was assigned to fulfill? A Based on her evaluation Q Qualifications . A Apparently , she was qualified because she was granted ti1~ position . Q Well , that ' s apparently . I 'm asking you . A I sat on the interviewing team . I was a member of the team so , therefore , she met the qualifications outlined in the job description and -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Does she still meet the qualifications? Yes , she does . 20 Q A Q Now , have her qualifications been enhanced in the last two years or diminished? A Q They ' ve remained the same . Isn ' t it true that by being on the job for two years that they had to have increased? A Not necessarily . Q I see . In your opinion , have they been enhanced in the last two years , her qualifications? A I would say that the experiences that she has had may have expanded her qualifications . That ' s yet to see . Q Have yours been expanded in the last two years? A I can speak for me . Yes . Q A I see . So you ' re just guessing for her? Well , I ' d need to talk with her and find out . Q Now , what is the worst thing that you can say about her administration of PRE? The most negative thing . I ' ll put it that way . What is the most negative thing you can say about her? A Again , based on her evaluations , I do not -- it ' s not a habit I have of criticizing the people who report to me . Q Well , this is a court proceeding and I will ask you this question there so what is the most negative thing that you can say about her qualifications at this time? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 q 8 9 II 10 11 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s answered your question . She said she ' s not going to say anything negative about her . BY MR . WALKER : I heard what she said and that ' s a coaching objection . I 'm asking -- BY MR . FINLEY : If you want to ask her another question , ask her another question . BY MR . WALKER : Are you telling her not to answer? BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s already answered . BY MR . WALKER : Are you telling her not to answer? BY MR . FINLEY : She ' s already answered . BY MR . WALKER : Just a moment , Mr . Finley. Are you directing you either direct her not to answer or -- BY MR . FINLEY : You can keep asking the same question . I 'm telling her she can keep giving you the same answer . BY MR . WALKER : Well , you ' re coaching her . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 II 8 9 10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 BY MR . FINLEY : No , I 'm not . BY MR . WALKER : Q Was she a satisfactory administrator before she was terminated , recommended for termination? A Based on her evaluation , yes . Q Based upon your appraisal of her work . In the intervening time between her evaluat i on and the time she was walked out of PRE , was she a satisfactory employee? A No . Q All right . Now , what was it that made her unsatisfactory? A She did not comply with the chain of command . Q What else? A She was insubordinate . Q What else. A And she superceded authority . Q What else? A She lied . Q What else? What else? A I think that will suffice for now . Q I don ' t want you to suffice for now because there is a later . If you say for now , that means you can come back later . I want it all now . What else can you say? A That is it. Q That is it . All right . Now , first of all, what did she BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lie about and when did she lie? I 'm sure there are several things so tell me what those lies were . A One , when she said that Yvette Dillingham was asked to accept an 11 month -- it was her -- let me get my thoughts together . Q This ought to be pretty clear . Didn ' t you just give testimony last night regarding this same subject? A That was a closed hearing. 23 Q Well , we ' re entitled to your testimony from there as well . So didn ' t you just give testimony there? A I did not testify to this last night . Q But you were prepared for that testimony , at least by Mr . Heller or by Mr . Finley\nweren ' t you? A They had nothing to do with last night ' s hearing. Q All right . At least you ' ve talked with them regarding this matter\nhaven ' t you? A Q Yes. All right . A No . So that means you ' ve gone over it . Q So tell me what lie she told with respect to Ms . Dillingham . A Number one , regarding the position, the length of the contract from 11 months to 12 months . She implied that Yvette Dillingham accepted the 11 month p osition and that she left the district just to accept the job in Pulaski County . The position BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 0 1 ) 53 7 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 u u n 24 was changed to 12 months . She also lied because she is the one who actually recommended that the position be downgraded to 11 months , from 12 months to 11 months . That was her idea . Q Go ahead . What else? A That is it regarding Ms . Dillingham . Q That ' s one lie . What ' s the next lie? You said she lied . Did she tell lies about anybody else other than Dillingham? A When she said that the superintendent threatened her , that was also a lie . Q All right . What else? A That is it . Q I see . Were you present in all the meetings that she had with the superintendent? A No . Q How can you say that - - A She said one was done in my presence and it was not done so I can speak to that one . Q So that ' s the only one that -- A That I can speak of . Q What was the date of that? A I don ' t recall . According to her, it was done sometime in the summer. Q Did you ever hear the superintendent compliment her work performance? A I can't recall a specific incident , no. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever complement her work performance between June and November or December , 2006? A I can ' t recall a specific incident , no . Q I see . Now , with respect to Ms . Dillingham, did Ms . Beverly Williams participate in those decisions involving Ms . Dillingham? A At the time she was the director of HR so she had some involvement . Were you present during that i nvolvement? No , not with Beverly , no . 25 Q A Q Isn ' t it true that Ms . Beverly Williams was the one who was the architect for the reorganization? A There was a transition team . Q I understand that . But the person who had the day- to-day responsibility for that and who did the work was primarily ~~ Beverly Williams\nwasn ' t it? A She did the work of the transition team, yes . Q I see . Now , a recommendation is not a decision\nis it? A No . Q So Dr . DeJarnette had no decision- making power about down grading a position\ndid she? A No . Q I see . So that meant that she made the recommendation . Who made the decision to down grade the position? Who made the decision? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A I would say the transition team made the recommendation to the board . The board made the final decision because the board approved the organization restructuring . Q Now , we know that basically administrations make decisions and then boards approve , except for last night . Who made the decision to chance Ms . Dillingham ' s position? Who made that decision? You said the transition team? A Made the recommendation to the board . Q Well , who decided to make the recommendation to the board? Was it you and Ms . Beverly Williams? A The person who recommends to the board is the superintendent . Q Well , who made the recommendation to the superintendent? A Q A Q The transition team . Was that you and - The transition team . Who else was on it besides you? A Beverly Williams , Karen DeJarnette , Mark Millholland , Sadie Mitchell . Q Did not you inform all of the people -- and Beverly inform all the people that there had to be departmental cuts in every department? A No . Every department did not receive a cut . Q Oh , we know they didn ' t but was not that the rhetoric and the explanation that was presented publically that every BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 department was being cut? A That may have been the rhetoric but what we meant and we did the work , every department was not cut . Q That ' s right . Incidentally , is there any particular reason why it was virtually only black people who were cut? You heard Dr . Mitchell ' s -- A Q Which Mitchell? Board member Mitchell? Board member Mitchell . You heard her statement to the board that , of the positions that were cut , they were 90 percent or more African-American . Did you hear that? A I 'm certain if I were present I heard it . Q I see . Is there any particular reason why the impact of the reorganization fell most heavily upon African-American people at all levels? A I don ' t know of one. Q I see . Now , going back to Dillingham . She left the district just to accept a position in Pulaski County . Is it your position that Dillingham wanted to leave Little Rock? Did you ever talk to Ms . Dillingham? A Yes . Q A Was that when she met with Mr . Hattabaugh? That was on another occasion , yes . Q Did that follow the letter that I had written to Mr . Hattabaugh on her behalf? A I don ' t recall . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Were you aware that I had written a letter to Mr . Hattabaugh regarding this matter? A Yes . Q I see . And isn ' t it true that after that letter her position was restored? A That may have been the course of action . I see . Now , what authority did she supercede? Yvette Dillingham? 28 Q A Q No . No . Dr . DeJarnette . Reason number three was that Dr . DeJarnette superceded authority . I like to hear you talk because you were so forceful in saying that so I ' d like for you to forcefully tell me what authority she superceded . A One , there is a grievance policy that if there is a grievance there is a protocol that should be followed . She did not adhere to that protocol\nTwo , when she reported to the board regarding the quarterly report , the September '06 quarterly report , instead of taking it to myself , Mr . Hattabaugh , Dr . Brooks , the cabinet and then to the board , that was not followed. Q A What else? Does that have to do with the grievance? I think it led to her - - she would need to answer that . don ' t know . I Q I see . In terms of protocol , is there any writing defining this protocol? A Past practice establishes tha~ protocol . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Q How do you know about past practice since you haven ' t been here? A Well , since I ' ve been here for two years , that has been the practice . Q Do you know of any administrator in the two years that you ' ve been here , other than Dr . DeJarnette , to file a grievance? A Not under my command , no. Q So how could you know what the past practice is for administrators since you ' ve never seen one? A We have a grievance policy and she did not adhere to the policy . Q Well , just tell me , what is the protocol that is set forth in the policy that she failed to adhere to? A That she is to inform -- she is to take it to the supervisor . She did not do that . Q So she didn ' t come and tell you that she was grieving? A She did not come to me and say there was a problem . Q Well , isn ' t it true that before she filed this grievance that you and she had almost had a fight? A She filed the grievance -- Q A Just listen to my question . Okay . Q Isn ' t it true that you moved the gifted and talented people into part of her office space? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A That was done in May , yes . Q I see . And isn ' t it true that that provoked a response that required the intervention of Mr . Hattabaugh? A A conversation was had with Mr . Hattabaugh regarding the move , yes . Q And then after that conversation with Mr . Hattabaugh , you changed your plan to give her further accommodations by way of company in her off i ce? A Again , when gifted and talented was -- Q My question was -- A No . I need to give you some background . Q I don ' t need it . I just want to know . I 'm trying to 30 establish that you had a conflict with her and that it was longstandi ng and pre - existing and that Mr . Hattabaugh intervened and after that there was some temporary resolution . That is fair\nisn ' t it? BY MR . FINLEY : Object to the form . BY THE WITNESS : There was a conversation between Dr . DeJarnette and I . Mr . Hattabaugh was engaged in that conversation regarding the move of gifted and talented into her office and then we moved them out of her office into another room . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 Q I see . Before you sought to put gifted and talented into her office did you discuss that with her? A Yes , and she agreed . Q And then when you sought to implement it , she disagreed? A Yes . Q I see . Isn ' t it true that you and she screamed and yelled at each other in the building? A I had a heated conversation in my office with her, yes . One conversation . Q All right . Okay . Now , is it your position that , had she wanted to grieve that situation , she had to first tell you she was grieving? A She could have taken it to Mr . Hattabaugh and to HR and followed the process . Q All right . Did she not take it to HR? A Not this particular situation, no , she did not . Q A She took the other one to HR\ndidn ' t she? She did not take it to Mr . Hattabaugh , nor to the superintendent. Q Well , she did take it to HR\ndidn ' t she? A Q Yes, she did . And when a person has a grievance , aren't they expected to take that to HR? A Q Yes . Now , what's wrong with her going to HR with her grievance? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q It was not a problem with her taking the grievance to HR . Well , what ' s the lack of protocol? 32 A When she superceded the process and took the information to the board , she did not follow the policy . Q Well , the policy says that a grievance , once filed , has to be acted upon within five days\ndoesn ' t it? A That ' s what the policy says . Q A Q Was her grievance acted upon with five days? That ' s an HR quest i on . Do you not know? I don ' t know . A Again , that is an HR question . Q Well , and it may be . But in order to determine that she didn ' t follow protocol , you have to be aware whether or not the five day rule was complied with\ndon ' t you? Don ' t you? A Again , the superceded the chain of command . Q In order to make that judgement , you have to be aware of whether the five day rule with respect to grievances was complied with\ndon ' t you? A Q If that is your inference . All right . Now , was she ever given a hearing on her grievance? A No , because she took it the board . Q I see . How much time passed between the time she filed her grievance and the time she took it to the board? A I do not know . That ' s an HR question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 Q I see . Let ' s go on . Is that the only authority of yours that she superceded? A That I can think of at the moment , yes . Q I see . Now , you say she was insubordinate . To whom was she insubordinate? A To myself , Mr . Hattabaugh and Dr . Brooks when she , again , superceded and went to the board -- Q So , by going to the school board A --immediately without going through the protocol , yes . Q I see . So those are one in the same . Superceded authority and being insubordinate , those are one in the same\naren ' t they? A I guess you could say they ' re parallel . Q A Q Well , if they ' re parallel that means two paths . That lead to the same course . Well , what is the other conduct that constitutes So what - - insubordination? What ' s on that other road? Or isn ' t it the same road? A When she communicated with you when she was asked to communicate with counsel before communicating with the Joshu2 Intervenors . Q A Q All right . Have you read this compliance remedy? Yes , I have . Is there anything in here that prevents her from communicating with Joshua? A And there ' s nothing in there that says she must communicate BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 with Joshua either . We must keep you informed . Q So where is it that she violated a rule when she communicated with Joshua? A When she was asked by counsel and the superintendent to -- we all were asked . Q When were you asked not to communicate with Joshua? A Q A Q A That was not what was given to us . You were asked not to communicate with Joshua? No . No . What was the directive? The directive was that if we are asked anything of Joshua , we must first send it to counsel . Q I see. So let me ask you this : School district ' s business is public\nisn ' t it? A Q Yes. And the only information regarding school affairs that ' s not public is personnel information\nisn ' t that correct? A Q Correct . So what information could she have that she could share with Joshua that was not A It ' s not that we could not share with Joshua but we needed to intervene with counsel before sharing it with Joshua . Q A For what reason? To make certain that we were not , in any way, putting the district at -- maybe you were asking for something that was not BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a part of FOIA . We don ' t know . That ' s why we have a counsel that gives us guidance . Q Let me ask you this : Do you know Walter Hussman? A I know of him . Q Have you ever met with him? A Yes . Q I see . How many times? A One . Twice , at the most . Q Where at? A In his office . 35 Q Why would you go to Mr . Hussman ' s office? He doesn ' t have anything to do with the school so why would you go to his office? A To have a conversation with him . Q For what? For what? A To meet him . Q You had two meetings so what was the second meeting there for? A A follow - up meeting . Q Oh , you wanted to meet him again? A Yes . Q For what purpose? I 'm sorry . This isn ' t amusing . I apologize . I ' ll take a minute if you want to . I ' d just like to know how Mr . Hussman can have greater access to information in this district when he has no obligation under the court order BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 than Joshua counsel . A I did not provide Mr . Hussman with any information regarding the school district . Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A At least you went to meet with him\nright? Yes . You never came to meet with Joshua counsel\ndid you? Did you invite me to come and meet with you? You ' re always welcome . But you never extended an invitation\nhe did. Well , that ' s fair . He extended an invitation? Yes . He also offered you some money\ndidn ' t he? He offered the district money . He did not offer me any money . 36 Q But that was the reason for going to meet with him\nwasn ' t it? He was offering money for a program that you wanted to implement? A That the district wanted to implement . Q Well , the district board had not said they were going to implement that program at that time\nhad it? A No . That ' s why we do research and we gather facts in order to present to the board . Q What was that program? Merit pay? A Q It dealt with the Teacher Challenge Project, yes . I see. So because he was giving you some money , you went BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 to try to find a way to get that money? A No , that ' s not why I went to try and find a way to get the money . He was already giving us the money . We did not need to motivate him to give us the money . Q All right . So what did you do at that meeting? A We talked about the project . Q A Q A Did you talk to him about program evaluation? No . Did you talk with him about unitary status? No . Q Did you talk to him about problems of remediating the student achievement disparities between black and white students? A No . Q A Q All right . Now , did you also meet with Mr . Greenburg? I don ' t know that person . He ' s the editor of the paper , the newspaper editorial section . A No , I ' ve not met him . Q I see . Now , let ' s talk about the other things . She did not comply with what? You said she didn ' t comply with -- what was it she didn ' t comply with? Ms . Springer here reminded me that she wasn ' t supposed to speak with Joshua . Doesn ' t this compliance remedy indicate that the court expected cooperation between the Little Rock School District and Joshua? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q And we have cooperated . Did you ever at any time initiate a meeting with Joshua? No . All right . Did you ever share any writing regarding any subject with Joshua? A What you have requested , we have granted to you . Q I see . Were you aware that we had a duty to be involved , just as ODM did , in what the district was doing? 38 A And we have shared t he information with you . You were part of the evaluation team meetings . Q What did you expect -- how did you interpret the court ' s statement , \" I expect Joshua to continue to fulfi ll its traditional role of monitoring LRSD ' s compliance remedy obligations? \" What did you understand that to be? A To be a part of the process of the evaluations that were being conducted . That ' s why you ' ve been extended the invitation to be a part of every team meeting that we have had . Q Do you understand monitoring to be at your invitation? Do you understand monitoring to be at your invitation? Is that the way you interpret that? We don ' t monitor unless you invite us? Is that your position? Is that your position? Will you answer that? A Q You can monitor with or without an invitation . I understand but that ' s the abstract theoretical . Did you understand that we had the obligation to monitor whether you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 invited us or not? A Q A Q You can monitor with or without - - Did you understand that Joshua was obliged to monitor? It ' s in the Remedy . All right . Now , did you ever discuss with anyone the traditional role of Joshua in monitoring LRSD ' s compliance obligations? A Q Define anyone . Anybody , including Mr . Heller . Did you ever discuss that with anybody in the district? We have talked about Joshua , yes . 39 A Q No . Did you ever ascertain what Joshua ' s traditional role was in monitoring? A The conversation has been had , yes . Q When was it had and -- A I don ' t recall . Q --with whom was it had? A Dennis Glascoe , when I first arrived and information regarding the compliance remedy . Only Dennis Glascoe? And other members of the team . Who else? Susie Davis , at that time -- I wanted more Q A Q A Q You know Susie Davis wasn ' t an administrator until you all came? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q She was a supervisor . That ' s right . And so A supervisor is an administrator . Okay . That 's f i ne . On Susie Davis , you all created a special program for her to promote her\ndidn ' t you? 40 A No , we did not create a special program to promote her , no . Q That ' s another issue . I won ' t get into that one now . She ' s a friend of yours\ni sn ' t she? A Q She ' s a colleague . I see . She ' s K- 12 coordinator\nis that right? A She ' s a K- 12 director . Q Director . Okay . Now , let ' s go back . You indicate that Dr . DeJarnette was deficient in that she did not comply with something . What was it that she didn ' t comply with , other than what I ' ve already covered? The first thing you said was she didn ' t comply . A It basically deals with -- Q With the chain of command? A Q A Q Yes . All right . You ' ve already addressed that\nhaven ' t you? Yes . All right . Now , what is the best thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette? Silence is an answer as well so I ' ll take that . Is that the answer? All right . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Let the record reflect -BY MR . FINLEY: Let the record reflect that you gave her about three seconds to think about that -- BY MR . WALKER : If you call that three seconds , I ' l l go -BY MR . FINLEY : --before you interrupted her the first time . BY MR . WALKER: Q Well , what ' s the best thing you can say about Dr . DeJarnette? BY MR . FINLEY : If you want to put it on the clock , we can do that . BY MR . WALKER : The judge is going to put us on the clock so we may as well do that . BY MR . WALKER : 41 Q I 'm still waiting on you to answer . This is the third time I ' ve asked the same question . A Q She takes the initiative . To do what? She takes the initiative to do what? If I walk out this door then I ' ve taken the initiative to leave . I mean , to do what , Doctor? That ' s important . Q Well , because of the prolonged silence this time , may I BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 - 2 3 4 h ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 42 just simply say that you don ' t want to comment on that? Is that fair to say? A If you so wish to infer that . Q Well , can you give me some other answer other than that you don ' t wish to comment on that? A You may wish to infer that . Q Thank you . Did you formulate any opinion regarding the work performance of Mr. James Wooleb? A No . Q Did you formulate any opinion regarding the work performance of Mr . Ed Williams? A I worked with Dr . Williams on a couple of projects , yes , he is a very good worker , diligent . Q I see . Is there any particular reason you chose Dr . DeJarnette or the committee chose Dr . DeJarnette over Mr. Ed Williams for the position? He was a competitor for the position\nwasn ' t he? A Yes , he also applied for the position . Q I see . And you all selected Dr . DeJarnette over him\nright? A The committee did , yes . Q What was it that caused her qualifications -- I guess it ' s a qualification driven decision -- what was it that caused her qualifications to be considered superior to his? A I would have to go back and review exactly what BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 Q You don ' t have a recollection of what took place? A I don ' t recall e xactly what gave Dr . DeJarnette , I guess , the place over Dr . Wil l iams . I do not recall . I just know that it was the consensus of the committee that she be recommended for the position . Q Di d you make the decision to summarily remove her from her position? A Did I make the decision? Q A Q A Q A Q made? A Q A Q Yes . No . Did you recommend that that decision be made? I was in collaboration with the decision being made . Did you make the initial recommendation? No . Who made the initial recommendation that that decision be My supervisor . Who is that? Hugh Hattabaugh . What did Mr . Hattabaugh say to you as his rationale for making the decision? A Basically, the points that were brought out in the grievance - - excuse me , not the grievance -- the hearing or the grounds for termination . Q Before you all terminated her and walked her out , did you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consult with counsel? A Yes . Q A Q out? Was that Counsel Heller? Yes . Why was it necessary to have security come and walk her A I was not engaged in that activity . Q Did you inform Dr . DeJarnette after the board meeting 44 yesterday or last night that she was not to return to work until next Tuesday? A Q A That is correct . On whose authority did you take this action? My own . Q Is there any regulation that says that you may overrule the board ' s decision? A The board said she was reinstated . The board did not say when she would return to work . Q I see . Do you know what the past practice of the district has been when reinstatement decisions have been made? A No . Q A Q Did it matter to you? Yes, it does matter to me . Why didn ' t you ask somebody before you made the decision to tell her not to come back to work? A If I need to - - if it ' s one that was made out of error then BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 it can easily be corrected but I will not be in the office the majority of this week and I need time to make certain that she ' s welcome back and that there ' s a transition between what has occurred during her absence and when she returns . I will not be in the office until Tuesday , hence the decision was made for her to return on Tuesday . Q Why is it necessary for her to be there when she returns , especially in view of the fact that you don ' t hold her in high regard anyway? A Q A Q That ' s your opinion . Didn ' t you just say that? No , I did not say that . Did you not say that she was a liar , she superceded authority and was insubordinate? A Yes , I did say that . Q I see . So doesn ' t that mean that you do not hold her in high regards? A No . You cannot draw that conclusion from those statements . Q Do you know anybody that ' s a liar that you hold in high regard? Excuse me . I apologize . (Off the record) (After the break , the following testimony was given , as follows , to- wit) : BY MR . WALKER: I want to go on record as, again , apologizing to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 Dr . Roberts and to Mr . Heller and to other counsel for my response to her question when I asked the question about a liar . I 'm still of the view that I can ' t understand it but I should not have exhal ed or exploded as I did so I do apo l ogize , for the record . BY MR . WALKER : Q Now , going on . Do you hold Dr . DeJarnette in high regard as a professional? A Regarding implementing the duties and responsibilities outlined in the job description? Q A Q Yes . She ' s able to do the job , yes . All right . Now , do you know the difference between a policy and a regulation in the school district? A Q A it . Q A Yes . Is there a policy IL- R in the district? We have several of them . You need to give me the title of IL- R. Is this the one dealing with the embedding of the comprehensive assessment process? Q A Q A Right . That ' s what I mean by the title . Well , it ' s called IL- R, Comprehensive Assessment -- That ' s what I 'm talking about . This part. That ' s the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 title . Q Is that a board policy or a regulation? A Risa regulation . Q I see . Where is the policy on this subject? A I ' d have to go back and look at the board manual that we have . Q You are aware that there is a policy IL\naren ' t you? A Yes . Q And does the policy mirror IL-R? A It addresses the assessment process . Q Who developed IL-R? A Dr . DeJarnette Q I see . A --was the main author . Q Who developed IL? A That was done before I arrived . I don ' t know . Q Are you familiar with another - - I ' ll show you another one called IL- R. A This was the one prior to my arrival . No , this is the same one , if I 'm not mistaken . It's the same one . Just different font and print . It must be the same one . May I see that form again , please? It should be the same . Just different font. Q Doctor , are you familiar with both of those things? A This is the one that is in our policy book that was reported to the court . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q Which one are we going to be discussing in court? The one that was reported to the court . Which is which? Both of them have the same IL - R 48 designation so which one will be going to court on? A If I 'm not mistaken , there should be a date at the bottom when it was adopted . This is December 16 , 2004 . This one is October 10th, 2002 . So this is the one we ' re using . Q 2004 . Okay . Now , these two things are different\naren ' t they? A Yes . The '04 has been updated . Q The '04 has been updated? A Yes , to address the compliance remedy . Q One of them is called Program Evaluation Agenda and the other is called Comprehensive Program Assessment Process . They have different titles so that suggests that they have two different purposes\ndoesn ' t it? A A lot of the information that is here is embedded in this so this encompasses this . Q Doctor , with the two different titles , they are different\naren ' t they? A One could infer that just from the titles but then you need to read the content . Q Now, for a thing to be embedded -- how do you know the second one to which you referred, which is the '04 document, is embedded? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 A Well , I 'm looking at it and some of the language is the same . Q I understand some of the language is the same . A I didn ' t say they were identical . I said some of the information has been embedded . Q Well , I want you to look at these since I 'm at a loss . The int erior of the documents seem to be materially different . Look at them and tell me what is the same . I don ' t want you to deal with i t superficially with the front page -- A Q That ' s why I 'm reading them both . I 'm looking at - - Look at the third page and you ' ll see material differences . A Well , this gives you an outline to the various ways that we ' re going to perform evaluations , yes . Q A Q Did you - - It provides a checklist . Did you have anything to do with the preparation of either one of these documents? A This was brought to my attention by Dr . DeJarnette when she was doing it before we took it to the board in December so , yes , I did have knowledge and do have knowledge of that , yes . Q What did she tell you when she prepared this document dated December 16 , 2004 entitled Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A It was to meet the compliance remedy regarding the comprehensive assessment process . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Q Now , do you have any identified programs that specifically address achievement of black students? Any programs in the district that are specifically designated for that purpose? A Yes . Q A Where are they found? Well , if we look at Smart , Thrive Q Where are they found? Is there a document of where they can be found? A Q A Q No . I see . So we have to search for them somewhere? No , we don ' t have to search for them. Well , let me ask you this : If I wanted to know what those programs were , as a monitor for Joshua , could I get that informaiton without going through Mr . Heller? A No . You would need to go through him . That ' s the process . Q Okay . But Mr . Hussman could get that information without going through Mr . Heller\ncouldn ' t he? A No . Q A Why couldn ' t he? He has never asked for it . Q Well , but if he asked for it then you ' d give it to him because it's public information\nisn ' ~ it? A And we would give it to you after talking with Mr . Heller , just as we have in the past. Q So , as a monitor , I 'm going to be impeded in a way that Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' I ' 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 Hussman of the Democrat wouldn ' t? A Well , if he wants it for a newspaper article , we ' d go through the same because we are in court , we ' re being monitored by the court so , yes , I would also run it by Mr . Heller. Q I see . Now , has the compliance remedy been implemented? A Yes . Q What was the day that you can say it was first implemented? A Well , when I came we started implementing it . I 'm certain it began before my arrival but I can only speak to since I ' ve been here . Q When was it completed? A You can ' t complete it because it ' s a comprehensive process . It ' s ongoing. Q I see . Do you think it was completed at the time that the judge entered this order? A Entered the order that we should do the eight two step evaluations? Is that what you ' re talking about? Q Yes . At the time that the judge entered this compliance remedy in 2004 , had it been implemented? A Yes . We were released from certain portions of it except for this last piece , program evaluation . Q Well, that's all we ' re talking about here\nisn ' t it? A Okay . At that time then , no . That ' s why we ' re still in court . Q Was it implemented in December of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q The process had begun . When did you all make a determination that it had been completed or has that determination been made? 52 A We ' re go i ng to court because we feel we have met the spirit of the law . The piece that is ongoing is the comprehensive assessment process and , yes , we have put that in place . essence of that , yes , it ' s completed . So , in Q So you can say that the comprehensive assessment program process A Q A Q A Q Has begun . --is embedded in the fabric of the district? Has begun . No . Has it been embedded in the fabric of the district? We ' re in the process of embedding . All right . But it ' s not been embedded . Let me ask you : Have you had any if you embed something it ' s not -- I use a tick example . It ' s sort of like a tick\nisn ' t it? A tick getting into something and staying with that something until something happens . Has this been tick- liked in the district , the process? A I would say that it is in the process . Q That means then that the principals of the district , including the teachers and the administrators would all know what the process is\nwouldn ' t they? A They know pieces of the process , yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 53 1 Q How do you know that? 2 A Because I facilitate some of the workshops with the 3 principals . 4 Q So you ' ve given the workshops on that? When did you 5 facilitate those workshops? 6 A That ' s ongoing . 7 Q When is the last time you had a workshop? - 8 A This morning . 9 Q With whom? Which principals? -10 A At the assistant principals for instruction .  11 12 Q How many of them were there? A I want to say 12 . 3 Q And how many assistant principals do you have in the 14 district? 15 A Assistant principals for instruction . 16 Q How many assistant principals for instruction do you have 17 in the district? 18 A I want to say maybe nine . Seven . Seven or nine . Around 19 there . I can ' t recall without going through each school . 20 Q Are you saying that you have people who have the title of 21 assistant principal for instruction? 22 A Yes . 23 Q Are they at the high school level? 24 A And middle . Some middle schools. 25 I Q Not all? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 25 I A No . Q Which schools do not have assistant principals for instruction? A May I give you the list of schools that do? Q Yes . A Forest Heights Middle\nMabelvale Middle\nif I 'm not mistaken , I think , Henderson . And please put a question mark there . Who else at the middle school level? At the moment , 54 those are the ones that I can think of . and look at the list in my office . I would need to go back Q Who at the high school level? A McClellan , J .A. Fair , Parkview , Central and Hall . I think the person at Hall is part-time . It ' s an assistant principal but she ' s part-time API and other duties . Q All AP . Who is that person? A I cannot think of her name at the moment . I 'm sorry . Q Is she white? A I think she ' s black . Q What was the fellow teaching who had the catastrophe of killing his child at Hall? A What is the what? Q What did he teach out at Hall? A He taught civics . Q I see . Was that AP civics? A I think it was Pre - AP , if I 'm not mistaken. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Now, so you have seven middle schools and three of them have assistant principals A Q That I can recall at the moment . I see . So not all of the middle schools have principals for instruction? A That is correct. Q How do you make a judgement on which school will and will not have an assistant principal for instruction? A This was not a directive . This was a recommendation made 55 to the schools to have someone in addition to the principals excuse me -- in addition to the principal to oversee instruction . We gave the principal the authority to select someone if they met the job description . We did put together a job description and they selected someone to oversee that . Q So that means it ' s a teacher and that person is also given the additional title of assistant principal for instruction? A No . This person is an assistant principal . It cannot be a teacher . Q So this person is beyond the numerical standards set out for principals in a school? A No. Q So I take it that each one of these places has an assistant principal for instruction and also one for discipline? A Q They may have one for discipline, yes . Okay. You said that part of Dr . DeJarnette's failings was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 = 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 talking with Ms . Joy Springer? A Repeat that question , please . Q Do you contend that one of Dr . DeJarnette ' s failings wa s her speaking with Ms . Joy Springer? A If she spoke to Ms . Springer without speaking to counsel , yes . Q I see . Do you have evidence that she did that? A No . Q I see . A I do not have any . Q Did you ever ask Dr . DeJarnette if she had done so? A No . Q Did you tell the board last night that she had done so? A That ' s a closed hearing . Q I 'm just asking what you told them . A I will not give an account of the hearing , which was closed , last night . Q What ' s your authority for not answering my question? A If it were open , I would gladly respond to and give you my response to questions that were asked of me last night but this BY MR . WALKER : Mr . Finley , since you ' re handling this , are you instructing her not to answer that? BY THE WITNESS : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 It was closed session so you can direct me either way . BY MR . FINLEY : Why don ' t you just ask her questions other than what you said at the hearing? Why don ' t you just ask her -- so she doesn ' t have to breach that confidence . BY MR . WALKER : I don ' t know that there ' s a confidence . BY MR . FINLEY : Well , if the law allows it to be a closed hearing BY MR . WALKER : Well , a subpoena -- I mean , throughout these proceedings , we ' ve been able to ask what went on in the school hearings plus the hearing transcript is something that is going to be prepared and it becomes a matter of record . BY MR . WALKER : Q Let me ask you : Have you ever told anyone that one of the reasons for recommending her termination was that she spoke with Ms . Joy Springer? A No . Q Have you ever given anyone reasons as to why she was terminated , other than the ones that you ' ve set forth here? A Just the ones that were listed in the termination letter . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 Q Now , is it fair to say that you were never in an evaluation team meeting conducted by Dr . DeJarnette regarding program assessment and evaluation where I was present until about five months ago? A No , I think we were in others before then . Q Do you recall approximately when? A We were a part of the ones that we did before . The Compass Learni ng , the Year- Round , all of those evaluat i ons . I 'm certain I attended some of those meetings . I can ' t recall the exact dates . I ' d have to go back and look at my calendar . Q Was Ms . Springer present in any of those meetings before September? A Yes , that I was in attendance , yes . Q Where Dr . DeJarnette was the person conducting the meeting? I 'm not talking about the big meetings were you had programs . I 'm talking about those little work sessions , 12 , 15 , 20 people A Q A The evaluation team meetings? Yes . I ' ve been in meetings with Dr . DeJarnette and Ms . Springer in those meetings before September , yes . Q Did you keep minutes of those meetings? A The team kept minutes and reported -- someone from PRE was given the responsibility of keeping minutes , which were then sent to all members who were present . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 59 Q Tell me what the problem is with the data warehouse . Is there now a data warehouse in the school district? A Yes . Q When was it completed? A It is still be constructed . You never complete a data warehouse because you keep adding elements . Q When was it substantially completed for present use? A I would say starting around July or August , around there . Q Who is in charge of the data warehouse? A It is housed within computer information systems , which is supervised by Nancy Morgan . Q Does Nancy Morgan report to John Ruffins? A She reports to John Ruffins , yes . Q Has Mr . Ruffins , before November or December , been involved in any of the evaluation meetings that you have held? A I have not seen him at any , no . Q I see . What is Mrs . Morgan ' s responsibility with respect to program assessment and evaluation? A She ' s in charge of housing the data and collecting data when necessary , when needed , in order to fulfill the requirements of a program evaluation . Q What is her title? A I believe she is the program information specialist , I believe . I may have to confirm that . Q Does she report directly to Mr . Ruffins? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q She reports to Mr . Ruffins . And does Mr . Ruffins report directly to you? No , he does not report to me . To whom does he report? Mark Millholland . I see . What is Mr . Millholland ' s role with respect to program evaluation? A He is the chief financial officer in CIS . Computer 60 information systems is an area of responsibility for him so , in essence , that is the connection that he has . Q Has he been to any of the team meetings? A Not where I was present , no . Q I see . Now , is there anything about Ms . Springer ' s affidavit that I showed you that you would disagree with? Take a moment . If so , just draw our attention to it and explain it and then just keep going . A We ' ll speak about Number 5 . Q State your objection or disagreement with that . A She states -- again , this is just being viewed from a document that the district publications , which report activities with respect to professional development revealed no professional development regarding the area of program assessments and evaluations . The document that was asked of us was regarding professional development for the schools , for the teachers, and in that document we list content area of BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5:10 I I I 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61 professional development . That is not all the professional development that we do in the district . For example , the professional development that was rendered today is not a part of the calendar , if you will , to look at our catalog for this year . The professional development that we did when we went to every school and met with the faculty and provide training regarding how to access CIS , that ' s not a part of the catalog but that is professional development , which is centered around program assessments and evaluations . Q Did anyone from PRE go with you this morning? A No . Q Did anyone from PRE got with you any of these other times? A No. Q Do you explain what PRE is doing when you go to meet with these people? A No. The schools know the role of PRE . Q Well , do they know what the court has ordered? A Yes . And PRE has done some of these workshops . Some of them have been conducted by Dr . Williams , Maurecia and even Karen , herself , in the past . Q Well, let me ask this : Have you shared the court ' s compliance remedy with all participants in the training? A I did not specifically allude to the compliance remedy , no . Q I see. Now , go on down . That's Number 5 . What else do you disagree with? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I 1 A Number 7 , regarding the data available to PRE . The PRE has 2 been able to access the data needed at any time . I 3 Q Who told you that? 4 A Dr . Williams , himself , as recently as yesterday . 5 Q I see . Before you leave that , with respect to Dr . 6 Williams , what caused you to meet with Dr . Williams yesterday? 7 A We were just having a conversat i on . We had cab i net 8 yesterday . 9 Q He ' s in cabinet now? 10 A Because he ' s the interim director , he was there 11 representing PRE . 12 Q Is that the first cabinet meeting you all have had in like 3 a month? I 'm not talking about executive cabinet . 14 A It has - - I think this was his first meeting to cabinet . 15 Q So you all haven ' t had a cabinet meeting since Dr . 16 DeJarnette was summarily removed? 17 A I cannot recall us having one where he was present . 18 Q Did you have one at all? Whether he was present or not? 19 A I believe we have had -- yes . 20 Q Did he give a report on the status of PRE at the cabinet 21 meeting yesterday? 22 A No , he did not . 23 Q Have you been the one in the past to evaluate his work 24 performance? 25 A No , he does not directly report to me . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 Q I see . Have you been the one to approve the evaluation of his work performance or disapprove? A Q A Q I 'm not his supervisor so , no . I see . Now , go on to the next one . Number 8 , I do not understand . All right . Go on to the next one . A I would need to go back and check my calendar but , if I 'm not mistaken , I 'm almost certain that April 18th was not my first time being present at an evaluation team meeting. I would need to go back and verify this information . Again , it has been qualified where Joshua was present so maybe Joshua was not present at the meetings where I was in attendance . I would need to go back and validate that . Q All right . That ' s in 2006? A Q A Q According to this . Did you attend any evaluation team meetings in 2005? Again , I would need to go back to my calendar and check. All right . Did you ever meet with -- did you go to California to meet with Dr . Catterall? A No , I did not . Q A Q A Q Did you ever meet with Dr . Burnhart? Yes . Did you find her to be a qualified person? Yes . Did you find her to be stature in the profession with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 respect to professional evaluations? A School improvement and the use of data , yes . Q I see . Did you ever tell anyone that she was not objective when it came to the use of the data warehouse being discussed at that time? Was it Tetra - Data? A Did I ever tell anyone that? Q A Q A Q A Q A Yes . No . I see . Have you ever heard any comment to that effect? Made where there may be a conflict o f interest? Yes . Yes . Who made that comment? It was made by Mr . Hattabaugh because she ' s on the board . It was stated by Dr . DeJarnette that she ' s on the board of Tetra , hence a conflict . Q Why is it a conflict? Mr . Heller represents the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District . Where ' s the conflict? A He ' s not selling a product . Q Oh , he ' s selling a big product . A Q A Q What is it? Time . The board has already hired him . But they didn ' t hire him for the Public Education BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Foundation\ndid they? And agree to pay him? BY MR. FINLEY : Do you want her to read it or -BY MR . WALKER : 65 Yeah . I 'm just talking about -- she ' s corning up with these things about Dr . Burnhart . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A Again , Number 10 , I would need to go back and look at the minutes. It ' s stated here that the district did not have participates at the '05- '06 meetings . I would need to go back and verify that . Q That ' s fine . Keep going . A Number 11 , the district attempted to diminish the importance of the PRE staff regarding the testing coordinator position . Q Let me ask you : Is it true that that coordinator position is very important? A It is important regarding the test administration . It is not important in terms of the compliance remedy . The compliance remedy deals with program evaluations . The testing coordinator is a part of PRE . It ' s a -- go ahead . Q No , go ahead . A Q I' rn done . I 'm listening . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I 'm done . I ' d like for you to finish that . I 'm finished . 66 Q You ' re saying that the testing coordinator position is not integra l to the PRE Department for it to work in embedding the process? A The testing coordi nator oversees , administers the testing program in the district . The ACTAP , the DIBBLES (phonetic sp . ) , those standardized testing measures , tools . If we were to remove testing coordinator from PRE , we would still need to comply with the court remedy by evaluating programs and embedding a comprehensive assessment process . Q Okay . Keep going with the affidavit . BY MR . WALKER : Madam Court Reporter , if you ' ll just put in the record that we ' re still under the headline of Ms . Joy Springer ' s Affidavit so that , if we have to use it at trial , we will be able to do that . BY THE WITNESS : Again , Number 12 , where PRE does not have access to the data warehouse and that PRE members were not sure that they would have liberal access . PRE has the most access to the data warehouse of any department in the district . BY MR . WALKER : BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A not . Q A Q How can you say that? Because they have full access where other departments do Have you discussed that with Dr . DeJarnette? She knows that . How do you know she knows that? 67 A PRE has received the most training of any department in the district regarding the data warehouse . Q A Q A Q A I see . Are you still using Business Objects? Yes . Is that something that you all used in Florida? No . What was the program you used in Florida? We did use Crystal Reports , yes , in Florida as the data display but it was not our data warehouse . Q Did you bring Crystal Reports here with you? A Q No , it was here when we came . I see. Keep going . A Okay . The last one , Number 15 , it appears that Dr . DeJarnette is no longer involved in PRE decisions and regarding the assessments generated by Compass . Q Was she involved in the assessments generated by Compass after July 1, 2006? A The assessments that were done by Compass Learning were done by her department . We did not hire someone else to do it . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 Q Did they have the responsibility as a department to provide ongoing formative assessments for students , teachers and administrators? A Repeat the question , please . Q Did PRE have the responsibility for providing formative , ongoing assessments? A Q A Q A Q A No . To provide formative ongoing assessments? Yes . No . Did anyone have that obligation? To provide Yes . That would be my responsibility to ensure that schools have formative ongoing assessments and to help them create them . Q Isn ' t that part of the comprehensive assessment process? A Yes . Q Isn ' t it expected that what you do is integrated into what PRE does? A Q Yes . Has it been done? A Yes . PRE has had involvement with the analysis of the data and how to use the data to inform instruction . Yes , that has been done . Q A Explain to me what is meant by formative assessments . Those are ongoing assessments . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A What is the purpose of a formative assessment? Are you talking about formative assessments used by teachers or formative assessments in terms of an evaluation? Q Let ' s do both of those . A Okay . Formative assessments being used by teachers are 69 assessments that teachers use to assess the progress of students on an ongoing basis . Q What is their source of data? A You use those same assessments to determine what the next assessments would be . Q A Q Well , what is being used in order to make the assessment? What is currently being used? No . No . For these teacher -- what are the data that the teacher uses? A They use classroom data that they collect from their students . They can use the quarterly assessments that we have . They can use the ACTAP . They use multiple assessments to determine . Q I see . Now , are all those things contained in the database? A Some are\nsome are not . The classroom assessments would not be . Q A Q Why not? Because those are ongoing day- to - day assessments . How can make a comprehensive assessment of a child and a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 child ' s needs without having all the data? A The teacher has that . The teacher uses those pieces of data . They will look today and say that , in terms of Olivine , this is what is I need to do differently tomorrow . The teacher is using that in-time set of data to make decisions regarding the next lesson . Q A Q A How do you monitor that? The principal monitors that . How can the principal monitor that? By classroom walk- through ' s . That ' s why we have coaches in the buildings to help go into classrooms to observe -- so we have some measures in place within the school to determine the use of data . Q Do you have any programs that are being assessed by persons outside the school district? A The evaluations that we are in the process of completing , the four evaluations . Q Anything else? A There is an evaluation that is being done on the Teacher Achievement Challenge Project . Q Who is doing that? A That is being done between a collaboration of PRE and the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville . Q A Is there a written contract to sustain that? I would need to check with Mr. Millholland to see if there BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is a contract . Q Who entered into that agreement and when? A Again , I would need to check with Mark with that . not involved with the contractual piece of it . Q Was Dr . DeJarnette involved? I do not recall . Was Mr . Ed Williams involved? I do not recall . I was A Q A Q Are the r e any other assessments being undertaken by any other group such as the University of Arkansas? A No . Just internally . I believe the -- and this has been 71 ongoing -- the TAP program has an evaluation that is being conducted by TAP , which is the Milken Family Foundation and they do an evaluation of all schools that are involved in TAP . Q Is that keyed into the comprehensive evaluation and assessment program that Dr . DeJarnette oversees? A That piece is -- I do not believe it is . Yes , it is . We have incorporated that with the Teacher Achievement Project , the project that is being done at Wakefield , Meadowcliff and the other schools along with Stevens and Rockefeller and those are the two that are involved in TAP . Q The Wakefield Project is one financed by Mr . Democrat\nisn ' t it? A The Wakefield Project is being funded by the district . The board approved that . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q That ' s the one that was started by Mr . Hussman? That was funded by his -- Did you all make the commitment to Mr . Hussman that if he funded these programs then you all would pick them up? A The district did not make that commitment . Q But you did pick them up\ndidn ' t you? A The district did. The board approved that . Q Now , the district also has a number of grant programs\ndoesn ' t it? We have several grants , yes . 72 A Q And the understanding is that those grant programs will be picked up by the district , just like the Hussman program would , upon the grant running out\nisn ' t it? A Not necessarily, no . I ' d have to go back and read each grant and each RFP. Q Tell me why it is that you have these grant programs in the southwest schools that when the grants end then the programs end . A For example? Q The National Science Foundation A The National Science Foundation Q 21st Century is one . A 21st Century, we still have in place . Q Who is funding it? A 21st Century is st.ill being funded by the federal BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 government . Q Doesn ' t that run out this year? A I would need to go back and check . Some schools still have it for another two or three years so I would need to go back and check . Q Well , for the ones where it has run out , has it been p i cked up by the district? A I believe all the schools that were involved in 21st Century , since my arri val , are still involved . Q Have you integrated the program -- first of all , is there any agreement between you and the Public Education Foundation to provide formative assessments? A Between me and -- Q The school district and the Public Education Foundation . A We ' re involved in a partnership with the Public Education Foundation , yes. Q Did you agree that they would be qualified to do formative assessments for the school district? A They are not doing the formative assessments . They are helping with the funding of the formative assessments . The formative assessments are being developed by another entity . Q Who is that entity? A Hot Springs Learning Institute . Q So you have an assessment relationship with the Hot Springs Learning Institute? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' I 1 2 - 3 4 ' 5 I 6 7 = 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  24 25 74 A Yes . Q Is that integrated into what PRE is doing? A They ' re involved in the use of the data , yes . Q Who is in charge of the Hot Springs Learning Institute? A It was recently , I think , extracted from the Hot Springs School District . I believe it was a part incorporated within the Hot Springs School District . Q Who is the person responsible for that? A The superintendent . Q Which superintendent? A I cannot think of his name at the moment . I 'm sorry . He recently retired and resigned to chair that particular institute and I cannot think of his name at the moment . Q So it ' s your understanding that there is no agreement between Little Rock and the Public Education Foundation -- A Excuse me . Repeat that please . Q It ' s your understanding that there is no agreement between Little Rock and the Public Education Foundation to provide formative assessments of programs in the Little Rock School District? A There is a partnership between the Little Rock School District and the Public Education Foundation to have formative assessments be done . The Public Education Foundation does not develop the assessments . We consider it a conduit . Q Do you have anything to do with respect -- is there a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ' 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 6 - 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 I 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 process for embedding the assessment process into ACSIP? How do you deal with ACSIP in so far as embedding the assessment process into the fabric of the district? A Well , the ACSIP is the vehicle through which we address the improvement of schools so it is a natural connection to the comprehensive assessment process because , in order for us to develop a quality improvement plan , you do need to make certain you ' re looking at every aspect of the school . You need every measure of data in order to make an informed decision as to what to do next and what remedy the deficiencies that are in the school . Q Do either you or Dr . DeJarnette or Dr . Williams or anyone else propose to use ACSIP for embedding the assessment process? A Use ACSIP as the tool for embedding? No . ACSIP can be used as a part of but ACSIP cannot be the only vehicle through which . Q I understand but is ACSIP one of te vehicles that - - A That can be used . Q Have you all agreed that it will be used? A In time, it can be used . It will be . Can be and will be . Q Have you had this discussion with Dr . DeJarnette or Dr . Williams? A Yes . That is why ACSIP was ruled under the supervision of PRE with that intent . Q Which one of them did you discuss this with? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' ' 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 - 6 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 A Dr . DeJarnette . She ' s the director of PRE . Q Well , she was until A Well , this occurred way before she was suspended . Q What dea l ings have you had with the state department regarding the embedding of the evaluation process using ACSIP? A I have not had a conversation with the ADE regarding using ACSIP as the tool for embedding . Again , it is one piece of the comprehensive assessment process . It is not the piece . Q Do you see any role that the state has in embedding the evaluation process into the fabric of the d i strict? A In terms of making certain that we ' re still in compliance with the rules and regs as mandated by the state but it ' s our responsibility to ensure that we have a comprehensive assessment process within our district . Q Of course , they can monitor it\ncan ' t they? A That is their right . That ' s their responsibility . Q Do they have to go through Mr . Heller? A They oversee the school districts . Q Now , do you disagree with the compliance history that was prepared and presented to the board? I ' ll show you . I think that is Exhibit l . Have you seen that before? A Yes . Q Did you ever prepare a document that supports that? A I did not prepare a document . Q Have you seen a document prepared that contradicts that? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 A Have I seen a document that contradi cts this? Q Yes . A I do not recall at this time . I ' d have to go back and review the documents that I have . Q Do you contradict it? A Yes . Q Tell me how you contradict it . A Well , l et ' s start with Po i nt Number 1 . Again , this goes back to what was stated earlier . The removal of the secretary , the test coordinator assistant , along with the downgrade of the testing coordinator position -- these were all recommendations brought forth by Dr . DeJarnette during the reorganization of the district . No one directed Dr . DeJarnette to do this . She brought these recommendations to the table when a potential program analysis was conducted regarding the ramifications of this and Dr . DeJarnette was asked what would be the implications , what would be the consequences of these positions being removed or downgraded . She gave none . So , yes , I object to Number l . Okay . Number 2 , I believe it was in the Quattlebaum report where Dr . Ross , again , spoke that the data that he received was , I guess , quality in order to do -- that provided him the necessary information to complete the evaluations and he spoke to that in the Quattlebaum Report . Q Did he speak of that to you? A It ' s in the report . No , I did not speak to Dr . Ross , BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' I 1 2 ' 3 4 ' 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 himself . But he has not complained to us or to me regarding the quality of the data that he has received . Q Do you understand the Quattlebaum Report is hearsay? What is your opinion regarding that report? A Since we have completed evaluations from the evaluators , I will conclude that they had quality data to complete the evaluations . Q That ' s on the assumption that they wouldn ' t do an evaluation unless they thought it was quality and correct? A In the evaluation team meetings , we were able to remedy concerns or objections or questions or concerns that they had regarding the data . Q Have you seen reports to the effect that there were as many as 15 , 000 errors in some of the data that was transmitted to Dr . Ross? A No , I did not see those reports . Number 3 , regarding the Crystal Reports . Q Do you dispute that? A (no audible response) Q That ' s fine . You can just tell me the ones you object to . You don ' t have to give an explanation . about it because of time . A Okay . 3F . Q All right . A Of course, 3G. I 'm not going to ask you BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay . A Number 4 . Q You ' ve never seen that document before? A Yes , I ' ve seen it before but every time I read it , I just get , you know . Q You get what? A Just -- Q Goose pimples? A Pardon? Q Goose pimples? A I wouldn ' t say that . - It alarms me . Q Does it make you angry? A Not angry , no . Q Upset? A No . Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks -- BY MR . FINLEY : Are you going to let her finish it? BY MR . WALKER : Q I ' ll just assume that you disagree with most of it . A With most of it , I do , yes . Q That ' s fine . Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that the reinstatement of Dr . DeJarnette was a very sad day for the Little Rock School District? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 79 ' I 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 ' 7 I 8 9 I 10 11 ' 12 3 ' 14 I 15 16 I 17 18 19 20 21  22 23  24 25 80 Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that if the level of engagement from this community does not increase then you don ' t know what the future will hold for the Little Rock School District? Do you agree with that? A I ' d have to th i nk about that . Q Do you agree with Dr . Brooks that Mr . Daugherty should have someone to run against him for the school board in the next election? A I think during any election tnat -- that is not my opinion . Q Have you heard Dr . Brooks encourage h i s principals to solicit someone to run against Mr . Daughtery? A No , I have not been in the environment where Dr . Brooks has done that . I ' ve not been there when that was done , if it ' s been done , no , not in my presence . Q I see . Now , in all these meetings where you were incidentally , would you find that appropriate for a superintendent to do? Solicit A No , I would not find that to be appropriate , no . Q Would you feel that that would be an appropriate basis for termination of a superintendent? A That ' s for the board to decide . Q Just in your judgement . A That ' s for the board to decide . Q Now , these meetings where you were present , the evaluation team meetings , did you sign in at each of those meetings? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 2 I 3 4 I 5 6 I 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I would have to go back and look at my data . I 'm pretty good about making certain record it on my calendar . if I 'm attending a meeting , I 81 Q I see . Can you tell me any progress that has been made in remediating or narrowing the achievement gap between black and white students in the Little Rock School District since you ' ve been here with respect to any program or test? A We ' ve not done an evaluat i on regarding the achievement gap with respect to a program so I would need to go back because the evaluations that have been done have not been in regard to closing the achievement gap . It ' s just been on the effect . Q Do you all plan to do that? Any evaluation with respect to the achievement gap being closed? A That is something that we will need to examine in the future but we have not done that . Q But for two years since you have been here , you haven ' t even addressed the subject\nis that correct? A We ' ve addressed closing the achievement gap , yes . Every day I get up and -- Q No . In terms of evaluating programs for that purpose . A For the purpose of -- Q Of closing the achievement gap . A We ' ve been addressing programs in terms of increasing the achievement of African- American students , yes . Q Do you know any one particular program that you have BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I ' I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 initiated which has that purpose as its objective? A In increasing the achievement of African-American students? Q Specifically , not generally . A I would say that the Algebra I program that we have put in place , Transition to Advance Mathematics , has been designed to address the needs of urban school children , which are predominantly , in this school district , African- American students . Q When was that put in place? A January of '06 . Q Has that program been assessed or evaluated? A It is not currently being assessed , no , but it will be at the end of this school year because we have not had one full year of implementation . At the conclusion of this school year when we receive the ACTAP data , we will then do an evaluation , a snapshot evaluation of the project . Q Did you work with Mr . Hattabaugh before you came here? A I supported him in terms of his school was one of the schools assigned to the learning community in which I worked . Q Was he also a middle level manager? A He was the principal . Q So that would be a middle level manager? A If you so define it . Q Well , he reported to three or four levels -- A Okay . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 Q Was he principal of a majority black school? A No . Q What is his experience in addressing programs to deal with the achievement gap that exists , you say universally , between African-American and white students? A I will say this : His school was a school that showed increased student achievement for African- American students as well as Caucasians so , I 'm certain that as a leader he was doino some things to improve the learning of students . Q Is there a report which demonstrates or establishes that fact? A If you were to go to the Florida DOE website and track the progress of the high school , that ' s where he was , you will see that , yes . Q I 'm asking if there is a report , an assessment or evaluation report which allows that conclusion? A No . But based on the performance of students as measured by the FCAT , the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, the students at Boone High School showed progress . Q That ' s your judgement\nright? A No , that ' s based on the report that they gave . Q That who gave? A The Florida DOE . Q Department of Education? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q So it ' s a written report? Yes , that you can access their website and check . And how many African-American students did he have in his school? A I would have to go back and look at the numbers . Q Was it an elementary school? A No , it was a high school . Q All right . So you and Mr. Hattabaugh and Dr . Brooks were friends in Florida? A Q A Q We were not friends , no . You were professional acquaintances? We were professional colleagues . And you supported him and he supported Dr . Brooks? A He was one of the principals who reported to Dr . Brooks. Q Do you recall making a statement when you came here that the people in Arkansas were unknowledgeable about education or something to that effect? A No , I 'm sorry , I never made that statement . Q Did you ever hear (inaudible) 84 A No , because when I came here I was very impressed with what was going on in the department so I would not have made that statement . I can only speak for me . BY MR . WALKER : I don ' t have anymore questions . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 2  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Concerning Ms . Springer ' s Affidavit , she talks in Paragraph 6 about the use of questionnaires which the court expected . Did we use , LRSD or its outside experts , use questionnaires or surveys in the course of preparing evaluations? A Outside -- repeat that , please . I 'm sorry . Q Did the school district or its outside evaluators use questionnaires or surveys in the course of preparing evaluations? A I believe that the outside evaluators did conduct surveys , yes . Q And then with respect to ACSIP plans , and I think that ' s what Ms . Springer is referring to in Paragraph 8 when she says PRE was assigned responsibility for preparation of school improvement plans . Would those be ACSIP plans? A It would be ACSIP plans . Q Okay . Was the ACSIP plan a legitimate part of PRE ' s responsibilities? A Yes , it is . Q Has it worked to use data to improve the achievement of students in the district? A Yes , it is . Q With respect to programs that Mr . Walker was asking you about at the end of your deposition , are there programs which BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 have been evaluated by the district which have been shown by those evaluations to improve the achievement of African- Ameri can students? A Q A Yes . What are some of those programs? The Pre - K literacy , Reading Recovery , Smart , Year- Round . believe all the others were inconclusive . BY MR HELLER : That ' s all I have . FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR . WALKER : Q How many children were involved in Year- Round , whatever that means? I ' ll just use your term . What is the population that was involved? A I would need to go back . I do not recall the exact number of students were involved in the intercessions or involved in Year- Round is a school (inaudible) program so I ' d need to go back to the evaluation report . Q There are only several schools that participated in that\nisn ' t that fair to say? A There were three schools that participated . Q A Q What were they? Woodruff , Steven , and Mabelvale Elementary Schools . All those together don ' L have more than 1 , 500 students\nis that fair to say? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I I ' 87 ' 1 2 A Yes . Q Were all of them involved in Year- Round? ' 3 A All three schools were involved in Year- Round , yes . 4 Q Were all the students within the school involved in Year- I 5 Round? 6 A I do not believe all the students went to intercession . 7 Q I see . How many were? 8 A Again , I would need to look at the report . 9 Q I see . And how many schools were involved with Reading 10 Recovery? 11 A If I am not mistaken , I think at the time , 10 or 12 12 schools . I don ' t remember . 3 Q Were they all elementary? 14 A Yes , it ' s a program designed for early literacy . 15 Q How many students participated in those programs? 16 A Again , I would need to go back to the report . 17 Q How much disparity was overcome by use of those programs 18 that evaluations reveal? 19 A I recall it was statistically significant . I cannot recall 20 the P value if that ' s what you are asking for or the level of 21 confidence . I would need to go back and look at the report . I 22 do recall that it was statistically significant . 23 Q Was that judgment made before the end of the last school 24 year? 25 A Because the report was conducted , yes , during that time . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 ' ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 Q Did you expand reading and recovery to other schools ba sed on those facts? A Yes , we did add some schools . Q How many schools have been added? A I believe we added two or three schools this year . Q Why didn ' t you add the rest of them? A Cost . Q I see . Do you have any idea how much this DeJarnette proceeding has cost the district? A No , I do not . Q You understand that every time you have both these lawyers involved that it cost about 5 to $8 , 000 a day? A No , I do not know their fees . Q Do you not understand that the Quattlebaum report cost at least $20 , 000? A No . Q What kind of costs would have been involved in expanding the reading recovery program to more schools? Per school , how much more cost would be involved? A Each time you add a reading recovery program, you ' re adding a teacher and that Q I see . That would be $35 , 000 to $50 , 000? A Approximately . Q I see . Do you call pre- K literacy a program or is that a strategy? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 I II I 1 2 3 4 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 A The Pre-K literacy program is a program . Q It is a program? A Uh huh . Q How many schools is it in? A All of our pre-K . I Id say a majority of our elementary schools have a pre- K program . Q Are you saying that in the pre- k literacy program that the African- American students did materially better than they did in the ones that did not have a pre-k literacy? A There was not a control study that was done but the ones that were in that we have shown that students who participated in pre-k have been successful after leaving pre- k as well . The studies show that . Q Well , that may be so but in order to determine whether they ' re effective , you have to at least do a control study\ndon't you? A But you can also look at the effect after they leave the program to see if it has been sustained . Q Well , that ' s an opinion . Can you tell me any research source that agrees with your conclusion? A Well, apparently, the evaluators did . They reported it . Q I understand they reported it . Can you tell me any source that said that? A Not at this time . Q I see. Do you like Arkansas? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A I 'm enjoying my stay here . Thank you . You ' re welcome . WHEREUPON , the deposition concluded at 4 : 45 p .m., January 9th , 2007 . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 - 5110 90 91 C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF ARKANSAS )ss COUNTY OF LONOKE I , KELLY S . ADCOCK , Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public , do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption on the foregoing proceedings are true\nand that the foregoing proceedings were recorded verbatim through the use of the Stenomask and thereafter transcribed by me or under my direct supervision to the best of my ability , taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto . I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for , related to , nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which these proceedings were taken\nand further , that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto , nor financially interested, or otherwise , in the outcome of this action . WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 14th day of January , 2007 . KELL y' S :(\n:: ADCOCK ~ Certified Court Reporter My Commission Expires : #643 04 / 15/14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 ,._ :\\, .... -. ,..:. . .. :,., '  .!\n3 .. _~:.,:~- , .... ,.,-: ~\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1222","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2007-01-08/2007-02-23"],"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 planning","School boards","School board members","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1222"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 8, 2007 RECEIVED FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 08, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes Leon Johnson, Attorney for the LRSD Administration John Burnette, Attorney for Karen DeJarnette Stephanie Branton, Court Reporter I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting an employee hearing for Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation, who was recommended for termination by the administration. Dr. DeJarnette requested that the hearing be closed. The board contracted with attorney Leon Johnson to represent the administration\nJohn Burnett represented Dr. DeJarnette. Special Board Meeting January 8, 2007 Page 2 Witnesses called by Mr. Johnson in support of the administration's recommendation for termination included: - Roy Brooks, Superintendent - Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent - Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent - Ed Williams, Interim Director of PRE The board recessed at 6:30 p.m. and returned at 6:50 p.m. After the break, Mr. Hattabaugh was recalled by Attorney Johnson. Mr. Burnett called Karen DeJarnette. Mr. Johnson called an additional witness, Attorney Chris Heller, and recalled Hugh Hattabaugh. Ill. ACTION The board convened an executive session for deliberations at 10:00 p.m. They returned from executive session at 10:20 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. Mr. Armstrong made a motion to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette with attorney's fees. Ms. Curry seconded the motion. No vote was taken on the motion\nthe motion was not withdrawn. A second motion was placed on the floor: Dr. Daugherty stated that it was found that the facts were inconsistent with the testimony. He moved that the finding of fact was not discovered. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-3, with Mr. Kurrus, Ms. Fox and Mr. Berkley voting \"no.\" Mr. Armstrong moved to pay Dr. DeJarnette's attorney's fees and reinstate her to her position. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion. There was no vote on the motion as stated and the motion was not withdrawn, but was restated as a new motion. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to separate the two actions\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-2 with Dr. Daugherty and Mr. Armstrong voting \"no.\" Mr. Armstrong made a motion to reinstate Dr. DeJarnette to her position\nMs. Curry seconded the motion. It carried 4-3 with Mr. Kurrus, Ms. Fox, and Mr. Berkley voting \"no.\" Mr. Armstrong moved that the district pay Dr. DeJarnette's attorney's fees. Ms. Curry seconded the motion. Dr. Daugherty asked for an amendment to the motion to include the payment of \"reasonable\" attorney's fees. He suggested that the attorneys meet to determine an amount that is considered \"reasonable.\" Mr. Armstrong moved to include an amendment to his previous motion to allow the attorneys to negotiate \"reasonable\" attorney's fees. Ms. Curry seconded the amended motion, and it carried 5-2, with Mr. Berkley and Ms. Fox voting \"no.\" Special Board Meeting January 8, 2007 Page 3 Ill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Ms. Fox moved to adjourn at 10:24 p.m. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Court reporter Stephanie Branton recorded the full hearing and a complete transcript will be made part of the official record. APPROVED: j-\n).5 .D? Katfi'enne rtcei.resident ',~fu\\ftw -EJx Melanie Fox, Secretary'C:, . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS FEB 2 - 2007 MINUTES OFFICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING DESEGREGATION MONITORING January 12, 2007 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 12, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called by the board for the purpose of discussing personnel matters. Ill. EXECUTIVE SESSION Dr. Mitchell requested a motion to convene an executive session. Dr. Daugherty made the requested motion\nMs. Curry seconded the motion. There was no vote taken. The board returned from executive session at 7:05 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. .. Special Board Meeting January 12, 2007 Page 2 IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Dr. Daugherty moved to adjourn at 7:05 p.m. Melanie Fox seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: /  o1,S ,D 7 \\i~tfl~ Kather\\ne Mitchell, President Melanie rox, Secretary d LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREEi' LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 17, 2007 RECEIVED FEB 2 - 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert M. Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Six members of the board were present at roll call\nDr. Daugherty was absent. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Dr. Mitchell opened the meeting by stating the purpose: to review a discussion held at the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Tuesday, January 16, 2007, which included Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney John Walker, Board President Katherine Mitchell, and monitors from ODM. Dr. Mitchell provided a written report of items discussed at that meeting for the board's review. Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Heller addressed the board regarding the compliance remedy of 2004 which resulted in the hearing now scheduled for the weekends of January 20 - 21 , and January 27 - 28. Regarding the notes provided to board members by Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Heller stated that it would be the responsibility of the board to agree to items proposed by Mr. Walker outside the realm of the federal court hearing, and that although all of the items presented were important, none of them were related to the remaining issue before the court - - that of program monitoring. Mr. Walker stated his belief that the LRSD had not complied with the court's order of 2004: \"What was promised has not been delivered.\" He encouraged the board to withdraw their request for unitary status, and to reorganize their relationship with the Planning, Research and Evaluation office in order to receive information directly on the issues regarding narrowing the achievement gap. He stated that the programs implemented in the district which were intended to narrow the gap have not been effective and that the achievement gap had widened. Mr. Heller reminded the board that the remaining issue before the court was not related to the achievement disparity or about narrowing the achievement gap. The court found previously that we are unitary in all areas with the exception of program assessment. He emphasized that remaining under court supervision ould not remedy the achievement disparity. Mr. Walker questioned whether the district administration could be trusted to implement directives in good faith without the supervision of the court and stated emphatically that the benefit of staying in court provided a way of making the administration accountable for implementation of programs to address disparities. He asked the board to ensure that the administration is held accountable for remediation of the achievement gap. Board members were given an opportunity to ask questions of Attorneys Walker and Heller. Mrs. Fox asked Mr. Walker about the timing of his current request to delay the hearing. She noted previous directions from the Judge to bring concerns or questions to the court as soon as they arise. She also asked about the impact of state funding on the magnet programs. Mr. Heller reminded the board that it is the responsibility of the court to return local school operations to the local community once the requirements of the court order have been met. The Pulaski County Special School District has not yet been found unitary in the area of student assignment\nthe Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been found unitary in this area. All three districts have found the magnet school programming to be beneficial to maintaining desegregated schools, and continuation of the magnet programs will be up to the local school districts whether federal court supervision continues or not. In addition, state funding for magnet programs is an issue that will continue to be before the state legislature. Mr. Walker disagreed with this response and suggested that the State of Arkansas will discontinue funding the magnet programs once the districts are found to be unitary. Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 3 - Ms. Curry asked Mr. Heller to discuss the \"pro's and con's\" of getting out of court. A written summary had been provided for the board's review. Again, Mr. Heller stated that it is the local school board's responsibility to make sure that district administrators follow court orders and that it is Judge Wilson's responsibility to assess whether that has been done. Mr. Berkley stated that the LRSD had been supervised by the federal court system for many years, and that if indeed Mr. Walker's argument were true - - that we had not met the requirement to reduce the achievement disparity - - that issue would still be before the court. He reminded the board that the only remaining issue is whether the district has embedded an assessment process to insure that the programs implemented are effective in meeting the needs of underachieving students. Mr. Berkley continued by saying that the Judge, board members, administrators, and members of the community, want the same thing . .. to provide additional assistance to the children who need it the most. He asked Mr. Walker and board members to allow the district to use the funds that we spend on court supervision to direct student instruction. Mr. Kurrus referred to the list of suggestions provided by Dr. Mitchell, and stated that all of the items on the list could be accomplished regardless of whether we are under court supervision, with the majority being \"things that we have done, supported, or would support.\" He continued by saying the antagonism between the parties is fruitless, especially in light of the fact that everyone wants improved student achievement. He questioned Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting the district to remain under court supervision and stated that he wouldn't make a motion for a continuance, nor would he support anything that would prevent the district from letting the court make the ultimate decision. Dr. Mitchell asked Mr. Heller to address her concerns regarding how the district will appear in court in light of recent internal problems within the PRE department. Mr. Heller responded by saying that he didn't believe the Judge would base his decision on our internal problems, but would make his decision by remaining focused on the only issue before the court - - that of whether we have deeply embedded a comprehensive evaluation process. Mr. Heller continued by reminding the board that the evaluation process was adopted by the board and presented to the court for approval. The Joshua lntervenors did not object to the process at that time, nor have they filed objections since that time. He continued by reviewing the evaluation process which includes an annual adoption by the board of an evaluation agenda to facilitate future evaluations. In addition, a data warehouse is being developed to ensure that PRE staff and other evaluators will have access to accurate data when they need it. Mr. Heller reminded the board that they approved a resolution in November which stated intent to continue to evaluate programs annually and in good faith. Evaluations and assessments will continue after release from federal court supervision. In response to questions from Mr. Walker regarding development of school portfolios, Mr. Heller reported that Judge Wilson had never ordered school portfolios to be implemented in the LRSD. He reported that the decision to use portfolios had merit, and that district staff had begun the process of establishing a portfolio system. In addition, district administrators Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 4 - had stated intent to put in place school portfolios regardless of whether they were required by the court because it is a useful process to assist in making data-driven decisions. Mr. Walker stated that monitors from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Dr. Karen DeJarnette would testify that they don't believe a process for evaluating the district's programs have been \"deeply embedded.\" He asked what proof exists that there is a process in place. Mr. Armstrong called for the board to join efforts as a community and to become color blind. He stated \"we should forget about the color of our skin and make our decisions based on what is best for all the children in Little Rock.\" Ms. Curry asked if it was possible to ask Judge Wilson for a continuance if for no other reason than to allow the new board members additional time to review information they had recently received. Mr. Heller responded that it would be possible to ask for a brief continuance but that he didn't believe the Judge would look favorably on the request. The fact that the hearings were. scheduled on the weekend was an indication that the Judge believed it was important to bring the matter to a close as soon as possible. Mr. Walker objected to asking for a \"brief' delay, suggesting that no less than a year was needed. Ms. Curry made a motion to have the attorneys file a joint motion between all parties involved to ask the judge for a continuance to allow time to pool efforts and come together as a community and agree to the issues before the court. Mr. Armstrong seconded the motion. Discussion continued. Mr. Berkley expressed concerns regarding Mr. Walker's expectations compared to the district's obligations under the court order. He objected to committing in federal court to things that we can't guarantee. Mr. Kurrus agreed, and further expressed a willingness and desire to renew the board's commitment, but would not support broadening or limiting the obligations that the court has previously imposed. Mr. Heller emphasized his previous statement - - \"it will be up to the judge to decide the length of the continuance.\" He stated that it isn't within our authority to tell Judge Wilson how long we wish to continue, and that whether we are in litigation or released from supervision, it will remain the continuing responsibility of the board to improve the education of the students in the district. He asked the board for direction regarding their reasons for asking for a continuance. Mr. Kurrus stated that the parties had been antagonistic for years and that a declaration of unitary status would provide a window of opportunity to put the antagonism behind and to work together in the best interest of all children in the school district. He agreed with comments made by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Berkley agreed and expressed his desire to do what is in the best interest of all students in the community. He noted that the district has an obligation to the state regarding efforts to seek unitary status and to prove good faith in complying with our commitment. \"We have been diligent in our efforts to become unitary.\" Special Board Meeting January 17, 2007 Page 5 - On the motion made previously by Ms. Curry, the vote was 5-1 , with Ms. Fox casting the \"no\" vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ms. Fox made a motion to convene an executive session to discuss a personnel issue. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion, and the board went into closed session at 7:30 p.m. The board returned from executive session at 8: 12 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Ms. Fox moved to adjourn at 8: 12 p.m. Ms. Curry seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: /  :l S  O? \"'K~ Katherine Mitchell, Presiaent Melanie Fox, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 81 ') WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 25, 2007 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held their regular board meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 25, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building , 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Ex officio representatives for the month of January were also present, Kevin Kim, student from Parkview Magnet High School, and Andre Warren, teacher from Mabelvale Elementary School. Dr. Mitchell welcomed members of the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with the citations. 11. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations \u0026amp; Commendations The first citation was presented to Beverly Cook, a special education teacher at Brady Elementary School, who was recently named the Elementary Language Arts Teacher of the Year by the Arkansas Council of Teachers of English and Language Arts. Ms. Cook had received her award in November at the council's annual convention. Vanessa Cleaver, Accelerated Student Achievement Program Project Coordinator for the District, was recognized for being selected to serve as the chairperson of the Nominations Committee of the Executive Board of the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 2 Dr. Brooks announced that twenty-four (24) LRSD teachers had recently earned National Board Certification, bringing the district total to more sixty National Board Certified teachers. These teachers were present and received a superintendent's citation in recognition of their hard work and dedicated effort to complete the National Board requirements. In addition, Dr. Brooks announced that the CT A was recently given a check in the amount of $33,900 to supplement registration fees for teachers who need financial assistance in order to retake the National Board examination. The newest National Board Certified teachers were announced: Leonard Bryan, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School\nKimberly Collins, Franklin Elementary\nSusan Daniel, Carver Magnet Elementary\nWilliam Felton, M.L. King Magnet Elementary\nShirley Ferguson, McClellan Magnet High School\nKathy Gates, Central High School\nSusan Hestir, Gibbs Magnet Elementary\nAnn Inman, Romine Elementary\nPatricia Jackson, Booker Magnet Elementary\nSheryl Jackson, Mabelvale Elementary\nWanda Keith, McClellan Magnet High School\nEmily Lewis, Parkview Magnet High School\nKelly Long, Williams Magnet Elementary\nKelly Navin, Rockefeller Elementary\nLinda Neal, Franklin Elementary\nJennifer Newborn Thomas, Carver Magnet Elementary\nMonica Norwood, Romine Elementary\nCarol Overton, McClellan Magnet High School\nTamara Ringler, Booker Magnet Elementary\nJohn Scott, Parkview Magnet High School\nRichelle Thomas, M.L. King Magnet Elementary\nApril Thompson, Parkview Magnet High School\nMichelle Vire, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School\nand Mindy Williams, Forest Heights Middle School. Superintendent's Quality Customer Service Awards - Celestine Piggee, Assistant Principal at Parkview Magnet High School, was nominated by Ms. Karen Keyes Diner to receive a quality customer service award. Ms. Diner wrote: \"I want to commend Ms. Piggee and I want you to know how lucky you are to have her on your team. Ms. Piggee exhibits genuine concern for her students and is dedicated to and passionate about her job.\" - Pam Neal, Network Specialist in the Computer Information Services Department, was nominated by the staff of the superintendent's office. She voluntarily assumed the responsibilities associated with the technology requirements of the on-line agenda in January 2006, making sure that everything is in working order before every board meeting. - Certificates of appreciation were awarded to ex-officios for the month of January, Kevin Kim, student at Parkview Magnet High School, and Andre Warren, teacher at Mabelvale Elementary. B. Partners in Education Debbie Milam introduced a new partnership between Brady Elementary School and Big Brothers - Big Sisters of Pulaski County. Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the partnership\nDr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. In addition, Ms. Milam announced that January was national mentoring month and that the district would be initiating efforts to recru it new mentors for students in our schools. She discussed Project 67, a collaborative effort between the LRSD, Pfeifer Camp, and New Futures for Youth, and she invited community groups to partner with the district in providing adult mentors for our students who need role models. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 3 C. Little Rock Housing Authority Presentation Ms. Shelly Ehenger, Executive Director of the Little Rock Housing Authority, presented a check in the amount of $166,269 to the LRSD representing the Housing Authority's PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement. Ms. Ehenger announced that seventeen single family homes would be built across the street from Washington Elementary School where a housing project was recently demolished, and she offered the assistance of the Housing Authority in working for LRSD students who live in city housing. She closed by thanking the board and the administration for the recent sale of the district's old annex building to the Housing Authority, noting that the address would be changed from 100 South Arch Street to 601 West Markham. D. Remarks from Citizens Brenda Thomas introduced herself as a teacher from Baseline Elementary School. She read letters from students on the topic of being compared to Meadowcliff Elementary School in studies regarding merit pay, and expressed distress in being labeled low-performing when Baseline has not been designated on the state's School Improvement list. Cathy Koehler delivered a letter to board members regarding the issue of merit pay. She questioned the reasons for including Baseline in the evaluation study, especially in light of the fact that Baseline isn't on the state's school improvement list. Teresa Gray commended Dr. Brooks for his commitment to moving the district forward with the proposal to build a school in west Little Rock. She thanked the administration and board members for their dedication to making every decision based on what is best for the children and for acknowledging accountability for decisions made. She encouraged the board to move forward without delay to build the west LR school. E. PT A Council Bernadette Turner, PT A Council President, thanked the board for funding the construction at Forest Heights Middle School, and expressed excitement at the groundbreaking ceremony recently held. She congratulated Katherine Mitchell on her recent recognition by the Martin Luther King Commission. The Jefferson PT A hosted the January PT A Council meeting where the winners of the essay and art contests were announced. Ms. Turner reminded board members that the State PTA would host legislative day on February 8th and that the annual Founder's Day luncheon would be held on Tuesday, Feb 13th at The Women's City Club. She encouraged the board, administrators, parents and community members to move forward united and as a team. F. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Wright Knight acknowledged the National Board Certified teachers who were recognized earlier in the agenda. Ms. Knight thanked Dr. Brooks, Mr. Hattabaugh and Mr. Milhollen for providing funds for national board certification testing re-takes and she stressed the importance of providing the additional financial support to teachers who may need to retake one or more sections of the test. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 4 Ms. Knight reminded the board that the CTA had received grant funds to assist approximately thirty first-time testing candidates. She provided statistical information regarding the number of teachers across the state and the nation who are now national board certified and noted that Arkansas ranks11 th nationwide, a 56% increase over 2006. Ms. Knight addressed concerns regarding merit pay and the research study completed by the University of Arkansas. She stated that the findings were modest, extremely limited and that it was impossible to measure effectiveness of merit pay based on one study. She suggested that merit pay issues be subject to independent study and evaluation with the district's Planning, Research and Evaluation office involved in internally comparing test scores of students in schools with merit pay. She also discussed concerns from teachers who were unhappy about having to enter SOAR data along with end of semester grades. She reminded employees that the district has a mental health program and she encouraged teachers to take advantage of that program when they feel overwhelmed. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Kurrus congratulated Dr. Mitchell on her receipt of the King Commission Salute to Greatness Award. He also congratulated Mr. Felton, one of the newly board certified teachers, for a recent television news report on the EAST lab initiative at King Elementary School. Mr. Kurrus expressed pride in the progress at Forest Heights Middle School, especially the groundbreaking for the new construction project at that school. He reminded the board that Matson Construction Company completed the original facility at Forest Heights in 1954, and he expressed pleasure that they would be involved in the new growth at that building. He thanked Bernadette Turner for her contributions to the success at Forest Heights and Fulbright and he asked the board and the community to continue to commit, with conviction and passion, to building schools where they are needed. Ms. Curry congratulated the national board certified teachers who were introduced earlier in the agenda. She encouraged more teachers to participate in the national board process. Ms. Curry committed to working toward a united effort to move the district forward, stating \"We need to be about what we can do for the children in the district.\" Ms. Fox also congratulated the teachers recognized earlier in the agenda and she thanked the audience for attending the board meeting and for their comments and input on the topics before the board. Mr. Berkley thanked the audience and stated that it is \"wonderful to see the level of attention in the community by the attendance at this meeting.\" He congratulated the national board certified teachers and thanked the administration for making funds available to help the teachers who need financial assistance. Dr. Daugherty referred to comments regarding tension among board members and stated his belief that it is healthy to disagree and to discuss topics that bring to the forefront the issues that are critical to running a school district. He reminded the listeners that board members don't receive any compensation and that comments that they don't care about kids are out of line. He stated that his twelve years on the board were provided as a service to the children of the district and that the voters in zone 2 supported him as their representative. He committed to voting his conscious and to listening to the community members who elected him. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Armstrong agreed with comments made by Dr. Daugherty and stated that the voters in zone 6 have a vision for the LR education system and look forward to the day when the people are united and focused on one cause. Andre Warren, the teacher ex-officio representative, thanked the board for the opportunity to serve and to \"see how things work.\" He noted that Mabelvale Elementary had implemented a merit pay program this year, and that he had not noticed any difference in the attitude of the teachers based on this implementation. He expressed doubts about the effectiveness of merit pay, and interest in seeing the results at his school. He questioned the reasons for not including secondary schools in merit pay programs. Kevin Kim, student ex officio from Parkview Magnet School, thanked the board for giving him the opportunity to serve, stating that it was an honor to add the student voice to the agenda. He encouraged the board to listen to the students, and announced that he would be leaving the meeting early to participate in a presentation on racial equity at a conference at the Peabody Hotel scheduled for later in the evening. Kevin asked the board to ensure that new school construction takes environmental concerns into consideration. He provided information and reports on environmental techniques for construction and energy efficient design. Dr. Mitchell invited Kevin to remain active and to participate in the committee working on the west Little Rock School. Dr. Mitchell thanked board members and district staff who attended the Salute to Greatness awards ceremony sponsored by the King Commission. She congratulated the national board certified teachers, expressing understanding for the difficult and rigorous process that was required to achieve this designation. She encouraged the CT A to continue to support the teachers who are participating in this process and she thanked Lou Ethel Nauden for her assistance to the teachers. Regarding the comments made earlier in the agenda by Dr. Daugherty, she noted that she had served on the board for eighteen years because she loves working for the children of the district. She stated that it was her commitment, passion and compassion to provide a quality education for all students. She acknowledged that it would take courage, strength, wisdom and prayer and that the board would need to respect each other and to be honest, open and truthful during the difficult times. She encouraged the board to continue to cooperate to and to work together to accomplish what is best for the children. Dr. Mitchell closed by commending Murphy Oil Company for their commitment to the students in El Dorado and she challenged other foundations to make the same kind of commitment to students in the state. B. Budget Update There was no formal budget report, but Mr. Milhollen was present and available to respond to questions. C. Student Assignment Report Dr. Brooks announced that this had been \"Check Us Out\"week in all district schools, where members of the community were invited to drop in to tour the district's schools. He also reminded the board that open enrollment for the 2007-2008 school year would begin on Monday, January 29th and end on February 9th . Dr. Watson was present to respond to questions. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 6 D. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's monthly report was included in the agenda. There were no questions or comments. E. University of Arkansas Evaluation Report Dr. Gary Ritter from the University of Arkansas had attended the January agenda meeting to provide a preliminary report on the evaluation of the Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in the LRSD. The full report was provided on January 16th to the Arkansas State Legislature. A copy of the full evaluation report was attached to the board's agenda, and Dr. Ritter was present as requested by the board to provide an overview and to respond to questions. F. Construction Report - Bond Projects The monthly construction report was provided in the agenda and Mr. Goodman was present. G. West Little Rock School Update Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh provided a brief summary report regarding the study of the 75-acres on Rahling Road which had been proposed as the site of the new west Little Rock school. Mr. Hattabaugh reviewed an architect's rendering of the property and announced that the property owners had been properly notified of a community meeting at the Thompson Library, 38 Rahling Circle, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30, 2007. This meeting is required as a preliminary step to presenting the district's proposal to the city Planning Commission for rezoning, a conditional use permit, and approval of the site plan. Representatives from the Mehlberger Firm and from Wittenberg, Delany \u0026amp; Davidson were present. Mr. Berkley asked that the timeline of the proposed west Little Rock School project be posted at the district's website so that the public can have access to the process. Brad Chilcote, representing the Mehlberger Firm, responded to questions regarding the size of the facility, approximately 200,000 square feet, and the anticipated capacity of 1,300 students in grades Pre-K through eighth grade. Dr. Daugherty exited the meeting at 7:50 p.m. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes Minutes from the regular board meeting held on December 14, 2006, and from special meetings held on December 12, 2006, December 21 , 2006, January 8, 2007, January 12, 2007 and January 17, 2007 were presented for review and approval. Mr. Armstrong moved to accept the minutes as written\nMs. Curry seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 7 VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW: A. Second Reading - Wellness Policy The district's Nutrition and Physical Activity Advisory Committee proposed operational guidelines and a Wellness Policy to meet federal mandates in compliance with the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 2004. The policy was approved on first reading at the December board meeting, and was presented at this time for approval on second reading. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the policy on second reading. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. Daugherty returned at 8:00 p.m. VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Elementary Science Textbook Adoption The district's elementary textbook committee prepared a recommendation for science textbook adoptions, which will become effective with the 2007-2008 school year. Ms. Suzi Davis and members of the textbook adoption committee were present, and Mr. Glasgow was available to respond to questions. Examples of the materials were displayed for the board and the audience to review. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the recommended textbooks for adoption. Ms. Curry seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The board took a brief recess at 8:02 p.m. and returned at 8:15 p.m. VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel matters were listed in the board's agenda and the superintendent requested approval. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the recommendations\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Dr. Daugherty abstaining. Dr. Mitchell requested information from Mr. Mittiga regarding the evaluation of the reorganization. Mr. Mittiga reported that an outline of the planned study had been forwarded to board members which included a timeline on the completion of the study. There was a question as to whether the board members had received the outline and timeline, and Mr. Mittiga offered to resend the information for the board's review and direction. VIII. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to accept recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty read the listed donations. Ms. Curry made a motion to accept the donations as listed\nMs. Fox seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Donations are listed in the following chart: Board Meeting January 25, 2007 Page 8 IX. DONATIONS SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Bale Elementary School Physical Fitness equipment, valued at UALR / Children's International $6,000 for the school wellness project Booker Arts Magnet Elementary Baldwin Model \"M\" 5'2\" Baby Grand Dr. George and Mrs. Kathleen School piano, valued at $12,000 Paddock Henderson Health Science Magnet $200.00 cash for the athletic program Twin City Bank / Chenal Branch School Romine Elementary School Toys and books valued at American Association of approximately $130.00 and $107.00 University Women cash to assist students during the holiday season B. Monthly Financial Reports The monthly financial reports were provided in the agenda. Mr. Milhollen was present, but no additional information was requested. CLOSING REMARKS Dr. Mitchell announced the upcoming Parent Institute, scheduled for Saturday, February 3, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 :30 p.m. at McClellan High School. She encouraged parents to attend. Dr. Brooks reminded board members that the hearing in Judge Wilson's court would resume al 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 27. X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. on a APPRO~::,n: M~ :~\n:nded by DJ'~ Katherine P. Mitchell, President ~Melanie Fox,~ Secretary \u0026lt;-:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 8, 2007 5:00 p.m. The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda meeting on Thursday, February 8, 2007, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building , 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Katherine Mitchell presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Katherine Mitchell Charles Armstrong Melanie Fox Larry Berkley Dianne Curry Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus MEMBERS ABSENT: None - ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL RECEIVED FEB 2 6 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. The ex officio student representative for the month of February was also present: Stacy Barker, student from Central High School. The teacher representative did not attend. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The meeting was called for the purpose of hearing a report from the School Services Department and for taking action on a proposal to purchase land near Forest Park Elementary School. Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Update: Scholastic Audit Reports \u0026amp; Schools on Year 4 \u0026amp; 5 of School Improvement Dr. Sadie Mitchell provided an overview of the Scholastic Audit reports which were provided for the board as an attachment to the agenda. She noted one item that draws concern and attention - - that of the high rate of teacher absenteeism. Special Board Meeting February 8, 2007 Page 2 Katherine Mitchell expressed concern regarding the allocation of needed resources to the schools and asked if the school staffs had been involved in determining the resources provided. Dr. Sadie Mitchell reported that the principals work with their staffs to prioritize the strategies they want to use in their schools and then notify the administration regarding their needs. B. Properties Adjacent to Forest Park Elementary School The administration presented a recommendation to purchase properties across the street from Forest Park Elementary School which would allow the district to meet the current needs for additional space at Forest Park, and provide land for future growth and development. Hugh Hattabaugh provided a brief summary of the proposal and responded to questions from the board members. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the purchase of property near Forest Park Elementary School\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the board, Dr. Daugherty moved to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: cl, -~-0) ,s!~ Katherine P. Mitchell, President ~~ Melanie Fox, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED January 31 , 2007 FEB 2 - 2007 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on December 12, 14 and 21 , 2006\nJanuary 8, 12 and 17, 2007. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Enclosure Sincerely, C4Y~ Charlotte Marks Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent From: $Return ~ Keep or Toss O [ Post-lr 7668 C!M 1993 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 V,,1\n-tU J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED February 23, 2007 FEB 2 6 2007 omcEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on January 25th and February 8, 2007. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Enclosure Sincerely, Charlotte Marks Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street .  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_925","title":"Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level","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":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2007/2008"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level"],"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/925"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n] ] NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 2007-2008 District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs JAN 1 2010 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING North Little Rock Public Schools 3Analysiso f DisciplineA ctions 3SchooYl ear 2007-2008 3 District Level 3 Elementary 3Middle Schools 3High Schools 10 Year Comparison [ [ ] ] ] J ] In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Suso Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 1974 702 719 366 329 183 227 138 3 3 # Ref # Stu 2122 695 342 220 234 147 87 57 11 6 # Ref # Stu 148 -7 -377 -146 -95 -36 -140 -81 8 3 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 53.22% 1121 30.22% 441 11.89% 485 237 65.54% 281 25.62% 71 6.47% 164 51 66.73% 110 22.31% 38 7.71% 80 27 69.21% 67 20.43% 27 8.23% 44 14 33.33% 0 0.00% 3 33.33% 0 3 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.69% 1310 32.53% 446 11.08% 514 228 62.75% 137 25.14% 57 10.46% 83 40 59.09% 112 28.28% 32 8.08% 71 23 55.41% 46 29.30% 18 11.46% 26 12 78.57% 0 0.00% 3 21.43% 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 7.50% 189 16.86% 5 1.13% 29 -9 -52.43% -144 -51.25% -14 -19.72% -81 -11 -28.88% 2 1.82% -6 -15.79% -9 -4 -61.67% -21 -31.34% -9 -33.33% -18 -2 266.67% 0 0 0.00% 0 -3 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 173 4.66% 3709 102 1526 26 2.37% 1097 11 592 16 3.25% 493 14 304 7 2.13% 328 7 203 3 33.33% 9 3 9 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 149 3.70% 4027 88 1525 9 1.65% 545 6 349 18 4.55% 396 14 255 6 3.82% 157 3 98 0 0.00% 14 0 6 NSF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -24 -13.87% 318 -14 -1 -17 -65.38% -552 -5 -243 2 12.50% -97 0 -49 -1 -14.29% -171 -4 -105 -3 -100.00% 5 -3 -3 In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion BM # Ref % # Stu 0 0 267 162 0 0 227 138 0 0 BM North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From August to May 2006-2007 BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 57 16.01% 31 8.71% 48 19 0 0 0 0 69.21% 67 20.43% 27 8.23% 44 14 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 209 66.14% 53 16.77% 49 15.51% 132 34 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 55.41% 46 29.30% 18 11.46% 57 26 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 -58 -21.72% -4 -7.02% 18 58.06% -30 -14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 -140 -61.67% -21 -31.34% -9 -33.33% -81 -18 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 0.28% 356 1 230 0 0 0 0 7 2.13% 328 7 203 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 5 1.58% 316 2 200 0 0 0 0 6 3.82% 157 3 98 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 4 ##### -40 1 -30 0 0 0 0 -1 -14.29% -171 -4 -105 0 0 0 0 [ # Ref # Stu In School Susp 1171 381 Home Suspension 231 102 ASAC 238 110 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 1 1 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 1330 373 Home Suspension 76 45 ASAC 159 90 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 159 -8 Home Suspension -155 -57 ASAC -79 -20 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion -1 -1 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 53.96% 696 32.07% 215 9.91% 262 114 63.46% 94 25.82% 17 4.67% 50 14 71.47% 75 22.52% 15 4.50% 54 11 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 55.12% 781 32.37% 247 10.24% 259 119 58.46% so 38.46% 3 2.31% 24 3 59.77% 68 25.56% 28 10.53% 38 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 13.58% 85 12.21% 32 14.88% -3 5 -67.10% -44 -46.81% -14 -82.35% -26 -11 -33.19% -7 -9.33% 13 86.67% -16 8 0 0 0 0 -100.00% 0 -1 -100.00% 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 88 4.06% 2170 45 802 22 6.04% 364 7 173 5 1.50% 333 4 179 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 0 2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 55 2.28% 2413 32 783 1 0.77% 130 1 73 11 4.14% 266 7 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -33 -37.50% 243 -13 -19 -21 -95.45% -234 -6 -100 6 ##### -67 3 -25 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 803 321 Home Susoension 221 102 ASAC 91 73 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 2 2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 792 322 Home Suspension 57 43 ASAC 75 57 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 11 6 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -11 1 Home Susoension -164 -59 ASAC -16 -16 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 9 4 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.18% 425 27.62% 226 14.68% 223 123 58.62% 130 34.48% 23 6.10% 66 18 56.88% 35 21.88% 23 14.38% 26 16 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 28.57% 0 0.00% 2 28.57% 0 2 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.07% 529 32.78% 199 12.33% 255 109 57.58% 34 34.34% 5 5.05% 25 5 57.69% 44 33.85% 4 3.08% 33 4 0 0 0 0 78.57% 0 0.00% 3 21.43% 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -1.37% 104 24.47% -27 -11.95% 32 -14 -74.21% -96 -73.85% -18 -78.26% -41 -13 -17.58% 9 25.71% -19 -82.61% 7 -12 0 0 0 0 450.00% 0 1 50.00% 0 -2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 85 5.52% 1539 57 724 3 0.80% 377 3 189 11 6.88% 160 10 125 0 0.00% 0 0 0 3 42.86% 7 3 7 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 94 5.82% 1614 56 742 3 3.03% 99 3 76 7 5.38% 130 7 101 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 14 0 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 9 10.59% 75 -1 18 0 0.00% -278 0 -113 -4 -36.36% -30 -3 -24 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% 7 -3 -1 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions AMBOY ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 5 55.56% 3 33.33% 1 11.11% 4 2 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 75.00% 0 0.00% 4 25.00% 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 72.73% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 140.00% -3 -100.00% 3 300.00% 6 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 9 0 7 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I - I .. In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 4 4 0 0 8 7 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 -3 -1 0 0 8 7 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions BELWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 87.50% 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 80.00% 0 0.00% 1 20.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 72.73% 2 18.18% 1 9.09% 2 1 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -42.86% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 8 7 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 43 27 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 1 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 33 18 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -7 -6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -10 -9 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 80.00% 2 20.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 81.13% 9 16.98% 1 1.89% 8 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 25.00% 2 50.00% 1 25.00% 2 1 0 0 0 0 63.46% 19 36.54% 0 0.00% 11 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -87.50% 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 -23.26% 10 111.11% -1 -100.00% 3 -1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 0 9 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 53 0 36 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 52 0 29 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -7 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 10 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 19 10 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 5 4 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 9 4 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 5 4 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 71.43% 1 7.14% 2 14.29% 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 45.24% 5 11.90% 14 33.33% 4 11 0 0 0 0 45.45% 2 18.18% 3 27.27% 2 2 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 90.00% 4 ##### 12 600.00% 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 7.14% 14 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 4 9.52% 42 1 26 0 0 0 0 1 9.09% 11 1 9 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 3 300.00% 28 0 16 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 9 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 56 30 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home 5usoension 29 19 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -27 -11 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 72.73% 8 10.39% 13 16.88% 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 78.38% 7 18.92% 1 2.70% 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -48.21% -1 -12.50% -12 -92.31% 0 -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 77 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 37 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -40 0 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 13 9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 3 3 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -10 -6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions INDIAN HIL:LSE LEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 46.43% 9 32.14% 6 21.43% 6 5 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 42.86% 0 0.00% 4 57.14% 0 4 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -76.92% -9 -100.00% -2 -33.33% -6 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 28 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 -13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ [ In School Suso Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 60.00% 2 40.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 70.59% 4 23.53% 1 5.88% 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 9 300.00% 2 100.00% 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 17 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 47 26 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 105 63 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 43 22 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -4 -4 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -102 -60 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 90.38% 2 3.85% 3 5.77% 2 1 0 0 0 0 69.08% 31 20.39% 13 8.55% 15 6 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 79.63% 9 16.67% 2 3.70% 5 2 0 0 0 0 75.00% 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -8.51% 7 350.00% -1 -33.33% 3 1 0 0 0 0 -97.14% -30 -96.77% -13 -100.00% -14 -6 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 52 0 29 0 0 0 0 3 1.97% 152 3 87 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 54 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% -148 -3 -83 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 52 30 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 52 31 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 0 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 3 3 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 72.22% 19 26.39% 1 1.39% 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 57.78% 21 23.33% 17 18.89% 8 8 0 0 0 0 60.00% 2 40.00% 0 0.00% 2 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 10.53% 16 1600.00% -8 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 72 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 90 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 12 8 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 45 26 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 ] 0 Home Susoension 10 9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 27 22 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension -2 1 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -18 -4 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 3 18.75% 1 6.25% 3 1 0 0 0 0 70.31% 15 23.44% 3 4.69% 11 3 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 83.33% 1 8.33% 1 8.33% 1 1 0 0 0 0 43.55% 18 29.03% 12 19.35% 8 8 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -16.67% -2 -66.67% 0 0.00% -2 0 0 0 0 0 -40.00% 3 20.00% 9 300.00% -3 5 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 16 0 12 0 0 0 0 1 1.56% 64 1 41 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 12 0 11 0 0 0 0 5 8.06% 62 2 40 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 -1 0 0 0 0 4 400.00% -2 1 -1 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 6 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 11 6 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 [ 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 5 0 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions PARK HILL ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % tf Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 75.00% 2 25.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 57.89% 4 21.05% 3 15.79% 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 83.33% 2 100.00% 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 5.26% 19 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . I # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension 23 17 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 34 23 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Suspension 10 8 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 0 0 Home Susoension -13 -9 ASAC 0 0 Intervention Class -34 -23 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 74.19% 5 16.13% 3 9.68% 5 1 0 0 0 0 58.62% 12 20.69% 9 15.52% 10 3 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 -56.52% -5 -100.00% -3 -100.00% -5 -1 0 0 0 0 -100.00% -12 -100.00% -9 -100.00% -10 -3 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 31 0 23 0 0 0 0 3 5.17% 58 3 39 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 10 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -21 0 -15 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% -58 -3 -39 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 0 0 25 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 96.15% 1 3.85% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0 -22 -88.00% -1 -100.00% 0 -14 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 26 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 0 0 0 0 0 -23 0 -15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 262 18 Home Susoension 1 1 ASAC 72 36 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 266 106 Home Susoension 0 0 ASAC 52 33 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 4 88 Home Suspension -1 -1 ASAC -20 -3 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 60.79% 138 26 71 22 50.00% 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 0 80.90% 15 16.85% 2 2.25% 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 52.16% 173 33.92% 59 11.57% 75 30 0 0 0 0 54.74% 25 26.32% 9 9.47% 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 1.53% 35 25.36% 33 126.92% 4 8 -100.00% -1 -100.00% 0 -1 0 -27.78% 10 66.67% 7 350.00% 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 5 431 4 115 0 0.00% 2 0 2 0 0.00% 89 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 12 2.35% 510 8 219 0 0 0 0 9 9.47% 95 5 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 7 140.00% 79 4 104 0 -2 0 -2 9 6 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 343 93 Home Susoension 3 3 ASAC 92 27 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 [ # Ref # Stu In School Susp 249 70 Home Susoension 1 1 ASAC 32 17 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -94 -23 Home Susoension -2 -2 ASAC -60 -10 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 51.81% 156 116 49 56 42.86% 3 42.86% 0 0.00% 3 0 70.23% 26 19.85% 10 7.63% 17 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.40% 113 22.42% 117 23.21% 42 64 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 0 1 60.38% 11 20.75% 9 16.98% 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -27.41% -43 -27.56% 1 0.86% -7 8 -66.67% -3 -100.00% 1 -3 1 -65.22% -15 -57.69% -1 -10.00% -9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 47 662 23 221 1 14.29% 7 1 7 3 2.29% 131 3 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 25 4.96% 504 16 192 0 0.00% 2 0 2 1 1.89% 53 1 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -22 -46.81% -158 -7 -29 -1 -100.00% -5 -1 -5 -2 -66.67% -78 -2 -19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Susoension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 401 50.44% 294 65 122 111 33 105 58.99% 49 27.53% 14 7.87% 50 29 12 31 62.00% 18 36.00% 1 2.00% 18 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 550 59.14% 318 34.19% 50 5.38% 128 95 17 29 52.73% 25 45.45% 0 0.00% 18 14 0 21 55.26% 16 42.11% 1 2.63% 17 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu 149 37.16% 24 8.16% -15 -23.08% 6 -16 -16 -76 -72.38% -24 -48.98% -14 -100.00% -32 -15 -12 -10 -32.26% -2 -11.11% 0 0.00% -1 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -100.00% 0 -1 -100.00% -1 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Re.f # Stu # Stu 35 795 17 283 10 5.62% 178 5 96 0 0.00% 50 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 0 2 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 12 1.29% 930 5 245 1 1.82% 55 1 33 0 0.00% 38 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -23 -65.71% 135 -12 -38 -9 -90.00% -123 -4 -63 0 -12 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -2 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 165 58 Home Susoension 120 48 ASAC 44 31 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 265 69 Home Susoension 46 26 ASAC 54 23 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 100 11 Home Suspension -74 -22 ASAC 10 -8 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 58.30% 108 8 37 4 68.18% 42 23.86% 3 1.70% 19 3 68.75% 16 25.00% 2 3.13% 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 56.50% 177 37.74% 21 4.48% 47 8 63.01% 25 34.25% 2 2.74% 10 2 67.50% 16 20.00% 9 11.25% 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 60.61% 69 63.89% 13 162.50% 10 4 -61.67% -17 -40.48% -1 -33.33% -9 -1 22.73% 0 0.00% 7 350.00% -6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 2 283 2 101 11 6.25% 176 1 71 2 3.13% 64 1 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 6 1.28% 469 3 127 0 0.00% 73 0 38 1 1.25% 80 1 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 4 200.00% 186 1 26 -11 -100.00% -103 -1 -33 -1 -50.00% 16 0 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion In School Susp Home Suspension ASAC Intervention Class Expulsion # Ref # Stu 504 180 23 22 54 40 0 0 2 2 # Ref # Stu 494 181 17 13 39 31 0 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NLRHS EAST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 49.12% 300 165 144 87 36.51% 28 44.44% 9 14.29% 23 9 47.37% 33 28.95% 16 14.04% 24 11 0 0 0 0 33.33% 0 0.00% 1 16.67% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 46.08% 358 33.40% 150 13.99% 147 79 54.84% 9 29.03% 3 9.68% 7 3 56.52% 21 30.43% 4 5.80% 18 4 0 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 0 0 COMPARISON BM BF NBM # Ref % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu # Stu -10 -1.98% 58 19.33% -15 -9.09% 1 3 -8 -6 -26.09% -19 -67.86% -6 -66.67% -9 -16 -6 -15 -27.78% -12 -36.36% -12 -75.00% -9 -6 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 200.00% 0 -1 -100.00% 4 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 57 1026 35 446 3 4.76% 63 3 57 11 9.65% 114 10 85 0 0 0 0 3 50.00% 6 3 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 70 6.53% 1072 40 447 2 6.45% 31 2 25 5 7.25% 69 5 58 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 6 0 6 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 13 22.81% 46 5 1 -1 -33.33% -32 -1 -32 -6 -54.55% -45 -5 -27 0 0 0 0 -3 -100.00% 0 -3 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 299 141 Home Susoension 25 23 ASAC 30 26 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 0 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp 298 141 Home Susoension 40 30 ASAC 36 26 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 5 0 # Ref # Stu In School Susp -1 0 Home Susoension 15 7 ASAC 6 0 Intervention Class 0 0 Expulsion 5 0 North Little Rock School District Analysis of Disciplinary Actions NLRHS WEST CAMPUS HIGH SCHOOL From August to May 2006-2007 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 58.40% 125 61 79 36 69.44% 7 19.44% 4 11.11% 7 4 78.95% 1 2.63% 7 18.42% 1 5 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 1 2007-2008 BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu 54.98% 171 31.55% 49 9.04% 108 30 58.82% 25 36.76% 2 2.94% 18 2 59.02% 23 37.70% 0 0.00% 15 0 0 0 0 0 62.50% 0 0.00% 3 37.50% 0 0 COM PARIS.ON BM BF NBM % # Ref % # Ref % # Stu # Stu -0.33% 46 36.80% -12 -19.67% 29 -6 60.00% 18 257.14% -2 -50.00% 11 -2 20.00% 22 2200.00% -7 -100.00% 14 -5 0 0 0 0 0 2 200.00% 0 -1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 27 512 21 277 0 0.00% 36 0 34 0 0.00% 38 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0 1 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu 24 4.43% 542 16 295 1 1.47% 68 1 51 2 3.28% 61 2 43 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 8 0 0 NBF Total # Ref % # Ref # Stu # Stu -3 -11.11% 30 -5 18 1 32 1 17 2 23 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 -1 2 2 1 1 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level In School Suspensions 500-' c::::::::::? 000- / ..t=. 500- ,,- c:::::::\n? c::: 000- ,,- - 500- ,,- '--- ~ 0 I\n~ I\n,___ I\n,___ ,\nu r 1L BM BF NBM NBF D 06-07 1974 1121 441 173 D 07-08 2122 1310 446 149  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Home Suspensions 800-\" .:::\n700- ,,,- 600- ,,,- 500- ,,,- 400- ,,,- .!...=.\n, 300- ,,- ~ 200- v- - ~ 100- v- - .- 0 - - LJ ~ - BM BF NBM NBF C 06-07 719 281 71 26 D 07-08 342 137 57 9 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level ASAC 350- ~ 300- ,,.. ... 250- ,,- '=7 200- ,,- 150- ,,- .I ~ 100- ,,- - 50- ,,- - .---::a ~,, I - Cl. 0 - - .,.- -L__J I BM BF NBM NBF E 06-07 329 110 38 16 D 07-08 234 112 32 18 06-07 007-08 -1  I : I . , ~ I J'  I  ~  ] . J North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Intervention Class 250-/ ~ 200- v\u0026gt;-- 150- /- 100- /- _7 ~1 50- /- - ~ 0 L,~ L\n~ ~lnL-I 0-, BM BF NBM NSF 006-07 227 67 27 7 007-08 87 46 18 6  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Expulsion 12-/ ~ 10-\" 8-/ ~ 6_/ 4_,, c=. - / ,, :::jj 2- 1/,- - 0 ~ .... , 1.. ....__ , ~ BM BF NBM NBF IC 06-07 3 0 3 3  07-08 11 0 3 0 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 In School Suspensions 1 _/ 0.9_/ o.a-v 0.1-v 0.6_v 0.5-' 0.4_/ 0.3-' 0.2_/ 0.1-v 0 ,, I I I I I I I 7 / ~ ~ I BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0 I 06-07 007-08 [ IJ IJ j] IJ IJ ] J l J l J l J J [ ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Home Suspension 300-\" ,::\n250- v- _:::::::::? 200- ,,- 150- ,,- 100- ,,- ~ 50- ,,- ~ ,c__,\n1 tiCZ. I ' _r-\"71 0 - ~ ~ BM BF NBM NBF C 06-07 267 57 31 1 D 07-08 209 53 49 5 - 06-07 D 07-08 J J J J J J J J [ J [ I J [ I J J J J J ] j J ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 ASAC 1-  0.9-v 0.8-v 0.7-\" 0.6-  o.s-  0.4-  0.3-/ 0.2-  0.1-  0 BM BF NBM NBF Cl 06-07 0 0 0 0  07-08 0 0 0 0 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Intervention Class 250-/ :::j 200- vf--- 150- /f- 100- ,,- ..::::::::7 50- - ~1 ,,- !.__7 0 - ~ rrn_~_ _. ~ ~ I 71_ BM BF NBM NBF ID 06-07 227 67 27 7 D 07-08 87 46 18 6 06-07  07-08 ] J . ] ]  ] IJ , r ] - ] IJ _J ] ~ l J -I J 1 j ] ] . ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9-/ o.a-  o. 7 _,, 0.6_v o.s- 0.4---- 0.3-  0.2-  0.1-v 0 \" I I I I I I I I I I , I BM BF NBM NBF 006-07 0 0 0 0 007-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools In School Suspensions 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM  06-07 1171 D 07-08 1330 - . - . BF NBM 696 215 781 247 NBF 88 55  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Home Suspension __..,......,.,... .... ...___-~-~ - -----=--------~-~- ._. ~J ---------- ' 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  06-07 231  07-08 76 BF NBM 94 17 50 3 NBF 22 1  06-07  07-08 : l J  J IJ IJ : I J IJ J ] J ] ] J LJ J J J ] J IT 1 250 200 150 100 50 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools ASAC BM BF NBM NBF 238 75 15 5 159 68 28 11  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Intervention Class .... - 1 _/ 0.9_v o.a-v 0.7_v 0.6-V 0.5-/ 0.4-  0.3-/ 0.2-  0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools In School Suspensions - - . BM BF NBM NBF 803 425 226 85 792 529 199 94  06-07  07-08 250 [] 200 ] 150 ]] 100 50 ] 0  06-07 D 07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Home Suspension ... . .,,\n\u0026gt;-\n,....--...,---- -. \n. \"'-----'-'- ~-~~---~--..::. :...-,-..  06-07  07-08 BM BF NBM NBF 221 130 23 3 57 34 5 3 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools ASAC --.  ' ::.. ... - ... BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 91 35 23 11 D 07-08 75 44 4 7 --  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Intervention Class 1 _/ 0.9_v 0.8-V 0.7-v 0.6-\" 0.5-'/ 0.4-v 0.3Y 0.2-v 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  06-07 0 0 0 0 D 07-08 0 0 0 0  06-07  07-08 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 2 0 2 3 11 0 3 0  06-07  07-08 : l J : I J : ] I l J J \"] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison In School Suspension ., .. ..,. 2500~-----------~ 1500 1000 500 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139  00-01 1092 556 267 69 D 01-02 1276 574 354 107  02-03 1903 1050 512 172 D 03-04 1961 980 394 220  04-05 1560 860 390 172 D 05-06 1843 1189 471 158  06-07 1974 1121 441 173  07-08 2122 1310 446 149  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  06-07  07-08 [J J :J J :J] r ] - ] ] North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Home Suspension 1200 1000 800 600- 4001 200- 0- ) lb. t--...i. BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21 D 02-03 522 193 63 13 ll!!I0 3-04 469 157 66 18  04-05 753 325 111 43 D 05-06 1166 565 208 54  06-07 719 281 71 26  n7.na ~,t? 1~7 57 9  98-99  99-00 D 00-01  01-02 D 02-03 03-04  04-05 D 05-06  06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison ASAC 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27  00-01 325 136 56 12 D 01-02 210 83 52 11  02-03 244 86 83 25 D 03-04 316 155 51 16 04-05 3 1 0 0  05-06 40 15 9 5 D 06-07 329 110 38 16  07-08 234 112 32 18  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04 04-05  05-06 D 06-07  07-08 - ] I North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Intervention Class 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21 D 01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 252 97 52 11  03-04 195 70 18 11  04-05 110 30 11 1  05-06 84 38 13 3 D 06-07 227 67 27 7  07-08 87 46 18 6  98-99  99-00  00-01 D 01-02  02-03 D 03-04  04-05  05-06 D 06-07  07-08 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Expulsion 12- 10- ,, 8 6- I--- 4 2-I i I- 0- J 11 BM BF NBM NBF  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1  02-03 2 0 2 0  03-04 2 0 2 0  04-05 11 0 9 1  05-06 4 2 5 2  06-07 3 0 3 3 I -- nn .... n st n  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03  03-04 04-05  05-06  06-07  07-08\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\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":18,"next_page":19,"prev_page":17,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":204,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}