{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_37","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":["2007-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (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/37"],"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 January 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 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 FEB 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 January 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 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 January 2007. Respectfully Submitted, 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 January 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 t.d~ RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 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 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 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. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued} B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2007 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 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 January 31, 2007 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 January 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 January 31, 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 January 31, 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 January 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 January 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 January 31, 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 January 31, 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 January 31, 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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. 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 11. 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 January 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 January 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 11. 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 l,.ead 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\nupdated 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 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 January 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 January 31, 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 January 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31, 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 January 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 January 31, 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 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 January 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. 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 January 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 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 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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 Novembe.r 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 January 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. 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 January 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 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 January 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. 39 . e 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 January 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. 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 January 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.  1,l~lt1~~ ~1.v.i ~\nr:r. 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 January 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. 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 January 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. 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 January 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 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 January 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 January 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 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 January 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 oncompensatory 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 January 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 January 31, 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 January 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 (ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new 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 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 January 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 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 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 Sc~ool 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 January 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, Specic!I 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of January 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementat\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_863","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","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":["2007-01/2007-06"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"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/863"],"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.\n BOARD oF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED JAN1 7 2007 OfflCEOF DESEGREGOANTIITOONR ING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Trent Cox, President II. INVOCATION, Marshalluna Land, NLRHS Senior, daughter of III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Trent Cox, President Scott Teague, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Darrell Montgomery, Member Margo Tenner, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition - S. Brazear 1. New National Board Certified Teachers Ms. Eldra Land a. Takecia Cox - Ridgeroad Middle Charter b. Kay Ewart - NLRHS West Campus c. Melissa Herring - Crestwood Elementary d. Kathy Holland- NLRHS West Campus e. Angie Hutson - NLRHS West Campus f. Jennifer Kimbrell - Crestwood Elementary g. Kendra Leirer - NLRHS East Campus - VI. Page 2 - Board Agenda January 18, 2007 DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)-Page A - 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F, G. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report- G. Tucker Consider Revisions to Board Policies 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and 4.43 Bullying - Page B - 1 - B. Acklin Consider Revisions to Board Policies 3.6 Certified Personnel Employee Training\n3.6 - CL Classified Personnel Employee Training\n5.4 Professional Development and 5 .15 Grading - Page C - 1 - A. 0 lsen Consider Elementary Textbook Committee's Recommendation - Page D - 1 - K. Lowe Consider Approval of Secondary Textbook Adoption Committee - Page E - 1 - R. Dickey Consider Crestwood Elementary Bid Proposal - Page F - 1 - J. Massey H. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Board Workshop - Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:00 A.M. B. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, February 15, 2007 5 P.M. XI. XII. XIII. STUDENT EXPULSION Page 3 - Board Agenda January 18, 2007 SUPERINTENDENT'S ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 14, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in regular session on Thursday, December 14, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Lynne Looney, NLRSD Teacher, addressed the Board to express her concerns about the hiring of administrators in the district. President Trent Cox called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Rebecca Galloway, Park Hill Elementary School fifth grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Trent Cox, President Scott Teague, Vice President Marty Moore, Secretary Dorothy Williams, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Darrell Montgomery, Member Absent Margo Tenner, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDr. Angela Olsen, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Superintendent's Honor Roll: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced Dr. Macy Purtle, NLRHS West Campus media specialist, as a new member. Dr. Purtle was nominated by Anita Cameron, NLRHS West Campus Principal for her work with students and staff, her leadership in beginning several book clubs and her work with the remediation classes. John Riley presented Dr. Purtle with a plaque thanking her for her dedication to our district. Lisa Gray, Argenta Academy paraprofessional, nominated by A-1 Charles Jones, Argenta Academy principal, for her dedication to the Argenta students. Ms. Gray worked off contract this summer helping register students and is a great asset - for her work as Argenta's parent coordinator. Darrell Montgomery presented Ms. Gray with a plaque in appreciation for her work at Argenta Academy. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the minutes of the November 16, 2006 (Regular) meeting as printed. Scott Teague seconded the IJ?Otion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider, Certified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, stated the certified personnel had voted and approved the changes to Board Policy CA-Personnel Policies Committee and the teacher and administrator salary schedule revisions. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker, Classified Personnel Policies Committee Chair, stated the classified personnel had voted and approved all of the classified salary schedule revisions. Mrs. Tucker stated the committee proposed to add Board Policy CEB Personal Leave as a classified policy adding CL to the title with the following revisions: adding the words \"or building administrator\" in the first sentence of the second paragraph after the word \"principal\"\ninserting the following sentence as the fifth sentence of the paragraph: \"Part time employee(s) personal leave will be prorated according to the number of hours worked per day\"\nand to delete the sentence \"This policy does not apply to twelve month Administrative personnel.\" from the end of the policy. MOTION John Riley moved to return policy CFEB - CL to the Classified Personnel Policies Committee for modifications of the revisions. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner- absent) A-2 Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed on pages O - 1 through T- 17. MOTION John Riley moved for the Board to enter into executive session. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner- absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 5:23 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 5.35 p.m. MOTION Darrell Montgomery moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, updated the Board on the proposed construction projects of Lakewood Middle School and Crestwood Elementary. He stated the Lakewood Middle School bids would be ready and in order for the February Board meeting. Mr. Massey explained that bids for Crestwood Elementary addition would be opened on January 9, 2007 and he would bring a recommendation at the January Board meeting. He stated an appeal has been filed for additional monies due to the work that needs be done on the slope of the ground at Crestwood Elementary. The Board agreed to set a Board Workshop on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 9 a.m. at the J.W. Nutt Company on Crestwood Road. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Marty Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Cox, Montgomery, Moore, Riley, Teague, and Williams None (Tenner - absent) President Cox declared the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. A-3 Trent Cox, President Marty Moore, Secretary A-4 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. Military personnel, such as ROTC cadets, acting in the course of their official duties are excepted. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgun, BB gun, rifle, pellet gun, raz.or, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, nun chucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentally brought a weapon to school including a weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a fireann shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendation for a student on a case-by-case basis. By using the case by case exception, the School Board will be able to discipline students with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statementa cknowledgingt hat they have read and understands aid laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of parental responsibility for allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property.T he parentso r legal guardianss hall sign a statementa cknowledgingth at they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: AC.A. 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) AC.A.  6 17 113 AC.A.  5-27-206 20 uses 8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-1 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 4.22-WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess a weapon, display what appears to be a weapon, or threaten to use a weapon while in school, on or about school property, before or after school, in attendance at school or any school sponsored activity, en route to or from school or any school sponsored activity, off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school sponsored activity or event. A weapon is defined as any knife, gun, pistol, revolver, shotgun, BB gun, rifle, pellet gun, razor, ice pick, dirk, box cutter, nun chucks, pepper spray or other noxious spray, explosive, or any other instrument or substance capable of causing bodily harm. Possession means having a weapon, as defined in this policy, on the student's body or in an area under his/her control. If, prior to any questioning or search by any school personnel, a student discovers that he/she has accidentallyb rought a weapon to school includinga weapon that is in a vehicle on school grounds, and the student informs the principal or a staff person immediately, the student will not be considered to be in possession of a weapon. The weapon shall be confiscated and held in the office until such time as the student's parent/legal guardian shall pick up the weapon from the school's office. Repeated offenses are unacceptable and shall be grounds for disciplinary action against the student as otherwise provided for in this policy. Students found to be in possession on the school campus of a firearm shall be recommended for expulsion for a period of not less than one year. The School Board shall have the discretion to modify such expulsion recommendationf or a student on a case-by-caseb asis. Parents or legal guardians of students expelled under this policy shall be given a copy of the current laws regarding the possibility of - parental responsibilityf or allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property. Parents or legal guardians shall sign a statementa cknowledgingt hat they have read and understands aid laws prior to readmitting the student. Parents or legal guardians of a student enrolling from another school after the expiration of an expulsion period for a weapons policy violation shall also be given a copy of the current laws regarding the. possibilityo f parental responsibilityf or allowing a child to possess a weapon on school property.T he parentso r legal guardianss hall sign a statementa cknowledgingth at they have read and understand said laws prior to the student being enrolled in school. A report will be given to the North Little Rock Police Department and criminal charges may be filed following an investigation. Legal References: A.CA 6-18-502 (c) (2)(A)(B) AC.A. 6-18-507 (e) (1)(2) AC.A. 6-17-113 20 uses  8921 Date Adopted: 9/26/95 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-2 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADD~TIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environment necessary to promote student learning, and will not be tolerated by the Board of Directors. Students who bully another person shall be held accountable for their actions whether it occurs on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored or approved function, activity, or event\nor going to or from school or a school activity in a school vehicle or school bus\nor at designated school bus stops. Definition: Bullying is any pattern of behavior by a student, or a group of students, that is intended to harass, intimidate, ridicule, humiliate, or instill fear in another child or group of children. Bullying behavior can be a threat of, or actual, physical harm or it can be verbal abuse of the child. Bullying also includes unacceptable behavior identified in this policy which is electronically transmitted. Bullying is a series of recurring actions committed over a period of time directed toward one student, or successive, separate actions directed against multiple students. Examples of \"bullying\" may include but are not limited to a pattern of behavior involving one or more of the following: I. Sarcastic \"compliments\" about another student's personal appearance\n2. Pointed questions intended to embarrass or humiliate\n3. Mocking, taunting or belittling\n4. Non-verbal threats and/or intimidation such as \"fronting\" or \"chesting\" a person\n5. Demeaning humor relating to a student's race, gender, ethnicity or personal characteristics\n6. Blackmail, extortion, demands for protection money or other involuntary donations or loans\n7. Blocking access to school property or facilities\n8. Deliberate physical contact or injury to person or property\n9. Stealing or hiding books or belongings\nand/or 10. Threats of harm to student(s), possessions, or others. B-3 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Students are encouraged to report behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, to their teacher or the building principal. The report may be made anonymously. Teachers and other school employees who have witnessed, or are reliably informed that, a student has been a victim of behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, shall report the incident(s) to the principal. Parents or legal guardians may submit to the principal written reports of incidents they feel constitute bullying, or if allowed to continue wottld constitute bullying. The principal shall be responsible for investigating the incident( s) to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. The person or persons r@rting behavior they consider to be bullying shall not be subject to retaliation or reprisal in any form. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, consideration may be given to other violations of the student handbook which may have simultaneously occurred. Notice of what constitutes bullying, the District's prohibition against bullying, and the consequences for students who bully shall be conspicuously posted in every classroom, cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus. Parents, students, school volunteers, and employees shall be given copies of the notice. Copies of this policy shall be available upon request. Legal Reference: Act 681 of2003 A.C.A.  6-18-514 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-4 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 4.43-BULL YING Respect for the dignity of others is a cornerstone of civil society. Bullying creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, robs a person of their dignity, detracts from the safe environment necessary to promote student learning, and will not be tolerated by the Board of Directors. Students who bully another person shall be held accountable for their actions whether it occurs on the school grounds\noff school grounds at a school sponsored or approved function, activity, or event\nor going to or from school or a school activity. Definition: Bullying is any pattern of behavior by a student, or a group of students, that is intended to harass, intimidate, ridicule, humiliate, or instill fear in another child or group of children. Bullying behavior can be a threat of, or actual, physical harm or it can be verbal abuse of the child. Bullying is a series of recurring actions committed over a period of time directed toward one student, or successive, separate actions directed against multiple students. Examples of \"bullying\" may include but are not limited to a pattern of behavior involving one or more of the following: 1. Sarcastic \"compliments\" about another student's personal appearance\n2. Pointed questions intended to embarrass or humiliate\n3. Mocking, taunting or belittling\n4. Non-verbal threats and/or intimidation such as \"fronting\" or \"chesting\" a person\n5. Demeaning humor relating to a student's race, gender, ethnicity or personal characteristics\n6. Blackmail, extortion, demands for protection money or other involuntary donations or loans\n7. Blocking access to school property or facilities\n8. Deliberate physical contact or injury to person or property\n9. Stealing or hiding books or belongings\nand/or 10. Threats of harm to student(s), possessions, or others. B-5 Students are encouraged to report behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, to their teacher or the building principal. 4 report may be made anonymously. Teachers and other school employees who have witnessed, or are reliably informed that, a student has been a victim of behavior they consider to be bullying, including a single action which if allowed to continue would constitute bullying, shall report the incident(s) to the principal. Parents or legal guardians may submit to the principal written reports of incidents they feel constitute bullying, or if allowed to continue would constitute bullying. The principal shall be responsible for investigating the incident(s) to determine if disciplinary action is warranted. Students found to be in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. In determining the appropriate disciplinary action, consideration may be given to other violations of the student handbook which may have simultaneously occurred. Notice of what constitutes bullying, the District's prohibition against bullying, and the consequences for students who bully shall be conspicuously posted in every classroom, cafeteria, restroom, gymnasium, auditorium, and school bus. Parents, students, school volunteers, and employees shall be given copies of the notice. Legal Reference: Act 681 of2003 Last Revised: 12/18/03 B-6 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 3.6- CERI'IF'IEDP ERSONNELE MPLOYEET RAINING The district administration and the building principal have the authority to require attendance at specific professional development activities in conjunction with state law and ADE Rules Governing Professional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each certified employee shall receive a minimum of sixty (60) hours of professional development annually which must be approved b( the district and :fulfilled between July 1 !lfid Me 30 or Jlllle 1 and May 31, to be determiRed annually. Professional development hours earned in excess of sixty ( 60) in the designated year cannot be carried over to the next year. The goal of all professional development activities shall be improved student achievement and academic performance that results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional development plan shall demonstrate scientifically research-based best practice, and shall be based on student achievement data and in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Teachers and administrators shall be involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to - revise the school improvement plan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The district shall determine on an annual basis how many, if any, flex hours of professional development it will allow to be substituted for district scheduled professional development offerings. The determination may be made at an individual building, a grade, or by subject basis. Employees must receive advance approval from the building principal or district designee for activities they wish to have qualify for flex professional development hours. To the fullest extent possible, professional development activities are to be scheduled and attended such that teachers do not miss their regular teaching assignments. Six (6) approved flex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professional development earned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved by the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-1 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty (60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management ADDIDONALPDOPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-2 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course 1hat meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty ( 60) hours of professional development required annually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university course work. Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Nete!r.-1 The Rules Goerrnng Professional DeelOJ3men4t .02 require the district to ehoose the option it will follow and \"doeument'' its ehoice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy aad also iH the district's ''plea\" for professional deelopment required b~ A.C.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.CA. 6-15-404(f)(2) AC.A. 6-17-703 AC.A. 6-17-704 A.CA. 6-17-705 A.CA. 6-15-1004(c) AC.A. 6-15-1703 A.CA. 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: March 21, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-3 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6-- CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendancea t specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach pertifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (6 0) hours of professional development annually which must be approved by the district and fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually. 1 Professional development hours earnedi n excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carriedo ver to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hallb e improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional developmentp lan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administrators hallb e involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuouslyi mprove the district's professionald evelopmento fferingsa nd to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many, if any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substitutedf or districts cheduledp rofessionald evelopmento fferings.T he determinationm ay be made at an individualb uilding,a grade,o r by subjectb asis. Employeesm ust receivea dvancea pproval from the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esigneef or activitiest hey wish to have qualifyf or flex professional developmenth ours. To the fulleste xtentp ossible,p rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesa re to be scheduled and attendeds uch that teachersd o not miss their regulart eachinga ssignments.S ix (6 ) approvedf lex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professionald evelopmente arned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved~ byt he building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activitiesw hich are to be pre-approvedb y the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esignee. C-4 CURRENT BOARD POLICY PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty (60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty ( 60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management. ADDITIONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. C-5 CURRENT BOARD POLICY PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development - jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district1/schoolp rograms, and approved college/university course work. Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Notes: 1 The Rules Governing Professional Development 4.02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document'' its choice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy and also in the distrjct's ''plan\" for professional development required by A.C.A.  6-17-704(c)(l). - Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4- STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.C.A.  6-15-404()(2) A.C.A.  6-17-703 A.CA. 6-17-704 A.C.A.  6-17-705 A.C.A.  6-15-1004(c) A.C.A.  6-15-1703 A.C.A.  6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: March 21, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-6 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 3.6 CL- CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be detennined ar.IR-Jal1l y. The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopmentT. he resultso f the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to revise the schooli mprovementp lan. Classifiede mployeesa re not eligiblef or flexiblep rofessionald evelopmenth ours (flex hours) The dis1rict administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, they must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receive credit for his/herp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitye ach employeei s responsiblef or obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief financiala nd informations erviceso fficer and the administratived irectoro f finance, audit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement. All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receive or furnishd ocumentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o attendr equiredp rofessionald evelopmenti n any given year shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. C-7 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups,d istancel earning,i nternships,d istrict/schoopl rograms, and approved college/universityco urse work Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmenCt ouncilS tandards. Professional development activities shall relate to' the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmentaslt ages\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativele arningc ommunity. Netw.-1- The Rules GoverningP ffifessionaDl eo\nelopmen4t .02 require the districtt o choose the option it will followa nd \"doeument''i ts ehoiee.T he doeumootatiOmB ay be noted by the selectione hosen fur this policy and also in the district's ''plan\" for professionald e,,,elopmenrte quiredb y AC.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy5 .4- ProfessionaDl evelopment ArkansasS tateB oard ofEducation:S tandardso f Accreditation1 5.04 ADE RulesG overningP rofessionaDl evelopment Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-8 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6 CL- PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees. The district's plan shall, in part, align district resources to address the professional development activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually: The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopment.T he results of the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. Classified employees are not eligible for flexible professional development hours (flex hours) The district administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, they must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief financiala nd informations erviceso fficer and the administratived irector of finance, audit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement. All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receive or furnish documentationo f the requireda nnual professionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to attend required professional development in any given year shall be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. Approved professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups, distancel earning,i nternships,d istrict/schoolp rograms, and approved college/universityc ourse work. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. C-9 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadershipA\nsystemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring,'coaching\ne ducational technology\nprinciples of W learning,'developmentsatla ges\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativel earningc ommunity. Notes: 1 The Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment4 .02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document''i ts choice.T he documentationm ay be noted by the selectionc hosen for this policy and also in the district's' 'plan\" for professionald evelopmentr equiredb y A.CA.  6-17-704(cX1). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4--STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-10 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 3.6 CL- CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAJNING All employeess hall attenda ll districtp rofessionald evelopments essionsa s directedb y a supervisor. The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its classified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activities identified in each school's ACSIP. Each classified employee shall participate in professional development annually designed by the district as it pertains to each department's needs. The professional development is to be fulfilled between July 1 and June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually.1 The district's plan shall be in alignment with the ADE Rules Governing Professional Development and current Arkansas code. Representativeso f each departments hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professionald evelopmentT he resultso f the evaluationm ade by the participantsi n each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to reviset he schooli mprovemenpt lan. Classifiede mployeesa re not eligiblef or flexiblep rofessionald evelopmenth ours (flex hours) The district administrationa nd the departmentd irectorsh ave the authorityt o requirea ttendancea t specificp rofessional development activities. If a classified employee, for any reason, misses part or all of any scheduled professional development activityt hey were requiredt o attend,t hey must make up the requiredh ours in comparablea ctivitiesw hich are to be pre-approvedb y the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. To receivec redit for his/herp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitye ach employeei s responsiblef or obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Docwnentationi s to be submittedt o the departmentd irectoro r districtd esignee. The chief :financiaal nd informations erviceso fficera nd the administratived irectoro f finance,a udit, and purchasing are required to obtain 4 hours of professional development in fiscal management annually. Other classified employees who manage substantial budgets are required to obtain training in fiscal management as well with the exception of a time requirement All classified employees inclusive of substitute teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management annually. Employeesw ho do not receiveo r furnishd ocumentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o attend requiredp rofessionald evelopmenti n any given year shall be groundsf or disciplinary action up to and including termination. Approvedp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning,m entoring,p eer coaching,s tudy groups,d istancel earning,i nternshipsd, istrict/schoopl rograms, and approvedc ollege/universityco urse work. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hould be consistent with the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmentC ouncilS tandards. C-9 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content\nadvocacy/leadership\nA systemic change process\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of W learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Notes: 1 The Rules Governing Professional Development 4.02 require the district to choose the option it will follow and \"document'' its choice. The documentation may be noted by the selection chosen for this policy and also in the district's \"plan\" for professional development required by A.CA.  6-l 7-704(c)(l). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy 5.4-- STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development Date Adopted: December 15, 2005 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-10 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 5.4-- PROFESSIONALD EVELOPMENT The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendance at specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development. PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, align districtr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach certifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (60) hours of professionald evelopmenta nnuallyw hich must be approvedb r the district and :fulfilledb etween My 1 aad June 30 or June 1 and May 31, to be determined annually. Professional development hours earned in excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carried over to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hallb e improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenced assessments. The district's professional developmentp lan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administratorss hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to revise the schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many, if any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substituted for district scheduled professional development offerings. The determination may be made at an individual building, a grade, or by subject basis. Employees most receive advance approval from the buildingp rincipalo r districtd esigneef or activitiest hey wish to have qualifyf or flex professional development hours. To the fullest extent possible, professional development activities are to be scheduled and attendeds uch that teachersd o not miss their regulart eachinga ssignments.S ix (6 ) approvedf lex hours credited toward fulfilling the sixty (60) hour requirement shall equal one contract day. Hours of professional development earned by an employee in excess of sixty (60) or not pre-approved by the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-11 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 PD MAKEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional A development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty ( 60) hours required annually. W Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. ' Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management. ADDIDONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-12 . . . PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 Certified personnel are eligible to receive fifteen (15) professional development hours for a college course that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district shall determine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maximum of thirty (30) hours may be applied toward the sixty ( 60) hours of professional development required annually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employees who do not receive or furnish documentation of the required annual professional development jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employee to receive sixty (60) hours of professional development in any given year may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approved professional development activities may include conferences, workshops, institutes, individual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university course work Professional development activities should be consistent with the objectives developed by the National Staff Development Council Standards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\nsystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculum alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmental stages\ncognitive research\nand building a collaborative learning community. Nete\u0026amp;.--T-1h e Rules Govemmg Professional Development 4.02 reqtJiret he distriet to ehoose the option it will follow and \"doeument'' its ehoiee. The doeU1Hentatiomn ay be noted by the selection ehosen for this policy and also in the district's ''plan\" for pFOfessiona:d1e velopment required by A.C.A.  6 17 704(e)(l). Cross-Reference: Policy 3.6 - CERTIFIED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING Policy 3.6 - CL CLASSISIFED PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE TRAINING Legal References: Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules Governing Professional Development A.CA. 6-15-404(f)(2) A.CA 6-17-703 A.CA 6-17-704 A.CA 6-17-705 A.CA 6-15-1004(c) A.CA 6-15-1703 A.CA 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: June 26, 1986 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-13 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 5.4-PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The district administrationa nd the buildingp rincipalh ave the authorityt o require attendancea t specific professionald evelopmenta ctivitiesi n conjunctionw ith state law and ADE Rules GoverningP rofessional Development PD PLAN The District shall develop and implement a plan, for the professional development of its certified employees.T he district'sp lan shall,i n part, alignd istrictr esourcest o addresst he professionald evelopment activitiesi dentifiedi n each school's ACSIP.E ach certifiede mployees hall receivea minimumo f sixty (60) hours of professional development annually which must be approved by the district and fulfilled between July I and June 30 or June I and May 31, to be determined annually.1 Professional development hours earnedi n excesso f sixty (60) in the designatedy ear cannotb e carriedo ver to the next year. The goal of all professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess hall be improveds tudenta chievementa nd academicp erformancet hat results in individual, school-wide, and system-wide improvement designed to ensure that all students demonstrate proficiency on the state criterion-referenceda ssessments. The district's professional development plan shall demonstrates cientificallyr esearch-basedb est practice, and shall be based on studenta chievementd ata and in alignmentw ith the ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopmenta nd current Arkansas code. Teachersa nd administrators hall be involvedi n the design,i mplementationa, nd evaluationo f the plan for their own professional development. The results of the evaluation made by the participants in each A program shall be used to continuously improve the district's professional development offerings and to W revise the schooli mprovemenpt lan. PD FLEX Flexible professional development hours (flex hours) are those hours which an employee is allowed to substitute professional development activities, different than those offered by the district, but which still meet criteria of either the employee's Individual Improvement Plan or the school's ACSIP, or both. The districts hall determineo n an annualb asis how many,i f any, flex hours of professionald evelopmenti t will allow to be substitutedf or districts cheduledp rofessionald evelopmento fferings.T he determinationm ay be made at an individualb uilding,a grade,o r by subjectb asis. Employeesm ust receivea dvancea pproval from the building principal or district designee for activities they wish to have qualified for flex professionald evelopmenth ours. To the fulleste xtent possible,p rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesa re to be scheduled and attended such that teachers do not miss their regular teaching assignments. Six (6) approvedf lex hours creditedt owardf ulfillingt he sixty (60) hour requirements hall equal one contractd ay. Hours of professionald evelopmente arnedb y an employeei n excess of sixty (6 0) or not pre-approvedb y the building principal shall not be credited toward fulfilling the required number of contract days for that employee. Hours earned that count toward the required sixty (60) also count toward the required number of contract days for that employee. C-14 CURRENT BOARD POLICY POMA.KEUP Teachers and administrators who, for any reason, miss part or all of any scheduled professional development activity they were required to attend, must make up the required hours in comparable activities which are to be pre-approved by the building principal or district designee. PD CREDIT To receive credit for his/her professional development activity each employee is responsible for obtaining and submitting documents of attendance for each professional development activity he/she attends. Documentation is to be submitted to the building principal or district designee. REQUIRED PD SESSIONS Teachers and administrators are required to obtain sixty (60) hours of approved professional development annually over a five-year period as part oflicensure renewal requirements. At least six (6) of the sixty (60) annual hours shall be in the area of educational technology. Teachers are required to receive at least two hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies. Teachers who provide instruction in Arkansas history shall receive at least two (2) hours of professional development in Arkansas history as part of the sixty ( 60) hours required annually. Teachers are to obtain professional development in classroom management and health and physical activity annually. Administrators are required to receive at least three hours annually of their sixty (60) required hours of professional development designed to enhance their understanding of effective parental involvement strategies and the importance of administrative leadership in setting expectations and creating a climate conducive to parental participation. Each administrator's professional development is required to also include training in data disaggregation, instructional leadership, and fiscal management ADDIDONAL PD OPPORTUNITIES Each hour of approved training received by certified personnel related to teaching an advance placement class for a subject covered by the College Board or Educational Testing Service, shall receive up to thirty (30) hours of credit which may be applied toward the sixty (60) hours of professional-development required annually. Certified personnel may be entitled to up to twelve (12) hours of professional development for time spent planning and preparing curriculum or developing other instructional materials in their instructional classroom, office or media center prior to the first day of student/teacher interaction provided the time is spent in accordance with the state law and current ADE rules that deal with professional development. C-15 CURRENT BOARD POLICY Certifiedp ersonnela re eligiblet o receivef ifteen( 15) professionald evelopmenth ours for a collegec ourse that meets the criteria identified in law and the applicable ADE rules. Upon ADE approval, the district - shall detennine if the hours earned apply toward the required sixty (60). A maxirrnnn of thirty (30) hours may be appliedt owardt he sixty( 6 0) hourso f professionald evelopmentr equireda nnually. PD DOCUMENTATION Employeesw ho do not receiveo r furnishd ocmnentationo f the requireda nnualp rofessionald evelopment jeopardize the accreditation of their school and academic achievement of their students. Failure of an employeet o receive sixty (60) hours of professionald evelopmenti n any given year may be groundsf or disciplinarya ctionu p to and includingt ermination. ' APPROVED PD ACTMTIES AND AREAS Approvedp rofessionald evelopmenta ctivitiesm ay include conferences,w orkshops,i nstitutes,i ndividual learning, mentoring, peer coaching, study groups, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification, distance learning, internships, district/school programs, and approved college/university coursew ork. Professionald evelopmenta ctivitiess houldb e consistentw ith the objectivesd evelopedb y the NationalS taffD evelopmentC ouncilS tandards. Professional development activities shall relate to the following areas: content (K-12)\ninstructional strategies\nassessment\nadvocacy/leadership\ns ystemic change process\nstandards, frameworks, and curriculmn alignment\nsupervision\nmentoring/coaching\neducational technology\nprinciples of learning/developmentaslt ages\nc ognitiver esearch\na nd buildinga collaborativele arningc ommunity. Notes: 1 The Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment4 .02 requiret he districtt o choose the option it A will follow and \"docmnent''i ts choice.T he docmnentationm ay be noted by the selectionc hosen  for this policy and also in the district's\" plan\" for professionald evelopmentr equiredb y A.CA  6-l 7-704(c)(l ). Cross-Reference: Legal References: Policy3 .6---CERTIFIEDP ERSONNELE MPLOYEET RAINING Arkansas State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 15.04 ADE Rules GoverningP rofessionalD evelopment A.CA 6-15-404(f)(2) A.CA. 6-17-703 A.CA. 6-17-704 A.CA. 6-17-705 A.CA. 6-15-1004(c) A.CA. 6-15-1703 A.CA. 6-20-2303(14) Date Adopted: June 26, 1986 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-16 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY . ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 5.15--GRADING Parents or guardians shall be kept informed concerning the progress of their student Parent-teacher conferences are encouraged and may be requested by parents, guardians, or teachers. If the progress of a student is unsatisfactory in a subject, the teacher shall attempt to schedule a parent-teacher conference. In the conference, the teacher shall explain the reasons for difficulties and shall develop, cooperatively with the parents, a plan for remediation which may enhance the probability of the student succeeding. The school shall also send timely progress reports midway of each quarter and issue grades for each nine-week grading period to keep parents/guardians informed of their student's progress. The evaluation of each student's performance on a regular basis serves to give the parents/guardians, students, and the school necessary information to help effect academic improvement Students' grades shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed educational objectives of the course. Students in grades Kl-6 will be graded each nine weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nine weeks grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four quarterly grades, semester exam grades, and two semester averages. For students in grades 9-12, the two quarterly grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester test must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. The grading scale for all schools in the district shall be as follows. A=l00-90 B=89-80 C=79-70 D=69-60 F = 59 and below For the purpose of determining grade point averages, the numeric value of each letter grade shall be A=4points B= 3 points C=2 points D= 1 point F=0 points Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received for each semester's work using the above four point scale carried to two decimal places. A semester grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the semester test grade. C-17 PROPOSED REVISED BOARD POLICY ADDITIONS UNDERLINEDDELETIONS STRIKETHROUGHS 1-18-07 The grade point values for AP and approved honor courses shall be one point greater than for regular courses with the exception that an F shall still be worth O points. A checklistw ill be used in kindergartena t the end of each nine weeks. An I (introducing)D, (develwing), P (proficient),o r N (needs improvement}w ill be given'i n kindergarteni n the areas of reading, writing, socials kills/workh abits,s ocials tudies,s cience/healthm. ath. art, physicale ducation,a nd music. An S (satisfactory) or N (needs improvement) is given in grades 1-5 for handwriting, art, music, and physical education. Legal References: Date Adopted: Last Revised: AC.A. 6-15-902 StateB oard of Education:S tandardso f Accreditation1 2.02 Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Uniform Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools February 27, 1996 November 16, 2006 C-18 CURRENT BOARD POLICY 5.15-GRADING Parents or guardians shall be kept informed concerning the progress of their student Parent-teacher conferences are encouraged and may be requested by parents, guardians, or teachers. If the progress of a student is unsatisfactoryin a subject,t he teachers hall attemptt o schedulea parent-teacherc onference.I n the conference,t he teachers hall explaint he reasons for difficultiesa nd shall develop,c ooperativelyw ith the parents, a plan for remediation which may enhance the probability of the student succeeding. The school shall also send timely progress reports midway of each quarter and issue grades for each nine-week gradingp eriodt o keep parents/guardianisn formedo f their student'sp rogress. The evaluation of each student's performance on a regular basis serves to give the parents/guardians, students, and the school necessary information to help effect academic improvement. Students' grades shall reflect only the extent to which a student has achieved the expressed educational objectives of the course. Students in grades K-6 will be graded each nine weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nine weeks grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four quarterly grades, semester exam grades, and two semester averages. For students in grades 9-12, the two quarterly grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester test must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. The grading scale for all schools in the district shall be as follows. A=l00-90 B= 89-80 C=79-70 D= 69-60 F = 59 and below For the purposeo f determiningg radep ointa verages,t he numericv alueo f each letterg rade shall be A=4points B = 3 points C=2 points D= 1 point F= 0 points Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received for each semester's work using the above four point scale carried to two decimal places. A semester-grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the semester test grade. C-19 CURRENT BOARD POLICY The grade point values for AP and approved honor courses shall be one point greater than for regular A courses with the exception that an F shall still be worth O points. W Legal References: A.CA. 6-15-902 State Board of Education: Standards of Accreditation 12.02 Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing Unifonn Grading Scales for Public Secondary Schools Date Adopted: February27, 1996 Last Revised: November 16, 2006 C-20 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education SUBJECT: Recommendation ofK-5 Science/Health Adoption Date: January 11, 2007 The K-5 Elementary Science Adoption Committee recommends the following for Science and Health for the beginning of the 2007-08 school year: Grades K-5 K-5 Title and/or Series Science - See learning in a whole new light Kids For Health Publisher Scott Foresman Kids For Health The committee's recommendation of the above materials was based on the following criteria:  Framework alignment  Direct, guided and full inquiries  Efficient lab set ups  Variety of writing prompts  ESL components at the end of each lesson for all learners  Literacy and math integrated with science  Comprehensive assessments. D-1 -TO: FROM: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KEN KIRSPEL, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS RHONDA DICKEY, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: SECONDARY SCIENCE/HEAL TH TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE DATE: JANUARY 11, 2007 ' Recommendation for the Secondary Science/Health Adoption Committee 2006-2007 Name Subject School Joyce Lofton Physical Science East Cynthia Kirby Biology (Chair) East Karen White Parent East David Wallace Health (Chair) East Rebecca Priester Chemistry West Steve Boutwell Zoology West AbbraBest Anatomy \u0026amp; Physiology West Glen Amis Physics (Chair) West Gwen Wiggins Principles of Technology West Janet Garrison Special Education West Stacy Cochran Biology/Environ. Science Argenta John Talley Physical Science Argenta Cathy Alexander Science Poplar Street MaryBalest Health Poplar Street Sharla Smith Parent Poplar Street Amber Gereaux Science (Chair) Lakewood Cassandra Peck Science (Chair) Ridgeroad Brock Moore Health Ridgeroad Jennifer Conner Science (Chair) Rose City Rellia Dillinger Special Education Administration Paulette Blevins Instr. Science Specialist Administration Rhonda Dickey Admin. Dir. of Sec. Ed. Administration Angela Olsen Assistant Superintendent Administration Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction E-1 Class North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street P.O. Box 687  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115-0687 501.771.8000  www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us MEMO TO: Ken Kirspel, Superintendent FROM: Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services SUBJECT: Crestwood Elementary Bid Recommendation DATE: January 10, 2007 Attached is the bid tabulation. The lowest responsive bid has yet to be determined. A recommendation will be made at the Board Meeting on January 18, 2007. Below is a budget summary of the Construction Funds based on the Flynco bid which is the most expensive recommendat,ion expected. Construction funds Available June 27, 2006 Transitional Projects District Share (Roofing) Crestwood Addition Bid $2,862,000.00 Fees $ 243,270.00 District $ 60,000.00 State Facilities Contribution Lakewood Middle Addition Estimated State Facilities Contribution Balance $7,415,000.00 - $3,149,503.54 - $3,165,270.00 + $ 792,084.00 - $2,157,565.00 + 597,730.00 $ 332,475.46 \"World Class Schools for World Class Students\" An Equal Opportunity Employer F-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BID SUMMARY MEDIA CENTER AND CLASSROOM ADDITION CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Bell Construction Flynco, Inc. G.A.G. Builders Hydco, Inc. J and D Construction CBM Construction CWR Construction DAYCO F-2 $2,950,484.00 $2,862,000.00 $2,940,000.00 $3,139,960.00 $3,067,000.00 $2,863,000.00 $2,898,000.00 $2,447,000.00 I North Llttle Rock School District Local Revenue Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source !Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted ReQular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State .. tal Revenu e State TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal TOTAL REVE NUE OPERATIONS d y s NUE DECEMBER2 006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual YT-OActual $12,510,000.00 $7,203,785.40 $10,977,197.18 $6,250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,471,000.00 $230,692.00 $978,717.05 $310,000.00 .. $0.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 $17,489.63 $104,262.72 $62,000.00 $13,059.98 $27,928.84 $105,000.00 $3,063.53 $22,700.67 $900,000.00 $91,471.76 $551,332.82 $79,000.00 $0.00 $22,767.51 $84,460.00 $8,044.55 $93,506.11 $21,956,460.00 $7,567,606.85 $12,778,412.90 $10,100.00! $0.00! $4,806.57! $35,477,276.00 $3,225,207.00 $16,126,034.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,100.00 $534,639.00 $0.00 $458,020.51 $4,903,623.00 $236,247.00 $1,372,686.00 $2,213,250.00 $0.00 $1,146,732.49 $6,980,000.00 $0.00 $2,315,724.81 $381,715.00 $13,323.80 $202,530.80 $52,500.00 $9,785.00 $55,991.22 $50,545,003.00 $3,484,562.80 $21,679,819.83 $72,511,563.00 $11,052,169.65 $34,463,039.30 $233,000.00 $28,548.49 $204,045.31 $1,550,000.00 $567,414.13 $912,499.24 $3,669,000.00 $323,813.38 $1,479,361.09 $7,181,864.00 $342,804.85 $1,305,334.53 $85,145,427.00 $12,314,750.50 $38,364,279.47 0-1 %YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $1,532,802.82 87.75% $6,250,000.00 0.00% $492,282.95 66.53% $310,000.00 0.00% $80,737.28 56.36% $34,071.16 45.05% $82,299.33 21.62% $348,667.18 61.26% $56,232.49 28.82% -$9,046.11 110.71% $9,178,047.10 58.20% $5,293.43! 47.59%! $19,351,242.00 45.45% $0.00 -$100.00 105.00% $76,618.49 85.67% $3,530,937.00 27.99% $1,066,517.51 51.81% $4,664,275.19 33.18% $179,184.20 53.06% -$3,491.22 106.65% $28,865, 183.17 42.89% $38,048,523.70 47.53% $28,954.69 87.57o/e $637,500.76 58.87% $2,189,638.91 40.32/o $5,876,529.47 18.18% $46,781,147.53 45.06% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof fr ech Services Purchased Prooerty Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Debt Service Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Llttle Rock School District DECEMBER20 06 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $37,526,650.00 . $3,716,755.25 $14,886,428.60 $9,846,135.00 768,346.10 $3,104,411.61 $9,779,440.00 $1,279,505.59 $4,987,489.90 $3,975,887.00 $340,739.86 $1,455,859.42 $61,128,112.00 $6,105,346.80 $24,434,189.53 $1,421,058.00 $52,222.82 $337,383.35 $980,780.60 $49,526.94 $405,069.49 $2,600,000.00 $708,134.66 $1,292,845.13 $4,250,000.00 $314,932.33 $2,150,607.01 $2,208,614.00 $5,175.06 $2,024,320.23 $700,000.00 $5,940.50 $736,524.47 $1,110,370.00 $0.00 $218.32 $13,270,822.60 $1,135,932.31 $6,946,968.00 $74,398,934.60 $7,241,279.11 $31,381,157.53 $1,791,824.00 $46,143.31 $694,557.23 $5,530,900.00 $519,880.63 $3,257,190.87 $7,751,725.93 $694,503.65 $2,496,056.37 $3,212,423.00 $413,974.20 $1,685,165.76 $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaL'Bud $22,640,221.40 39.67% $6,741,723.39 50.65% $4,791,950.10 14.89% $2,520,027.58 36.62% $36,693,922.47 39.97o/, $1,083,674.65 23.74% $575,711.11 41.30% $1,307,154.87 49.72% $2,099,392.99 50.60% $184,293.77 91.66% -$36,524.47 105.22% $1,110,151.68 0.02% $6,323,854.60 52.35% $43,017,777.07 42.18% $1,097,266.77 38.76o/, $2,273,709.13 58.89% $5,255,669.56 32.20% $1,527,257.24 52.46% $53,171,679.77 42.63% Function Category 11 XX ReQular ProQrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Compensatory Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Suooort Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX Suooort Services-Administration 24XX Suooort Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Suooort Services-Central 29XX Other Suooort Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Community Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 5XX Ed Spec Dev Services 6XX BldQ Aca/Constr Services 47XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Chan:1es GRAND TOTAL North Llttle Rock School District FUNCTION  DECEMBER 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $28,584,257.10 $2,563,843.17 $10,914,309.88 $9,561,331.69 $857,901.90 $3,189,824.47 $1,564,621.37 $162,959.27 $631,053.94 $4,340,644.20 $456,909.70 $1,301,857.80 $3,826,038.74 $357,150.51 $1,492,520.78 $6,055,139.19 $601,474.29 $2,499,096.44 $5,365,715.06 $449,204.37 $2,097,916.42 $1,210,728.13 $91,052.28 $443, 151.96 $4,039,640.57 $408,056.34 $1,914,914.70 $1,428,158.93 $100,494.49 $679,211.48 $6,524,519.03 $607,995.53 $3,141,368.45 $3,547,667.77 $453,732.71 $1,891,532.52 $945,077.33 $96,461.10 $519,437.85 $436,103.89 $65,034.79 $211,163.17 $3,997,597.66 $488,053.62 $1,955,129.38 $47,274.41 $2,576.81 $11,729.56 $123,406.25 $13,259.34 $63,388.26 $938,867.80 $0.00 $490,381.42 $470.21 $0.00 $0.00 $12,225.33 $9,405.41 $9,405.41 $6,402,208.35 $525,609.64 $4,779,077.85 $1,923,825.10 $1,345.25 $674,395.64 $1,692,738.14 $603,260.38 $603,260.38 $117,551.26 $0.00 $0.00 $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 0-3 % Ytd Budget Balance ActuaUBud $17,669,947.22 38.18% $6,371,507.22 33.36% $933,567.43 40.33% $3,038,786.40 29.99% $2,333,517.96 39.01% $3,556,042.75 41.27% $3,267,798.64 39.10% $767,576.17 36.60% $2,124,725.87 47.40% $748,947.45 47.56% $3,383, 150.58 48.15% $1,656,135.25 53.32% $425,639.48 54.96% $224,940.72 48.42% $2,042,468.28 48.91% $35,544.85 24.81% $60,017.99 51.37% $448,486.38 52.23% $470.21 0.00% $2,819.92 76.93% $1,623,130.50 74.65% $1,249,429.46 35.05% $1,089,477.76 35.64% $117,551.26 0.00% $53,171,679.77 42.63% North Uttle Rock school District SOURCEO F FUNDS DECEMBER2 006 Current Month %Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T -0 Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-cateaorical $67,861,196.61 $6,935,038.27 $28,764,946.93 $39,096,249.68 42.39% 213 Intensive School Improvement $1,128.49 $609.90 $609.90 $518.59 54.05% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $419,005.01 $9,434.87 $114,102.56 $304,902.45 27.23% 225 Technoloov Grant $1,626.91 $0.00 $0.00 $1,626.91 0.00% 227 CPEP $78,552.45 $0.00 $9,800.54 $68,751.91 12.48% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $85,953.48 $34,886.77 $36,934.87 $49,018.61 42.97% 250 Act 591 Residential $48,901.32 $0.00 $0.00 $48,901.32 0.00% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $982,979.62 $82,925.51 $360,125.71 $622,853.91 36.64% 271 GIT Advance Placement $4,523.03 $0.00 $0.00 $4,523.03 0.00% 275 Alternative LeaminQ Environment $1,283,801.76 $111,313.32 $450,272.88 $833,528.88 35.07% 276 English Lang Learners $36,309.23 $517.\n21 $12,808.61 $23,500.62 35.28% 281 NSLA $2,303,528.84 $233,368.00 $874,898.15 $1,428,630.69 37.98% 365 ABC Preschool $2,409,866.65 $205,459.72 $763,922.77 $1,645,943.88 31.70% 381 Smart Start Literacy $74,838.77 $7,198.39 $39,840.05 $34,998.72 53.23% 392 General Facility Funding $571,534.22 $74,063.14 $313,045.25 $258,488.97 54.77% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $940.41 $0.00 $0.00 $940.41 0.00% 401 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $2,111,549.76 $2,687.94 $1,995,775.57 $115,774.19 94.52% 403 Academic Fae Transitional Pgm $4,878,659.39 $516,880.63 $3,150,489.84 $1,728,169.55 64.58% 404 Academic Fae Partnership Pgm $322,654.70 $3,000.00 $106,701.03 $215,953.67 33.07% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $4,123.22 $0.00 $4,358.47 -$235.25 105.71% 430 ROTC $119,009.84 $11,970.02 $54,437.77 $64,572.07 45.74% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $193,747.24 $12,309.11 $68,387.66 $125,359.58 35.30% 467 Hurricane Relief-Homeless $0.00 $0.00 $40.22 -$40.22 501 Title 1-Reo Comp Ed $4,106,564.85 $378,750.97 $1,077,697.90 $3,028,866.95 26.24% 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 523 Title I Readino First $294,198.13 $16,686.65 $104,635.19 $189,562.94 35.57% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $34,795.17 $534.60 $7,798.46 $26,996.71 22.41% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $47,678.79 $3,852.66 $24,715.80 $22,962.99 51.84% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $67,652.16 $6,547.40 $25,314.67 $42,337.49 37.42% 570 Carf Perkins Vocational $202,278.45 $18,010.35 $26,859.39 $175,419.06 13.26% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,798,865.29 $132,965.75 $520,855.28 $1,278,010.01 26.95% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $879,728.52 $77,590.03 $357,016.86 $522,711.66 40.56% 750 Medicaid $169,627.41 $7,656.57 $56,711.51 $112,915.90 33.43% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $79,934.86 $5,278.84 $20,930.34 $59,004.52 26.18% 754 Javits - GIT Grant $9,404.10 $24.82 $9,526.00 -$121.90 101.30% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $889,854.57 $13,982.20 $96,790.65 $793,063.92 10.88% 761 Title Ill Eno Lang Acqui $17,658.08 $130.00 $3,305.00 $14,353.08 18.72% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $56,080.41 $5,255.46 $16,037.36 $40,043.05 28.60% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $14,952.53 $0.00 $11,217.47 $3,735.06 75.02% 796 Workforce Investment Act $25,861.28 $2,958.22 $9,420.37 $16,440.91 36.43% 995 Soft Drink Acct $186,837.85 $3,893.58 $23,796.73 $163,041.12 12.74% GRAND TOTAL $92,685,807.53 $8,915,780.90 $39,514,127.76 $53,171,679.77 42.63/4 0-4 $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 .$50,000,000.00 $40,000,000:00 $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $0.00  Budget El Expenses NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of December, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Federal Food Service $74,398,934.60 $5,530,900.00 $1,791,824.00 $7,751,725.93 $3,212,423.00 $31,381,157.53 $3,257,190.87 $694,557.23 $2,496,056.37 $1,685,165.76 Funds 0-5  Budget Ill Expenses Corinne Burkhardt Kelli Hogue Carolyn Rasner Griffin, Kyle Smedley, Telicia NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - January 18, 2007 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS NLRHS- West Campus, Special Education Teacher, Effective 12/20/06 NLRHS -East Campus, Math Teacher, Effective 1/10/07 NLRHS - East Campus, Special Education Teacher, Effective 12/14/06 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist, Effective 12/15/06, Category IV, Step 18, 190 days Boone Park Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, Effective 1/16/07, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: Kyle Mark Griffin PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Speech Language Pathologist EDUCATION: B.A. - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little. Rock, AR 8/80 LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: M.S. - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 5/84 Standard Five Year- Speech Language Pathology (#532) 12/31/07 RECOMMENDATION 21 years experience as a teacher / speech pathologist in Arkansas - Thelma Jasper, Tri-District Early Childhood Program Coordinator Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-1 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) NAME: Telicia Lynn Smedley PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Boone Park Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Teacher EDUCATION: B.A. - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 12/06 LICENSURE: Initial Three Year, Early Childhood Education, P-4 STUDENT TEACHING: Boone Park Elementary, NLR, AR 10/06-12/06 Indian Hills Elementary. NLR, AR 01/05 - 05/05 RECOMMENDATION: Jody Edrington, Coordinator of Early Childhood Programs Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Belinda Brown Tonja Chestnut Kay Edwards Allegra Friels Cora Hair Sharee Jefferson De Wayne Johnson Shirley Lee Deatra Martin Cenita Mason Trinette McCuien Bobbie Moffett CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS NLRHS West Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 9-01-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-08-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective I 0-31-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective I 0-09-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 Poplar Street Middle School - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 11-26-06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School - Child Nutrition A~sistant Effective 12-12-06 Poplar Street Middle School - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 9-24-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8-18-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-20-06 NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 NLRHS West Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/18/06 P-2 Marnell Nelson Felicia Phillips Heather Phillips Contonia Russell Arlisha Smith Bruce Strong Vilesia Tatum Angela Thomas Kandis Thrower Sheila Arnold Jonda Eskridge Melissa Hadley Cenita Mason Sherri Pettit Vicktonya Reeves CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS - CONTINUED NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8-18-06 NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-01-06 Food Services department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 11-1 7-06 Pike View Elementary-Teacher's Aide/Pre-Kindergarten Effective O 1-03-07 Belwood Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 8/22/06 North Heights Elementary - Lead Custodian Effective 12-15-06 Lynch Drive Elementary - Lunch Period Aide Effective O 1-03-07 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 10-18-06 Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 10-01-06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From NLRHS West Campus-Secretary To NLRHS West Campus-Office Secretary From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant From NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant To Ridgeroad Middle Charter School - Child Nutrition Assistant From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant From Administration - Adm. Dir. Finance/ Audit/Purchasing, Secretary To Administration - Asst. Supt. of Curriculum/Instruction, Secretary From Food Services Department -Child Nutrition Assistant To NLRHS East Campus - Child Nutrition Assistant P-3 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES - CONTINUED Diane Roberts From Pike View Elementary - Child Nutrition Assistant To Food Services Department-Child Nutrition Assistant Billie Stewart Erin Engelkes Renee Lynn Gray Mary Sydney Hess Ronda Jackson Tina King From Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant To Lynch Drive Elementary- Child Nutrition Assistant NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Seventh Street Elementary - Early Morning Aide Effective 12-08-06, Category 260, Step 19, 178 days Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 01-04-07, Category 901, Step 21, 181 days Poplar Street Middle School - Secretary Effective 12-07-06, Category 230, Step 51,205 days Food Services Department - Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 01-04-07, Category 902, Step 23, 181 days Lynch Drive Elementary-Lunch Period Aide Effective 12-14-06, Category 260, Step 19, 178 days Sherrell Layton Food Services Department-Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-20-06, Category 901, Step 18, 181 days Zera Shannen Mays ---- Tri-District Early Childhood - Office Secretary Effective 12-15-06, Category 225, Step 51, 252 days Ella Webster-Mason ---- Food Services Department- Child Nutrition Assistant Effective 12-11-06, Category 901, Step 18, 181 days Joy Ploszay Amboy Elementary - Early Morning Aide Effective O 1-05-07, Category 266, Step 26, 178 day\\ Mary Watson Transportation Department - Bus Driver Effective 01-03-07, Category 507, Step 51, 190 days P-4 January 8, 2007 To: Barry Kincl Cc: Jerry Massey, Marsha Satterfield, Lee Tackett From: Amanda Coombe, North Little Rock High School Speech and Drama Teachers, and Cast/Crew Party Liasons RE: 2007 Cast and Crew Party for Peter Pan On behalf of the parent volunteers who are organizing the Peter Pan Cast and Crew party on Sunday, March 4, 2007 following the matinee performance, I respectfully request official access and appropriate supervision for decorating the cafeteria at East Campus as well as heat/air for the event. The following dates and times will be necessary: FRIDAY, MARCH 2- after the last lunch shift, from 3:30-6:30pm. We will decorate the ceiling first, so if the cafeteria workers stand the tables up to mop, they can leave them up for decorating. SATURDAY, MARCH 3- From 8:15am-5:30pm SUNDAY, MARCH 4- from 12:30pm until after the party and clean up, approximately 10:00pm. In addition, please DO NOT WAX THE FLOORS FRIDAY AFTERNOON. According to parents this delayed the opening of the cafeteria for parents in times past. We also request the use of rolling scaffolding and two tall ladders on Friday to work on ceilings and other decorations. It would also be helpful if we had a copy of the table set up. We will do our best to put tables back where they belong. It is an honor and a privilege to use this beautiful facility! This event is a large undertaking and we are thankful for your support. We also thank you for time and consideration of this request. Please feel free to call me with any questions or concerns. Amanda Coombe School: 771-8127 Home: 772-6907 S-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO . . 00 0 A T \u0026amp; T 84.00 63030 A-ONE LAMINATION, INC. 150.36 62883 A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES 1,424.64 63170 A'TEST CONSULTANTSIN C 599.00 62908 A'TEST CONSULTANTSIN C 232.00 63416 AAA AUDIO METRICS/MEDICAL 55.00 62719 AAEA 241.32 63191 AASBO 60.00 63251 AASBO 115.00 63517 ABILITATIONS 555.23 62874 ACCESS SCHOOLS 3,125.00 62673 ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. 536.44 62651 ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC 12,948.68 63492 ADRIAN CHILLIEST 60.00 63369 ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. 1,321.37 63008 AEA 1,213.68 63499 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 62594 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 60.00 62624 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 63185 - AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 60.00 63239 AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 2,277.00 63512 AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY 1,622.14 62652 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 6,449.09 63139 AIR DISTRIBUTORS CO INC 3,327.54 63583 ALAN CROWNOVER 238.45 62946 ALARMCOIN CORPORATED 2,886.38 63403 ALARMTECS YSTEMS 295. 00 63015 ALEXANDRAPR ITCHETT 43.68 62969 ALICIA YARBROUGH 45.79 63155 ALIGN .00 62584 V ALIGN .00 62598 V ALIGN .00 62615 V ALIGN .00 62625 V ALIGN .00 62648 V ALIGN .00 62934 V ALIGN .00 i2938 V ALIGN .00 3175 V ALIGN .00 63189 V ALIGN .00 63209 V ALIGN .00 63230 V ALIGN .00 63241 V ALIGN .00 63245 V ALIGN .00 63250 V ALIGN .00 63449 V ALIGN .00 63452 V - ALIGN .00 63457 V ALIGN .00 63495 V ALIGN .00 63502 V T- 1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ALIGN .00 63516 V ALIGN .00 63678 V ALIGN .00 63693 V ALIGN .00 63697 V ALIGN .00 63702 V ALIGN .00 63721 V ALIGN .00 63726 V ALISHA HERRING 146.72 63147 ALL AMERICAN INC. 3,882.27 63253 ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP 4,300.56 63252 ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. 414.20 62947 ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 1,080.00 62882 ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 825.00 63119 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 5,383.14 63046 AMANDAST UCKEY 181. 00 63136 AMANDAW ARE 23.17 63624 AMBER DAVIS GEREAUX 56.94 62970 AMERICA DIRECT INC 193.48 63368 AMERICANA SSOC OF TEACHERS 50.00 62917 AMERICAN FUNDS SERVICE CO 2,291.50 62591 AMERICAN FUNDS SERVICE CO 2,506.50 63182 AMERICANF UNDS SERVICE CO 2,431.50 63509 - AMERICANL EGACYP UBLISHING INC 260. 70 62966 AMERICANL IBRARYA SSOCIATION 330.00 62656 AMERICANM AT \u0026amp; SPECIALTY 587.78 63547 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGUAGE- 2,035.00 63102 AMERICANS PEECH-LANGUAGE- 3,945.00 63386 AMERICANS TAMP \u0026amp; MARKING 998.82 63360 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 11,720.00 62593 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 400.00 62623 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 11,720.00 63184 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 400.00 63238 AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 10,645.00 63511 AMY VOLLMAN 86.58 62859 AMY WOODSMALL 639.60 63351 ANDREA HAIN 32.64  63151 ANDRIA SMITH 51. 91 63131 ANGELA HIBBS 12 .11 63473 ANGELA RAINEY 20.00 62821 ANITA CAMERON 281. 00 62657 ANITA CAMERON 49. 28 62941 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 62776 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 974.00 63425 ANTHONYC ANTRELL 20.00 63593 ANTHONYC ONNORS 90.00 62829 ANTHONYL WEBB 80.00 63632 AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. 377.55 62658 - AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. 377.55 63520 ARA CONFERENCE 75.00 62926 T- 2 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 2,224.82 62689 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 143.57 62975 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 3,116.71 63278 ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE 127.18 63537 ARES SPORTSWEAR 156.79 62927 ARKANSASA GENCYF OR FEDERAL 720.00 63272 ARKANSASA RT CENTER 45.50 63584 ARKANSASA SSOCIATION OF 180.00 62943 ARKANSASB AG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENTC O 290.25 63672 ARKANSASB USINESS PUBLISHING 1,700.00 63391 ARKANSASB USINESS PUBLISHING 855.00 63591 ARKANSASC OUNCILO F TEACHERS 650.00 62783 ARKANSASD EMOCRAGT AZETTE 416.00 62688 ARKANSASD EPT OF HEALTH 275.00 63379 ARKANSASR EADINGA SSOCIATION 1,010.00 63322 ARKANSASS KATIUM 300.00 63144 ARKANSASS OUNDA ND SERVICE 2,000.00 63422 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 354,373.13 62935 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 16,846.29 62936 ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 908.34 62937 - ARKANSAST EACHERR ETIREMENT 1,226.00 63501 ARMATURE XCHANGE 158.05 62990 ARMATURE XCHANGE 63.22 63292 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 474.83 62653 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 1,412.40 62939 ASCO HARDWARCEO MPANY,I NC. 193.21 63518 ASHLEY ALLEN INGALLS 25.00 62838 ASHLEY HANAN 159.97 63150 ASHLEY WILLIAMS 3.00 63462 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 4,550.00 62756 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 6,762.38 63034 ASHLEY-WOODSO\u0026amp;N ASSOC. 2,673.45 63580 ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; 255.50 63525 BACKGROUNIDN FORMATIONS YSTEMS 200.00 63259 BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES 616.18 63143 BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES 1,073.80 63418 BANK \u0026amp; BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 1,080.39 63540 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 468,889.50 62586 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 47,639.30 62617 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 478,997.64 63177 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 54,369.74 63232 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 39,607.10 63243 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 7,427.20 63247 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 19,615.25 63451 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 3,995.03 63454 - BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 479,077.27 63504 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 236.00 63695 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 54.60 63699 BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL 48,129.77 63723 T- 3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANNER SIGN \u0026amp; BARRICADE INC BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BARRY KINCL BARRY L FISHER BARRY STURGES BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKY WITCHER BENE KEITH BENTON LADY PANTHERS SOFTBALL BEST COMPUTERS UPPLIES BETTY MORELAND BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL LEFEAR BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLIND AMBITION INC BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE HILL WRECKERS ERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKERS ERVICE BOB BELL \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBY ACKLIN BOBBY TRAFFANSTEDT BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION T- 4 AMOUNT 1,284,822.52 181,539.74 1,293,179.13 208,924.46 , 196,688.55 39,999.49 101,352.40 20,468.57 1,322,987.40 1,646.90 527.06 191,561.44 322.51 353.98 1,764.70 307.45 10.00 149.41 20.00 90.00 19.79 677.71 258.16 380.32 376.32 100.00 164.00 9.36 100.70 22.58 81. 43 238.99 107.35 47 .. 75 694.06 3,718.69 709.96 114. 45 1,466.05 49.42 60.00 130.51 40.00 20.00 20.00 153.59 29.56 17.00 143.00 CHK. NO. 62585 62616 63176 63231 63242 63246 63450 63453 63503 63694 63698 63722 63114 62670 63266 63526 62660 63260 62846 63630 62667 62952 63524 63053 62676 62822 63402 63460 62954 63458 63111 62708 62992 63552 62655 63634 62841 64955 63267 62807 62810 62869 63067 63356 63609 63047 63040 62956 63268 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BRANDYN ESSELRODT BRAYE VALENTINE BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA WATSON BRENDA WILLOUGHBY BRIAN A BOYD BRIAN NICHOLS BRIAN R GLENN BRICKER PHYSICAL THERAPY LLC BROCK MOORE BROMLEYP ARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BRYAN HUTSON BRYAN HUTSON BRYAN HUTSON BUCKEYE BUSINESS PRODUCTS INC. BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH BYE-MO'R, INC. BYE-MO'R, INC. BYE-MO'R, INC. C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAHYO USE, INC. CANDICE YOUNG CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CAPITOL SERVICE COMPANY CAREY SMITH CARLE ROY CARLEX CARLTON-BATESC O. CAROL HOLIMAN CAROL MCADAMS CARQUESTO F NL R # 4112 CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CEDRIC BLACK CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTERPOINT ENERGY CENTRALL AUNDRYE QUIPMENTI NC CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CERTIFIED LABORATORIES T- 5 AMOUNT 20. 71 935.68 91. 42 32.00 72.15 3. 72 7.02 80.00 361. 26 70.00 1,875.00 79. 51 55 .15 20.00 20.00 20.00 400.76 185.00 185.00 605. 72 13.57 238.83 10,514.84 40.28 82.74 45.70 142.74 10.00 10.00 10.00 486.55 80.00 90.00 92.75 154.46 858.20 25.00 58.27 8.93 12,476.38 2,404.90 2,795.37 35.92 62. 79 25,435.65 143.07 991. 34 35,118.48 1,090.00 CHK. NO. 62885 62957 62924 63336 63411 63482 63138 63370 62602 62843 63340 63432 62958 62848 63080 63619 63172 62778 63043 62930 63445 63675 63496 62960 63270 62680 63629 62644 63227 63719 62894 63628 63373 62873 62679 62733 63254 62951 63106 62913 63417 63661 63093 63264 63522 63405 63112 63645 62962 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CHARLENEL OPEZ-MONTAGUE 26.77 63481 CHEMSEARCH 664.56 63038 CHERYL HALL 48.75 63092 CHERYL PENNINGTON 149.76 63016 CHILDCRAFTE DUCATIONC ORP 1,186.12 62963 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 15.66 63158 CINDY QUARRY 11. 62 63494 CINTAS 128.18 62631 CINTAS 38.26 63194 CINTAS 128.18 63214 CINTAS 86.40 63291 CINTAS 128.18 63707 CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK 4,878.75 63077 CLARENCEE MARTIN 25.00 62802 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 218.00 62736 CLARKE XTERMINATINCGO , INC. 817.50 63020 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 54.50 63314 CLARKE XTERMINATINcGo , INC. 54.50 63568 CLASSROOMD IRECT 328.93 62898 CLASSROOMD IRECT 2,449.69 63132 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 177. 61 62884 CLEARM OUNTAIN 43.24 63392 - COBB AND SUSKIE LTD. 14,081.25 63352 COCA-COLAE NTERPRISES 4,417.92 62858 COCA-COLAU SA 443.25 63289 CODEMICRO 612.45 63616 COMCABLES 1,362.03 62692 COMCABLES 100.75 63280 COMCASTC ABLEVISION 100.00 62949 COMMUNICATIOPNL US+ 108.80 63635 COMMUNITPYR ODUCTSL LC 495.00 63149 CONNEYS AFETY PRODUCTS 69.39 63528 CONNIE FOX 6.74 63461 CONSECOL IFE INSURANCE 173.98 63487 CONSOLIDATEDEL ECTRICALD ISTRI 1,044.86 63545 CORNELIUS BURTON 50.00 62824 CORPORATE XPRESS 1,974.44 62866. CORPORATE XPRESS 3,729.42 63099 CORPORATE XPRESS 8,843.13 63381 CORPORATE XPRESS 525.35 63639 COURTNEYPH AUP 1,509.41 63424 COUSINS VIDEO 74.55 63161 COUSINS VIDEO 825.75 63669 CPI 1,199.00 63543 CREWS MOBILE HOME SERVICE 1,368.00 63573 CROWB URLINGAMCEO 31. 37 63382 CROWB URLINGAMCEO 13.06 63640 CROW-BURLINGAMCOE . 7.76 62967 CRYSTAL EVANS 93.21 63110. T- 6 - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CRYSTAL PRODUCTIONS 55.00 63276 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 158.99 62601 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 127.02 62636 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 91.14 63195 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 129.33 63219 CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC 127.30 63711 CURRICULUMA SSOCIATES INC 2,268.00 62968 CWI, PLC 1,500.00 62998 CYNTHIA WOODS 8.70 63483 DAMARIS PURTLE 29.28 63051 DANA BIBLES 6.10 63468 DANA MCCOY 59.24 62925 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 62850 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 63082 DANIEL J FLOYD 25.00 63621 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 62628 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 63212 DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN 20.00 63705 DARLA EARLES 183.62 63000 DARRAGHC OMPANY 72.86 63532 - DATAMAOXF ARKANSAS 220.80 62650 DATEK, INC. 421. 7 4 63169 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 62626 DAVID D. COOP 3,350.00 63190 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 63210 DAVID D. COOP 209.55 63703 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.57 62600 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.57 63193 DAVID W EDWARDS 179.87 63680 DAVID W WYMER 70.00 63073 DAVID WALLACE 27.30 62895 DAVID WHITE 50.00 62788 DAWNEC ARROLL 52.22 63126 DEANN ROACH 22.50 63154 DEBBIE DAVENPORT - 13.34 63163 DEBBIE ROZZELL 14.16 62751 DEBBIE ROZZELL 17.35 63575 DEBORAHC OKER 10.54 62909 DEBORAHL UTZ 589.60 63269 DELI PARTNER'S 212.80 63595 DELTA DENTAL 56,930.16 63486 DELTA EDUCATION 143.00 63303 DEMCO 271. 68 62684 DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT 280,862.04 63727 DERRICK GREENWOOD 60.00 63359 DEVELOPMENTATLH ERAPIES 393.75 63536 DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX 3,548.00 63730 DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS 1,917.63 62742 DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS 164.64 63024 T- 7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS DIAMONDIN TERNATIONALT RUCKS DIANE R SMITH DIEDRA GASKALLA DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT TROPHIES, INC. DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DORIE SUMMONS DOROTHYF ARRIS DR ANGELA OLSEN DR ANGELA OLSEN DR ANGELA OLSEN DSANJA T BOYLAND DUSTY VANNATTER DUSTY VANNATTER DUSTY VANNATTER DWIGHT L RENDELL EAST CAMPUSA CTIVITY FUND EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATIONT ECHNOLOGSYE RVICES EDUCATORSB OOKD EPOSITORYO F EDUCATORSB OOKD EPOSITORYO F EDUCATORSO UTLET ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY ELGIN SCHOOL SUPPLY EMPLOYEEB ENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAPLR OTECTIONA SSOC ENVIRONMENTATLE CHNOLOGIES,I N EQUIPMENT CONCEPTS \u0026amp; DESIGNS ERIC ARMIN INC. ERIC D BROWN ERIC WALDORF ERIC WALDORF ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE T- 8 AMOUNT 2,576.90 294.08 398.59 110.33 26. 92 91.38 154.73 94.80 158.01 232.39 83.89 330.42 38.26 38.38 75.00 160.00 160.00 150.00 60.00 262.40 150.00 300.00 1,404.47 37.58 30.65 919.08 478.26 510.00 535.41 7,948.01 54.99 81. 75 290.37 684.33 84.78 409,432.76 10,100.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 370,449.90 250.00 6,856.21 1,661.09 90.00 35.10 23.40 796.07 3,000.55 CHK. NO. 63318 63570 62630 63118 63104 62972 62637 63220 63712 62876 63409 62767 63039 63589 63087 63049 63342 63594 63042 63393 63124 63653 63533 62685 62973 63275 63534 63354 62686 62974 63658 62959 62842 63078 63618 63491 63255 62642 63225 63717 63130 63443 62893 63257 63071 62942 63256 62690 62977 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE EV MASTER FABER AND BRAND LLC FABER AND BRAND LLC FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FARRELL-CALHOUPNA INT CO FCCLA LOCKBOXO PERATION FERRELLGAS FIRE MOUNTAIN FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLINN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRANKLIN IND FRED H HOKES FRED H HOKES FREE SPIRIT PUBLISHING FREY SCIENTIFIC CO. GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY STEPHENS GARY YIELDING GATEWAYC OMPANIESI NC GENOA LLC GEORGE TAYLOR GLADYS MCDONALD GLASS DOCTOR GLORIA SMITH GOODMADNI STRIBUTION INC GRADY W JONES CO INC GRAINGER GRAINGER GREEK 4 LIFE GRETCHENL AUIPPA HAND IN HAND DAY CARE HAROLD D STARK HARPER SHEET METAL WORKS INC. HASLER INC HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HERAL ENTERPRISES, INC. HIGHSMITH INC HOBBY LOBBY HOLIDAY INN SELECT EXPRESS HOLLY POWELL T- 9 AMOUNT 904.97 390.17 13,989.00 99.95 86.96 381. 21 381. 21 132.21 168.00 23.50 200.50 653.09 6,775.16 626. 64 276.36 2,823.41 5,112.93 76.00 70.00 70.00 58.70 194.80 100.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 30.00 2,988.74 4,424.26 23.87 12.72 139.75 57.84 34.23 316.10 4,543.03 347.73 194.57 130.00 1,500.00 69.42 258.62 588.60 797. 50 30.91 405.29 131.77 541. 92 260.36 CHK. NO. 63279 63539 63599 62634 63217 63198 63683 63281 63433 63585 62994 62694 62979 63541 63265 62693 62978 63701 62789 63052 62691 63542 62877 63113 63390 63646 63263 63088 63084 62984 63062 63057 63441 63548 62872 62766 63334 63355 63420 62965 63439 62986 63410 62901 63285 63550 63549 63436 63479 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT HOME DEPOT/GECF HONEYBAKEHDA MC OMPANY HONEYBAKEHDA MC OMPANY HORIZONS OFTWAREIN TERNATIONAL HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHANP LLC HOUGHTOMN IFFLIN COMPANY HOUGHTOMN IFFLIN COMPANY HOWARDR OSS HOWARDR OSS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL HOM'S HARDWAR\u0026amp;E RENTAL IDEAL BREAD ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENTM USIC SERVICE, INC INDIAN HILLS ELEM ACTIVITY INFORMATIONV AULTINGS ERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE IPARADIGMS, LLC. ISSAC HENRY J \u0026amp; B MUSIC SALES, INC. J \u0026amp; B SUPPLY COMPANY J L HEIN SERVICE INC J L HEIN SERVICE INC JS PRINTING JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACQUELINE SUMLER T-10 AMOUNT 132.45 453.77 534.91 47.25 502.69 502.69 502.69 47.20 2,244.27 60.00 60.00 7,737.82 35.69 507.38 7.74 920.11 7.45 161.20 425.00 425.00 425.00 128.55 1,409.20 158.24 151. 90 2,981.02 547.50 2,981.02 547.50 2,981.02 1,074.00 34,518.02 17,760.23 12,700.96 50.00 136.00 50.00 136.00 50.00 136.00 640.00 70.00 97.40 118. 80 21,996.00 27,445.00 320.00 146.00 39.98 CHK. NO. 63341 62903 63412 62761 62610 63205 63689 62702 62987 63005 63304 62915 63142 63664 62703 63287 63551 62704 62608 63202 63687 62663 63089 62887 62982 62592 62622 63183 63237 63510 63006 62891 63128 63400 62603 62607 63196 63201 63681 63686 63271 62812 63335 63094 63423 63665 62777 62989 63164 . - NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. JACQUES MUMFORD 50.00 62793 JALEN KING 50.00 62827 JAMES W. WOODARDJ,R 126.13 63165 JAMIE EUBANKS 1,190.00 63141 JAMIE EUBANKS 2,310.00 63663 JAN KUCALA 16.77 63065 JANET E. THOMASP .T. 653.34 63041 JANET FOSTER 187.50 63090 JARIUS L. COPELAND 25.00 63625 JEFFERY TURNER 90.00 62771 JEFFREY SAND COMPANY 39.88 62707 JENNIFER FRANCE 678.79 62701 JENNIFER SKINNER 4.76 63469 JERRY MASSEY 483.96 63091 JERRY MASSEY 420.00 63636 JESSICA MOSER 155.94 62798 JILL MILLS 31.20 63288 JIMMY MAXWELL 29.42 63600 JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281. 37 62633 JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281.37 63216 - JO-ANN GOLDMANT, RUSTEE 281.37 63709 JOHN DAVID HENRY 25.00 62819 JOHN SCHWULST 30.00 62664 JOHN SCHWULST 60.00 62944 JOHN SCHWULST 42.50 63262 JOHN W RICE 25.00 62816 JOHNNIE F HENRY 25.00 62801 JOHNSTONES UPPLY 42.40 62868 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 62611 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 63206 JOSH E MCHUGHEAS TTORNEY 50.35 63690 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 62643 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 6,239.04 63204 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 63226 JOYCE BRADLEYB ABIN 430.53 - 63718 JOYCE J NICHOLS 45.00 62815 JOYCE J NICHOLS 20.00 63069 JOYCE J NICHOLS 20.00 63611 JOYE WILLIAMS 31. 90 63475 JUAN RIDGEWAY 50.00 62782 JUDITH QUATTLEBAUM 56.09 63168 JUDITH QUATTLEBAUM 51.09 63673 JULIE SOBKOVIAK 180.00 63313 JUNIOR ACHIEVEMENT 500.00 62825 JUST FOR KIDS 450.00 63427 KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 62632 - KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 63215 KANSASP AYMENTC ENTER 46.15 63708 KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING co 868. 79 62709 T-11 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING co 1,222.28 63553 KAREN POWELL 74.61 63108 KATHLEANK ING 30.00 63364 KATHRYNH ALE 223.36 63666 KATHY HELLER 20.00 63478 KATYG EARHARTH UNT 34.87 62666 KAY EWART 113.26 62945 KAYE COLEMAN 33.68 62795 KAYE LOWE 65.56 62961 KAYLORS INCORPORATED 305.63 62993 KAYLORS INCORPORATED 190.68 63294 KEATHLEYP ATTERSONE LECTRIC 38.56 62649 KEITH FAULKNER 41.57 62645 KEITH FAULKNER 127.13 63228 KEITH L KELLEY 50.00 62840 KEITH PHIFER 30.00 63317 KELLEYS UPHOLSTERY 5,143.72 63388 KELLIE SHEFFIELD 80.00 62865 KELLfE SHEFFIELD 20.00 63380 KENNETHA . KIRSPEL 576.28 62928 KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. 3,741.00 63674 KESSLERS TEAMS PORTS 788.84 63346 - KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS 864.30 63598 KEVIN DANAHER 236.34 62914 KEVIN DANAHER 25.72 63140 KEVIN MARTIN 134.94 63435 KIDS KORNER 856.36 63576 KIM ISGRIG 21.06 63100 KIM PEARSON 66.47 62897 KIM REYNOLDS 62.91 62683 KIMBERLY JANE RUBLE 80.00 63371 KIMMIE CLEVELAND 80.00 63627 KKPT-THE POINT RADIO STATION 3,230.00 63019 KNOWBUDDRYE SOURCES 517.82 62905 KNOWLEDGIEN DUSTRIES INC 1,406.93 62698 KONE INC 497.80 63596 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co. f INC. 1,506.00 62710 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co. f INC. 37,715.10 62995 KREBS BROS. SUPPLY co., INC. 130.26 63554 KRISTEN MADDOX 38.22 62896 KRISTIE RATLIFF 17.24 63134 KRISTIE RATLIFF 25.55 63413 KROGERC OMPANY/CAMRPO BINSON 137.97 62711 KROGERC OMPANY/CAMRPO BINSON 150.00 62996 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 148.17 62712 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 100 .38 63296 KROGERC OMPANY/INDIANH ILLS 122.67 63555 - KROGERC OMPANY/PERSHING 246.63 62785 KYNYAC OLEMAN 35.00 63076 T-12 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER2 006 ACCOUNT LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKESHOREL EARNINGM ATERIALS LAKEWOOEDL EM ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOMD IDDLE SCHOOL LAMONICAM ITCHELL LARA HUMPHRIES LASONYA J TURNER LASONYA J TURNER LAURA JENNINGS LAURA WINTERS LAUREN WALKER LAVONE REDUS LEARNING TODAY INC LEE TACKETT LEON DOREY LGSA LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDA B HARPER LINDA P.\" STEWART LINDSEY MAC MILLEN LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDY THOMPSON LISA GRAY LISA GRAY LISA GRAY LITTLE CAESAR'S GENERAL OFFICE LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. LONGS ELECTRONICS LONNIE EDWARDS LORRI JOSHUA-BEASLEY LOUIS STINSON LOUIS STINSON LOUIS STINSON T-13 AMOUNT 489.19 282.83 843.88 210.32 400.00 6.13 18. 72 30.00 30.00 155.81 80.26 82.56 11. 34 800.00 543.06 500.00 245.00 65.85 6,681.37 2,840.66 5,732.87 3,882.58 134.17 428.18 7.50 7,875.40 45.00 22.50 3,054.89 25.00 125.00 264.44 212.80 238.01 196.52 20.00 20.00 20.00 140.00 112. 00 603,260.38 268.59 3,910.02 258.78 75.00 30.00 45.00 20.00 20.00 CHK. NO. 62740 63023 63569 63649 63556 59688 V 63152 63366 63623 62940 63017 62779 63464 63566 63148 63429 62820 62999 62587 62618 63178 63233 63244 63248 63455 63505 63696 63700 63724 62837 62861 63470 62714 63557 62780 62814 63068 63610 62863 62871 63298 62723 63306 62716 63064 63631 62803 63061 63605 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LUCI A STEPHENS LUCI A STEPHENS LUCI A STEPHENS LYNCH DRIVE ELEM ACTIVITY LYNN HARRISON M \u0026amp; M ENTERPRISES MB ELECTRONICS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINES UBSCRIPTIONS MAINSTAGET HEATRICALS UPPLY MAISHA NICOLE JONES MAISHA NICOLE JONES MAJOICE THOMAS MALA ROGERS MALA ROGERS MALA ROGERS MARCIVE, INC MARCIVE, INC MARDELC ORPORATEO FFICE MARENEMIN C MARGARETE STINSON MARGARETE STINSON MARGARETE STINSON MARGARENT ORTON MARI INC. MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARIE PIERCE MARIJO VALENTINE MARILYN JOHNSON MARILYN JOHNSON MARSHAS ATTERFIELD MARTHAF EWELL MARTHAN ORTON MARVAS IMS MARY A. WILES MARYC AROLYNE AST MARYC AROLYNE AST MARYC AROLYNE AST MASON ELECTRIC MATTHEWBI NFORD MCCLUREL ANDSCAPING MCKINZIE L RILEY T-14 AMOUNT 443.44 247.03 5,096.97 239.00 257.00 75.00 50.00 25.00 73.64 1,068.23 525.00 34.26 1,384.30 460. 72 42.25 50.00 30.00 52 .26 195.00 63.57 32.52 15.60 7.02 96.98 286.00 45.00 20.00 20.00 26. 46 61.00 28.36 91. 77 22.50 152.34 50.00 22.74 13.38 170.04 9.67 3,587.50 30.00 204.67 41. 87 41. 50 32.95 130.80 10.65 4,700.00 190.00 CHK. NO. 62933 63174 63447 63097 63638 62847 63079 63363 63394 62700 63448 63660 63444 63274 62823 62808 63066 63125 62718 63004 63302 62720 63558 62661 63617 62665 62950 63523 63474 63637 62900 63133 63407 62772 63367 63002 63301 63095 63010 63159 62811 63018 63167 63440 63671 62717 63472 63419 62784 4 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT MCKINZIE L RILEY MCM MEADOWPA RKE LEMA CTIVITY FUND MELISSA FARRAR MELISSA WALLS MELISSA WALLS MEMS MET LIFE METAL MART METRO FOODS MICHAEL BLYTHE MICHELLE KEATON MID-SOUTH APPLIANCE PARTS CO. MINDY CARROLL MIRANDAW ALTONS MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MOLLY LEOPARD MOUNTV ERNON-ENOLQAU IZ BOWL MR SOCK MRS CLARKS FOOD MUSIC IS ELEMENTARY MYERS SUPPLY, INC N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMPS UPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASC/NASSP NASCO NASCO NASDSE NATIONALG EOGRAPHICS CHOOL NATIONALH OMEC ENTER NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NCS PEARSON NCTM REGISTRATION NCTM REGISTRATION NCTM-DRAWEAR NEXTEL PARTNERS T-15 AMOUNT 70.00 190.57 103.79 29. 97 50.00 30.00 1,400.00 6,584.40 512.69 4,529.30 28.04 85.84 83.53 105.73 27.26 995.00 80.00 50.00 200.00 307.50 29.95 707.06 1,875.00 1,305.40 32.44 227.15 40.00 100.33 205.73 270.68 888.00 273.52 141.56 28.00 1,407.46 103.74 346.50 7,150.26 33.89 211.18 327.65 137.00 137.00 137.00 2,996.98 1,648.00 1,074.00 15.16 8,573.99 CHK. NO. 63048 62862 63650 63384 62851 63083 63127 63465 62880 62860 63459 63153 62721 62781 62834 62906 63286 62697 63070 62734 62706 62932 62722 63009 63305 63560 62769 63590 62879 62696 62980 63282 63544 62729 62724- 63561 63350 62953 62726 62881 62727 62609 63203 63688 62911 62715 63001 63567 63343 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD TRANSPORTATIOND EPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUNCDH ECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCKE DUCATORSC RED NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NO. LITTLE ROCKW INNELSONC O. NORCOMIN C NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTHL ITTLE ROCKC HAMBERO F NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH POINT FORD OAK GROVE HIGH SCHOOL OCCUPATIONAHL EALTHC ENTERSO F OCCUPATIONAHL EALTHC ENTERSO F OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL T-16 AMOUNT 5.07 5.07 10,885.75 5,320.00 4 65. 60 15,133.75 78,460.80 380.46 195.74 488.36 50.10 32.21 116.85 188.62 12.00 863.45 78.00 273.00 1,080.00 518.00 432.38 496.25 316.32 333.50 195.26 261.86 64.56 140.80 19.72 41.97 223.45 1,516.19 37,807.20 30,818.84 306.23 80.00 315.00 38.00 2,720.66 1,681.03 2,720.66 1,830.69 2,720.66 1,679.49 2,596.83 3,881.73 1,428.58 1,022.30 64.62 CHK. NO. 62728 63307 63331 63438 63500 63490 63497 62730 63309 63562 62773 62886 63395 63651 63308 62647 63310 63406 63677 63692 62731 63011 63311 63563 62646 63208 63229 63493 63720 62732 63013 63564 62976 63538 63007 63374 63122 63396 62599 62627 63192 63211 63679 63704 62855 63086 63372 63626 62638 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYG ENERAL ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. ORIENTHAL NEWBURN OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OSI EDUCATION SERVICES OTIS RAY BANKS OTIS RAY BANKS PACHECOO UTDOORE QUIPMENT PAGES OF PARENTING PAMELA JACKSON PAMELA JACKSON PAR INC PAR INC PATRICIA MAYS PATSY A RHOADES PAULA K URTON PAULA K URTON PAULA MCCARTHER PEACHTREEB USINESS PRODUCTS PEARSON EDUCATION PEARSON EDUCATION PEARSON EDUCATION PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PEER TUTOR PRESS PENNY ELLIOTT PERFORMANCLEE ARNINGI NC. PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PFG LITTLE ROCK PHYLLIS THOMPSON PHYLLIS THOMPSON PIPE \u0026amp; TUBE SUPPLY PLANK ROAD PUBLISHING POE TRAVEL PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES PORTFOLIOR ECOVERYA SSOCIATES POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PPG ARCHITECTURALF INISHES PRISCILLA BENSON PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PROMOTIONSP LUS T-17 AMOUNT 64.62 64.62 209.68 150.00 89.98 89.98 89.98 20.00 20.00 246.71 399.97 25.00 20.00 1,005.53 127.60 6.10 25.00 50.00 20.00 1,065.00 346.50 12.67 942.08 5,302.98 1, 968. 7 5 274.95 275.64 96.15 2,443.91 223.57 14,894.65 50.00 30.00 113. 01 138.10 121. 00 187.45 285.34 161.82 147.20 132.40 156.00 48.00 801.06 23.00 3,413.91 3,413.91 3,915.48 222.36 CHK. NO. 63221 63713 63588 62836 62604 63197 63682 63072 63614 62922 63345 62809 63608 63157 63667 63466 62804 62845 63362 63602 63376 62902 62920 63146 63428 62675 62826 62770 62699 63284 62737 62791 63054 62654 63107 63300 62639 63222 63714 62878 63115 63074 63075 63033 63463 62597 63188 63515 63103 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DECEMBER20 06 ACCOUNT PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y PUBLIC EMPLOYEESR ETIREMENTS Y  PUBLIC SCHOOL VEHICLE PROGRAM PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PURCHASE POWER PYRAMID INTERIORS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUALITYW HOLESALEB UILDING RADIO SHACK RADIO SHACK RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RADIOLOGYA SSOCIATES, P.A. RAINBOWB OOKC OMPANY RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDALLH SANDEFUR RANDY SANDEFUR RANDY SANDEFUR RAY C HARVEY RAY C HARVEY RAY HANKINS RAYMONGDE DDESA ND COMPANY READING TREE PRODUCTIONS REALLY GOOD STUFF INC REBECCA R CARR REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC REGINALD D MARTIN REGINALD JOHNSON REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC REGIONALA DJUSTMENTB UREAUI NC RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS RENAISSANCEL EARNINGI NC RENAISSANCEL EARNINGI NC RESOURCESF OR READINGI NC REXEL DAVIES REXEL DAVIES RHONDAB ANKS RHONDAD ICKEY RHONDAR OOK RICHARD ALEXANDER RITA CASEY ROBERT A MAJOR JR T-18 AMOUNT 1,945.70 2,156.32 387.41 148.00 2,169.91 1,135.00 19,755.00 316.52 1,433.05 1,929.85 58.98 532.65 2,127.60 39.13 48.68 20.00 20.00 20.00 1,543.29 20.00 20.00 20.00 101.06 974.00 20.00 20.00 203.70 154.57 16.50 18.95 2,807.22 3,528.68 90.00 70.00 62.61 62.61 62.61 860. 40 85.25 456.69 53.95 202.04 130.80 18.56 38.51 15.00 67.39 150.00 25.00 CHK. NO. 62620 63235 63249 63456 63725 62677 62856 63299 63003 62929 63171 63442 63647 63022 63315 62635 63218 63710 63059 62849 63081 63620 63109 63389 62839 63615 62918 63098 62792 62904 62892 62739 62833 62831 62606 63200 63685 63656 62757 63582 63135 62687 63535 62889 63338 63414 6308\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1791","title":"Court filings regarding District Court proposed findings of fact, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2007-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","School boards","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Joshua intervenors"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding District Court proposed findings of fact, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1791"],"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":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, proposed findings of fact; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) board's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, notice of electronic filing, amended notice to file; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4: 82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS INIBRVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT HISTORY 1. The LRSD began making verbal commitments to narrow the achievement gap between African American and Caucasian students as early as 1989. To that end, the State of Arkansas, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors approved a plan of desegregation designed to address the accomplishment of that objective. The State of Arkansas devoted substantial amounts of money to that task. 2. It was contemplated that the objectives of the desegregation plan would 1 E0d t\u0026gt;S9ON ~ d ~3~ll;K1 M NHOf Wd2t\u0026gt;:21 L00291'N~f be completed by 1996. That date was extended for various reasons of noncompliance none of which may be attributable to Joshua. 3. In 2002, the court entered an Order releasing LRSD from court supervision in all areas with exception of program assessments. 4. When the district did not comply with the Court's order by 2004, the Court entered a new order making more specific its requirements upon the district and the parties. The Court contemplated that by October 15, 2006 the district would submit its final report reflecting its performance pursuant to its June, 2004 order. This date has now been extended and a hearing regarding compliance is - scheduled to begin January- 20, 2007. 5. The LRSD urges the Court to find that its has complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy in all respects and that the Court's supervision of any aspect ofLRSD's school operations should end. The Joshua lntervenors contend that the LR.SD has not approached the Court's 2002 and 2004 orders in good faith; that the ~chool administration during the intervening years has tried to frustrate and abort implementation of the Court's Orders; that the LRSD has been aided in that respect by the advice of district counsel, Chris Heller, and his law finn; and that the Court's Order of June, 2004 has been disrespected and disobeyed. 6. Part of the reason for the district's noncompliance with the 2002 order 2 was its preoccupation with promoting the return of white students to west Little Rock schools and with establishing programs that would assure parents of that section of the district that they could have majority white high quality schools in that area. For this reason, the school district has never publicly acknowledged in any publication or board resolution that it had a priority to address the dismal state of education for African American students in the LRSD. 7. In July, 2004, the majority of the board chose to select Dr. Roy G. Brooks over far more qualified applicants including Dr. Morris Holmes for the Superintendent's position. Dr. Brooks has never been a superintendent and is - unknowledgeable about any pertinent subject matter area before the Court. He was chosen to rubber stamp the majority agenda and to dismantle the strengths of the existing desegregation plan. His selection was opposed by large segments of the African American community. 8. When Dr. Brooks was hired, he was given a blank check to do as he pleased by the majority Caucasian board. Their emphasis was to provide technical compliance with the Court's Order, but to do as little as possible to otheIWise implement it. 9. A number of the Caucasian board members have been hostile to the Joshua Intervenors' participation in the implementation process and Joshua's 3 S\"d vS9\"ON ~ d ~3\u0026gt;il~M M NHOr Wd2v:21 L002 91Ntir making appearances before the Board to address the subject. 10. The present attitude of the school board majority differs materially from that of the precious majority with respect to program assessment and evaluation, addressing the achievement gap and support of the PRE Department. The PRE has not been fully supported in the past by the Dr. Roy Brooks and the majority of the school board. 11. The school administration and district counsel have sought to punish PRE Director Dr. DeJarnette because she made reports that honestly reflected the status of compliance and because she would not change them to reflect the school - administration's view point. For these reasons, she was tenninated by the Superintendent and replaced by Dr. Ed Williams but the school board overruled the Superintendent's actions and reinstated her. 12. This history is important because it sets forth the context in which the compliance remedy is to be considered by the Court. 13. The Court directed on June 30, 2004 the prompt establishment of a first rate professional research and evaluation department with a highly qualified director. The district did not post the position promptly. On or about October 1, 2004, it selected Dr. Karen DeJarnette for that position. 14. Dr. DeJamette's qualifications are set forth in PRE's 1st quarterly report 4 9'd vS9'0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOf Wd2v:2l l002\"9l'N~f to the Court as well as the other members of the PRE department. Dr. DeJamette's qualifications for the task are universally acknowledged. She was selected ahead of Dr. Ed Willia.ms, a long term statistician within the district. He was the person responsible for the data presented to the Court by Dr. Bonnie Lesley. He was one of the persons to whom the Court referred at page 52 ofits June 30, 2004 order when the Court observed that lack of evidence of any current administrator in LRSD who had the experience or training necessary to perfonn prescribed informal assessments and/or evaluations. 15. When Dr. DeJarnette was selected she reported directly to - Superintendent Brooks. 16. Upon Dr. Brooks hiring, he selected two people who had worked with him in Orange County, Florida. Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Brooks' Deputy Superintendent, had been a high school principal. Dr. Olivine Roberts had been a math teacher who served for a short time as coordinator of math and science curriculum for the same school district. Neither of these three had ever held a position at the highest level of a large school district. This is reflected Dr. Robert's salary of $60,000 and by her testimony. 17. The majority board was content with these selections because that enabled board members Berkley, Rose and Dr. Beverly Williams, Human 5 l\"d vs90N Resources Director, the opportunity to make the relevant major decisions regarding undoing the positive effects of the desegregation plan from which the district had been released by the Court. 18. Dr. Brooks' first major act was to adversely affect a number of African American school principals, replace them with white persons and then to adversely impact through a reorganization scheme a large number of African American staff members. Dr. Katherine Mitchell has described the reorganization as being \"racial\" and \"mean spirited.\" 19. Dr. DeJamette was made a part of the reorganization team, even though - she was new to the district. She was informed that the reorganization cuts would affect each department including her own. Dr. Beverly Williams required her to cut two positions and to reduce one other. This was in direct defiance of the Court's directive that the district create and maintain a highly trained and adequate PRE staff .. 20. Between January, 2005 and June 2005, Dr. DeJarnette began ,performing many tasks necessitated by the Court's order including holding regular meetings with stakeholders including the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM, if it may be called a stakeholder. 21. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE 6 8d t7S9\"0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHO WdEt?:21 L002\"9l\"N~  staff and the school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 22. In the Spring of 2006, Dr. DeJarnette informed senior administrators that there were problems with respect to implementing the Court's Order. It was at that point that Dr. Brooks became openly hostile to her. PROBLEMS WITH COMPLIANCE 23. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (Compliance Remedy, para. A) 24. LRSD administrators have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding \"school portfolios\", \"district portfolio'', and \"data warehouse.\"] Joshua Ex._ 7 6'd t\u0026gt;S9'0N ~ d ~3~7tJM M NHOf WdE:t\u0026gt;:2t L002'9t'Nl:::lf 25. In the preparation of the eight .. formal step 2 evaluations,\" PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evah~ation reports. See Joshua Ex __ ( cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation). These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A ( court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B (\"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program\"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; ... \") It was at all times apparent that building the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistance of outside evaluators ( or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators) was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 26. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. B] a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and 8 ~ d ~3)1l~M M NHOf Wdvv:2l l0029l\"N~f variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; (iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Reading Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school - year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; (xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools exposed to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to detennine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questionnaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process 9 nd 17S9'0N ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOf Wdl717:21 L00291Nt::1r has been delayed indefinitely. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. ( use of questionnaire postponed) d. PRE's \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school\" and \"district portfolios\" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned \"school portfolios\" in its quarterly report of9-l-05 at 3, corrections in the \"Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school year, \" show that ~'LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year.\" [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: \"Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] At present, one can not detennine the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,,, compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): \"PRE is also investigating Zl\"d l\u0026gt;S9\"0N ~ d ~3~7t:/M M NHOf Wdl\u0026gt;l\u0026gt; :21 l 002 '9 l\"NtJf the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing.\" The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): \"To support the portfolio's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system, designed for use by school systems, which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See - Attachment at A-15 (\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for asses~ments and evaluations. (Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\")] g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Joshua Ex. 27. The step 2 evaluations contain insufficient descriptions of the programs 11 ct .d 17S9'ON ~ d ~3~7~M M NHOf WdSl7:2t L002'9t'N~f being evaluated and their implementation to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D (\"Has the Section 2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students, as it bas been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" [emphasis added)]. Joshua Ex. __ (Joshau Intervenors' Comments on evaluations) 28. While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Joshua Ex. ___ (\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para, 4) 29. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph Hof the 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments atA-16 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) \"The Superintendent threatened ... (the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua.\"] 30. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy. 31. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team 12 M \"d 1\u0026gt;S9.0N ~ d ~3~7t!M M NHOf WdSl\u0026gt;:2l L00291 N~f meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua representatives. Moreover, team member participation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Joshua Ex 32. The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Joshua Ex._ para. 7 (PRE \"Compliance History\"). For example, it is the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, that some of the key e Section 2. 7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: \"LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step evaluations. Each of these ste,J2 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2. 7 programs as it has been..,implemented in schopls throu~hout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 33. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the 13 sr d t7S9. ON ~ d ~3~7\\:#M M NHOf WdSt7:2t l002\"9t\"Ntif LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for the 2005-2006 school year filed by LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Retnedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LR.SD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 35. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. FURTHER BAD FAITH 36. District counsel Chris Heller did not fully cooperate with the process in implementing the Compliance Remedy. He was largely unavailable throughout 14 91 \"d t7S9\"0N much of 2006 to the PRE staff, participated in but few of the evaluation team meetings and sought to prevent Joshua from having direct access to PRE staff and others who were charged by the Court with the duty of implementing the Court's directives. Rather than support the PRE director and at least be available to address her concerns related to implementing the process, meeting court deadlines, and actions to embed the assessment process into the curriculum of the district, Mr. Heller sought to subvert the PRE Director's activities. He was aided in this respect by district superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks. 3 7. The Court directed counsel for the parties to meet with ODM in an - attempt to resolve concerns which Joshua had regarding the district's compliance. Well in advance of the October 15, 2006 due report, Joshua then met with LRSD counsel, Chris Heller, in a meeting attended and arranged by ODM to further discuss Joshua's concerns. LRSD counsel refused to allow Dr. DeJamette or other officials to meet with Joshua to address the stated concerns. This meeting occurred on August 8, 2006. Mr. Heller did not offer to meet again with Joshua and ODM until November 1, 2006, shortly before the date for Joshua's submission of its objections to the Compliance Report. In the meantime, on August 17, 2006, being aware that Joshua knew a lot about the district's failings, he wrote Dr. DeJamette an email directing her not to discuss issues likely to be litigated in 15 L't'd t\u0026gt;S9 \"ON ~ d ~3~l~M M NHOr Wd9t\u0026gt; :2 't L0029i;N~r December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside his presence. Accordingly the flow information of information between Springer and DeJamette ceased. Dr. DeJarnette wrote that she could not provide a response to Ms. Springer's concerns about data being fraught with errors because she had been instructed by Mr. Heller not to do so. Joshua Ex __ 38. Moreover, Or. DeJamette repeatedly requested that Mr. Heller inform the Court of a need for more time in which to make competent reports to the parties and to the Court. Mr. Heller refused to do so. 39. Mr. Heller refused to meet with the newly elected board members to - inform them of anything with respect to the Compliance Remedy. Instead, he met with the Caucasian board members and Dr. Brooks and his administration, and engineered the displacement of Dr. DeJamette. He then caused Dr. Brooks to hire the Quattlebaum law firm to make a purported independent investigation of Dr. DeJamette suggesting at the same time that Dr. Ed Williams, a rejected applicant for PRE director, could perfonn the tasks sufficiently and provide the Court the necessary evidence to allow a court detennination that LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations herein. 40. Mr. Heller revised the 8th quarterly report by deleting pertinent information which reflected that district's noncompliance with Item B. of the 16 a1d i,s9ON ~ d ~3~7t::lM M NHOf Wd9t\u0026gt;:2\"C L002 91Ntlf Compliance Remedy dealing with the development of a comprehensive program assessment process. 41. The LRSD has refused to acknowledge in a nwnber of its publications (Guiding Principles, Annual Reports) that it has an obligation to assess programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African American students. 42. Former school board member Tony Rose and current board member Larry Berkley have been openly hostile to Joshua's monitoring of the Compliance Remedy. 43. Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette with a - recommendation for termination after she reported to the Board problems of compliance regarding the Compliance Remedy. HIRE A IDGHLY TRAINED TEAM OF PROFESSIONALS 44. The PRE staff was materially reduced so that four staff members including Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Ed Wohleb, Dr. Ed Williams and Ms. Maurceria Robinson had to fulfill seven (7) full time position responsibilities for 14 months. In addition, in July 2005, the reorganization by Dr. Brooks of PRE added far more work to PRE responsibilities. This included developing a comprehensive plan (ACSIP) for each school in the district and a district Title I plan for the Arkansas Department of Education. In addition, PRE was called upon to develop 17 6't d vs90N questionnaires for thousands of parents, students and community members for public relations reports for the school district. This added work by Dr. Brooks for PRE materially affected the schedule developed by Dr. DeJamette for embedding the assessment process into the district's curriculum. 45. The LRSD school administration took action to divide the staff of the PRE. Early in 2006, Dr. Brooks began relying on statistician Dr. Ed Williams as his PRE contact person who would address certain PRE activities of specific concern to Dr. Brooks. He did this without consultant with or approval of the PRE Director, Dr. DeJamette. Dr. Brooks now contends that there is disruption in PRE - that undermines the effectiveness of PRE. Dr, Williams on the other hand denies that there is any disruption within PRE staff. When asked ifhe had anything negative regarding PRE Director DeJamette or her leadership, he said no. It does appear that upon Dr. Brooks removal of Dr. DeJamette. He elevated Dr. Williams to the Director's position and advertised for a new statistician at a time when Dr. Brooks was arguing that the PRE staff was sufficient in size. I find therefore as fact that there has been disruption within the PRE department and that it has been attributable to Dr. Brooks and perhaps others working in concert with him. It is appropriate therefore for the PRE department, under these circumstances, to report directly to the Board, rather than Dr. Brooks. I make this finding in part 18 02\"d t7S9ON ~ d ~3~lt/M M NHOf Wdlt7:2l L002'91'N\\:1f because Dr. Brooks is not thoroughly acquainted with the remedy, does not intend to respect Dr. DeJ arnette, and is not inclined to respect the majority of the board members of the LRSD with respect to school district administration. DEVISE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PROCESS 46. Each of the key programs listed in 2.7 of the Revised Desegregation Plan compliance reports have not been assessed during the 2004-2005 and 2005- 2006 school years. Accordingly, the district does not represent any of those 2.7 programs as having been effective in improving the academic achievement of African American students. 4 7. The LRSD staff have not used the completed program evaluations as a part. of a comprehensive program assessment process to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African American achievement. Moreover, LRSD has not used the step 2 program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of other related programs in addressing whether improvement has been made with respect to African American achievement. 48. Dr. Roy Brooks has primary responsibility beyond that directly assigned by the Court to the PRE Director, for ensuring compliance with this court's decree. It can not be said that Brooks has an understanding of the remedy set forth by the Court or the intended obligations imposed by that remedy upon his 19 administrative leadership. He is content to say that he delegated the authority for implementation to his subordinates, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent and Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instruction. 49. The Court is not persuaded that either Dr. Olivine Roberts or Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh had the requisite experience for meeting the court's compliance expectations. Neither of them had ever had district wide responsibility for program evaluation. Dr. Robert's highest level of supervision was as a coordinator in the area of math and science in Orange County, Florida, a majority white school system. Dr. Hattabaugh's primary experience was as an elementary school principal several levels removed from the top school administration, and had no district wide responsibility for anything. Moreover, Dr. Brooks can not be said to be knowledgeable with respect to program evaluation. Indeed, he could not recall ,;, the subject of his doctoral dissertation. 50. The two new African American board members, Charles Armstrong and Dianne Curry, have not been made fully aware by the school administration or by counsel of their obligations with respect to the Compliance Remedy. They complain that they have been kept out of the information loop by Dr. Brooks and Mr. Heller; and that when they sought to become informed about the status of compliance, the school administration reacted by summarily suspending PRE 20 Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette with a recommendation that she .be terminated. They, therefore, can not address the Compliance Remedy other than to say that if they are uninformed, then employees of the district in many cases are also uninformed. 51. Board member Larry Berkley, like board member Rose, was unable to say that the assessment process set forth in IL-R was embedded into the curriculum ofLRSD. Indeed, it was Mr. Berkley's viewpoint that the process was to be deeply embedded in PRE rather than the district as a whole. (Berkley Dep. pp. 7-8) Mr. Berkley did not recall that the deeply embedded process.required involvement of all of the stakeholders. (Depp. 9, See also p. 12 .... \" it's up to the admipistration to be make sure that ... this process within PRE is deeply embedded\") 52. For Mr. Berkley there was no way that PRE could make a presentation of its concerns to the Board in a public session. (Berkley Dep. p. 13) Moreover, with respect to the Board resolution of November 16, 2006, Mr: Berkley testified that when it was presented to the Board by Mr. Heller, he did not recall an explanation by Heller. Before then, the Board was aware of concerns from Joshua, PRE and ODM but the Board made no inquiry of Joshua, PRE or ODM about the status of compliance. (Berkley Dep. p. 22) 21 53. Mr. Berkley opposed the election of Armstrong and Curry because he felt that Dr. Katherine Mitchell had opposed Dr. Roy Brooks and with their election would fonn a voting bloc against Dr. Brooks on matters including the Compliance Remedy (Dep. p. 25) 54. At least four members of the current LRSD School Board do not believe that it is appropriate for the Court to discontinue supervision of the evaluation and assess requirements of the consent decree and the Court Order of June 30, 2004. 55. The LRSD presented Baker Kurrus, a prominent attorney and local business man, to establish that the district has indeed complied with this Court's order.. He testified that the Board annually adopts a program evaluation agenda but that he is unable to identify programs specifically identified by the school ,:, administration for the purpose of remediating and improving the achievement of African American students. He is unable to describe any actions taken by LRSD other than on paper and could not testify as to how the assessment and evaluation process had been deeply embedded into the district's curriculum. 56. In the past, LRSD has informed the Court that it had at least 46 programs designed to improve African American achievement. Dr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instruction, could not identify any programs 22 with that specific purpose. Her explanation was that all programs are implemented for all children and that all children include African American children. She could not identify any programs that were specific and exclusive within the LRSD for the purpose of addressing the academic needs of African American children. 57. In 2004, the Court observed that many of the program evaluations of the district were so flawed that they revealed little of substance to be helpful in determine whether the programs were useful. That is still a concern of the Court in view of Dr. DeJamette's comments about the error rate of the data submitted by LRSD to the outside evaluators and to the testing agency for production of the high stakes testing results. \" 58. LRSD continually adds programs and program assessors and evaluators without regard for whether they address African American achievement. Dr. ~,\u0026gt;. Roberts has added for example at least 9 additional programs for district wide implementation. They include: curriculum mapping, SOAR, Voyager, CRISS, K- 12 Literacry Adoption, Transition to Advanced Mathematics (TAM), Teacher Incentive Project at Meadowcliff and Wakefield Elementary schools, Inclusion Special Education and ESL. (See Draft September 1, 2006 Quarterly Report) 59. When PRE began to assess some of these programs she was admonished by district counsel for including them in the draft report being 23 submitted to the Court. Joshua has noted that none of these programs were on the initial list of programs submitted to the court as being intended to address African American achievement. Joshua notes further that the merit pay initiative (Teacher Incentive Project) is sponsored by a private provocateur determined to impose upon the LRSD a requirement that teachers be paid bonuses for certain achievements. These achievements do not address specifically the issue raised by 2.7.1 60. In addition, before Dr. James left, Dr. James created other programs and set forth an evaluation process for them within a private group, which he funded with district finds, known as the Public Education Foundation of the Little. Rock School District. Those programs also have an. assessment and evaluation process. These assessments are not being coordinated by PRE staff. Indeed, Dr. DeJarnette 1.::-_ has had no material involvement with the people at the Public Education Foundation or with Dr. Roberts and the programs that Dr. Roberts has unilaterally added to the list of district programs. 61. This Court previously found that the LRSD Board of Directors had not approved its policy regarding the evaluation process for instructional programs. The Court now finds that the requirements of Board regulation IL-R, revised by Dr. DeJ arnette and Dr. Steven Ross, and approved in December, 2004, have not 24 I - I I been embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 62. Dr. Roberts determined to impede the PRE's efforts to embed the comprehensive assessment process by expanding it to include the development of each school's ASCIP plans and then later disbanding that process as well. Thus, approximately one year of work by PRE was wasted. This is so because the district chose not to follow the recommendations of consultant, Dr. Victoria Benhardt to create an appropriate framework for the data collection that could be easily accessed and used by PRE or any of the stakeholders in the process. 63. PRE' s efforts appear to have been further impeded by senior administrators with respect to PRE' s efforts to develop procedures for embedding the a,~sessment process. Because of Dr. Benhardt's consulting fees, the LRSD chose not to implement her recommendations with respect to school portfolios, '\u0026lt; creation of a database and development of questionnaire/surveys. Her recommendations were made in January, 2005 and were rejected by senior administrators in October, 2006. 64. With respect to the integrity of the data provided to the outside evaluators, Dr. Catterall acknowledged a high error rate which began at 65% in 2005, increased to 70% in 2006 and is likely to increase over time. Mr. Heller and Dr. Ed Williams disregard this high error rate as being important in making the 25 I I I I I I I necessary assessments and evaluations. It does not contribute according to Dr. DeJamette to valid reports that maybe used to address the issue. 65. Embedding the assessment process requires actually working at each school to improve the academic achievement of African American students. Input from a broad cross section of the teacher responsible for implementing each of the key 2. 7 programs, a determination that the key programs are being implemented with relatively equal effect and success at each school, an assessment of whether additional teaching specialists are needed at some schools in order to enhance the effectiveness of key programs and administering tests at various grade levels so that the achievement of African American students can be accurately followed and valid statistics complied regarding their year to year progress. Dr. DeJ amette agrees with this formulation while Dr. Williams and Mr. Heller do not. 66. Dr. Brooks never met with Dr. Ross regarding the comprehensive assessment process. Dr. Roberts met with Dr. Ross only one or two times. This is a reflection of the lack of importance those two parties attached to the comprehensive assessment and evaluation remedy. 67. The LRSD has hired outside consultants as directed by the Court. 68. The PRE staff worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall regarding the Step 2 evaluations with the exception that PRE had no role in classroom 26 observations, conducting focus groups or actual writing of the evaluations. 69. Joshua notes and the Court finds that many of the step 2 program evaluations completed by the outside evaluators remain deficient with respect to program descriptions. (See in particular Year Round Education, 21 st Century Leaming Centers, Read 180, A+ and PreK literacy) 70. The LRSD has not provided either ODM and Joshua any progress reports on any of the program evaluations which it previously completed that were designed and implemented to improve the academic achievement of African American. students. 71. Very little progress has been made in improving African American achievement insofar as norm referenced nationally recognized achievement tests are concerned. 72. The eight step 2 evaluations did not comply in important respects with the LRSD own regulation for preparing evaluations. 73. The Court finds that Little Rock has not followed the Court's directive to embed the assessment process into the district's curriculum as ordered by the Court, pursuant to the initial agreement by the parties. 7 4. The ODM and Joshua have attempted to assist LRSD in fulfilling its 27 obligations under the Court's Order. They have done this in myriad ways with differing responses at differing times from the senior district administrators. I find that it is necessary for the PRE staff to actively communicate with Joshua and ODM regarding its activities if they are to be of any use in helping to embed the assessment process into the district's curriculum. I also find that district counsel's efforts to set parameters for interaction between PRE staff, ODM and Joshua to be inappropriate and contrary to the spirit and letter of the court's orders herein. The Court does not approve of the treatment of the PRE Director by LRSD counsel and senior staff. It warns those parties and the school board that any further obstruction with the Court's Order will be met by a reference for ____ _ contempt of court. While Joshua has sought to have district counsel Heller held in contempt of court for obstruction, the Court will caution Mr. Heller again to \\ \\ cooperate with Joshua and if there are specific problems where strong proof exists that Joshua counsel has violated the Court's Order, notice should be promptly given to Joshua counsel and the Court whereupon a hearing will be scheduled to address the matter. In the meantime, I expect Joshua to continue for the next four years its monitoring role as previously set forth in the June 30, 2004 Order 75. I now address the District's continuing argument that Joshua has been less than diligent in bringing to the Court's attention problems it observed 28 regarding LRSD's compliance with the directives of the Court. The following is a listing of the Joshua's activities from which I conclude that Joshua has been timely, cooperative and non adversarial with respect to its monitoring of the June 30, 2004 Order of the Court. a. Upon the Court Order of June 30, 2006, Chris Heller announced th.at the District would appeal and most likely prevail thereon. The Court then entered an Order requiring that his June 30th Order be followed pendente lite. b. In late July, 2004, Joshua approached ODM with respect to having the LRSD post the PRE Director position. C. In August, 2004, the District posted the position and in October, Dr. DeJarnette was hired. d. Twice in November, 2005, Joshua wrote the District inviting discussion, requesting information and Joshua involvement in developing the process. e. In December, 2005, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette and ODM met at Joshua counsel's office regarding the Court's Orders and Joshua's concerns. f. In January, 2005, Dr. Victoria Bernhardt was hired as a 29 consultant for the purpose of assisting the LRSD in embedding the assessment process into the curriculum. In February, Joshua wrote Dr. DeJamette seeking to be included in the process. This was repeated in March with a request for all information shared with ODM. g. In April, Dr. Bernhardt submitted a training proposal and in May, 2005, Joshua made suggestions to PRE about programs to evaluate. h. In June, 2005, PRE statisticians spent a (training) week in Chico, California. 1. In September, the district submitted its 4th Quarterly Report to the Court and parties. J. In September and October, 2005, Ms. Springer obtained further information about the report from Dr. DeJarnette. This was followed up with a letter request for information dated November, 2005. In October, 2005, the District did not meet its 2005 filing deadlines. k. In November, 2005, the Court held a hearing regarding compliance regarding the step 2 evaluations. In December, 30 2005, Joshua wrote PRE expressing concerns about PRE staffing. Joshua did not receive a reply to its concerns. 1. In January, 2006, Joshua brought to the Court's attention their concerns about the first four step 2 evaluations. m. Ms. Springer met with PRE during evaluation team meetings between January and April, 2006. During this time PRE experienced problems with data gathering and participation in meetings by other evaluation team members. ODM was present during these meetings. n. In April, 2006, Joshua first observed the evaluation team participation to include Mr. Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts. o. In May, 2006, upon an evaluation team meeting, Joshua and ODM voiced concerns about embedding the assessment and evaluation process into the curriculum. p. In June, 2006, at evaluation team meetings, ODM and Joshua repeated their concerns raised in May, 2006. q. Because of the unavailability of District Counsel Heller, on June 21 , 2006, Joshua requested a hearing before the Court 31 regarding implementation problems that were being experienced. On the same day the Court directed a statement in support of the request for hearing. r. On June 28, 2006, Ms. Springer submitted an affidavit of concerns to the Court. s. In July, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette confirmed the substantial accuracy of the Springer affidavit contents. t. On August 1, 2006, the Court directed LRSD to meet with Joshua and ODM to address Joshua's concerns. Before the meeting, Joshua requested the participation of Dr. DeJamette. Mr. Heller refused. The foregoing chronology demonstrates that Joshua was timely in ,: submitting its concerns to LRSD, ODM and the Court. It also demonstrates that Joshua sought to _be fully involved and cooperative with the LRSD' s PRE staff. It further shows how District Counsel obstructed Joshua's involvement in the process.  I further find that the district's responses to the Joshua objections with respect to program evaluations have at no time been valid, that they have been obstructive and constitute evasive and obdurate conduct. It is for these reasons I 32 will award fees and costs for Joshua for having prevailed on the issue of program assessment and evaluation on all issues. ,,,, .).) - - - --- ---- - - --- - ------ - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. Background. BOARD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On April 10, 1998, the Court approved an agreement between the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (\"the Board\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") known as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket No. 3144. In 2002, the Court found that the Board satisfied its obligations under the Revised Plan with one exception, Revised Plan 2.7.1 concerning program assessment. See Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, pp. 170-72. The Court outlined a remedy and ordered the Board to implement that remedy (''2002 Compliance Remedy\"). In 2004, the Court found that the Board had not substantially complied with the Court's 2002 Compliance Remedy. See Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 57-58. Again, the Court outlined a remedy and ordered LRSD to implement that remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"). The issue now before the Court is whether LRSD has substantially complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy. Page 1 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JAN 16 2007 OFRCEOF DIIIGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JAN 16 200!7 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  BOARD'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Background. DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On April 10, 1998, the Court approved an agreement between the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District (\"the Board\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") known as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket No. 3144. In 2002, the Court found that the Board satisfied its obligations under the Revised Plan with one exception, Revised Plan 2.7.1 concerning program assessment. See Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, pp. 170-72. The Court outlined a remedy and ordered the Board to implement that remedy (\"2002 Compliance Remedy\"). In 2004, the Court found that the Board had not substantially complied with the Court's 2002 Compliance Remedy. See Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 57-58. Again, the Court outlined a remedy and ordered LRSD to implement that remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"). The issue now before the Court is whether LRSD has substantially complied with the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy. Pagel of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 15 II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. Substantial Compliance. 1. The Board appealed the Court's 2004 decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Board's obligations under Revised Plan 2.7.1 were \"clearly contractual\" and not \"constitutionally compelled.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528,530 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Eighth Circuit stated that the question of whether the Board has substantially complied with its  2.7.1 obligations must be examined \"under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.\" Id. 2. Ordinary rules of contract interpretation require the Court to interpret the Revised Plan as a whole, with different sections being read together and interpreted, if possible, so that all sections are consistent with each other. See RAD-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B. G. Coney Co., - 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Fryer v. Boyett, 64 Ark. App. 7, 978 S.W.2d 304 (1998). Consequently, the Board's substantial compliance must be judged considering the term of the Revised Plan. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" Revised Plan 9. However, Revised Plan 10 stated that \"the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan.\" Revised Plan 10. Thus, the Revised Plan called for two-and one-half years of implementation by the Board. 3. The Board's substantial compliance must also be judged considering the purpose of a breach of contract remedy. The purpose of a breach of contract remedy \"is to place the injured party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully perlormed.\" Howard W. Brill, Law of Damages,  17 .1, p. 285 (5th Ed. 2004 ). Thus, the Board has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy if Page 2 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 15 II. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A. Substantial Compliance. 1. The Board appealed the Court's 2004 decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In so doing, the Eighth Circuit noted that the Board's obligations under Revised Plan 2.7.1 were \"clearly contractual\" and not \"constitutionally compelled.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528,530 (8th Cir. 2006). Thus, the Eighth Circuit stated that the question of whether the Board has substantially complied with its  2.7.1 obligations must be examined \"under ordinary rules of contract interpretation.\" Id. 2. Ordinary rules of contract interpretation require the Court to interpret the Revised Plan as a whole, with different sections being read together and interpreted, if possible, so that all sections are consistent with each other. See RAD-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B.G. Coney Co., - 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Fryer v. Boyett, 64 Ark. App. 7, 978 S.W.2d 304 (1998). Consequently, the Board's substantial compliance must be judged considering the term of the Revised Plan. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" Revised Plan 9. However, Revised Plan 10 stated that \"the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan.\" Revised Plan 10. Thus, the Revised Plan called for two-and one-half years of implementation by the Board. 3. The Board's substantial compliance must also be judged considering the purpose of a breach of contract remedy. The purpose of a breach of contract remedy \"is to place the injured party in the same position it would have been in if the contract had been fully performed.\" Howard W. Brill, Law of Damages,  17.1, p. 285 (5th Ed. 2004). Thus, the Board has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy if Page 2 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 15 Joshua now stands in the same position or a better position than it would have occupied on the last day of classes for 2000-01 had the Board initially satisfied its  2.7.1 obligations. 4. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, Joshua could not have expected the Board to have completed more than two sets of formal program evaluations since the Board could not have completed evaluations for the 2000-01 school year by the last day of classes of that school year. The Board does not receive the student test data necessary for a formal evaluation until after (sometimes long after) the conclusion of the school year. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, the Board, at best, 1 could have prepared formal program evaluations for two school years- the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the Board to conduct additional program evaluations after the Revised Plan expired. Clearly, the Revised Plan's three year term was not long enough for the Board to eliminate the racial - achievement disparity, and thereby, eliminate the need for programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Even so, \"[j]udges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Court does not interpret 2.7.1 or the 2004 Compliance Remedy as imposing any permanent or ongoing obligation on the part of the.Board. Indeed, such an obligation would be inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and a return to local control. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305,347 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, p. 169 (noting that upon being declared unitary \"[the Board] must begin making its 1The first semester of the 1998-1999 school year was a \"transition period.\" Revised Plan  10. Thus, it is not clear that The Board could have prepared a complete set of a formal program evaluations for that year. Page 3 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 15 Joshua now stands in the same position or a better position than it would have occupied on the last day of classes for 2000-01 had the Board initially satisfied its 2.7.1 obligations. 4. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, Joshua could not have expected the Board to have completed more than two sets of formal program evaluations since the Board could not have completed evaluations for the 2000-01 school year by the last day of classes of that school year. The Board does not receive the student test data necessary for a formal evaluation until after (sometimes long after) the conclusion of the school year. On the last day of classes for 2000-01, the Board, at best, 1 could have prepared formal program evaluations for two school years - the 1998-1999 and the 1999-2000 school years. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the Board to conduct additional program evaluations after the Revised Plan expired. Clearly, the Revised Plan's three year term was not long enough for the Board to eliminate the racial - achievement disparity, and thereby, eliminate the need for programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Even so, \"[j]udges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" Armstrong v. Board of School Directors, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the Court does not interpret 2.7.1 or the 2004 Compliance Remedy as imposing any permanent or ongoing obligation on the part of the Board. Indeed, such an obligation would be inconsistent with a finding of unitary status and a return to local control. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 347 (4th Cir. 2001). See also Memorandum Opinion filed September 13, 2002, p. 169 (noting that upon being declared unitary \"[the Board] must begin making its . 1The first semester of the 1998-1999 school year was a \"transition period.\" Revised Plan  10. Thus, it is not clear that The Board could have prepared a complete set of a formal program evaluations for that year. Page 3 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 15 own decisions, guided by the Constitution, applicable case law, and its best professional judgment . ... \")(emphasis in original). B. . Waiver and Estoppel. 5. For the third time now, Joshua waited until it was too late for the Board to change course to bring to the Board's and the Court's attention alleged noncompliance. See Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 2002, pp. 58-59 (\"The record is undisputed that Joshua's counsel never raised any compliance issues under 8.2 of the Revised Plan. The record is also undisputed that the first time Joshua raised any of the specific compliance issues now before the court was when they filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) on June 25, 2001.\"); Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 20 (\"LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in - late 2002 failed -- neither the parties2 nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002, letter to Ms. Marshall.\"); LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 539 (\"[l]n light of its failure to call the district court's attention to 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.\"). If Joshua became aware of compliance problems, the 2004 Compliance Remedy required Joshua to \"immediately bring them to my attention so that I can 21n fact, subpart D of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required Joshua, not the Board, to bring compliance issues to the Court's attention. The Board understood Joshua's silence to mean that Joshua accepted the Board's interpretation. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 536 (\"Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD' s interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law.\"). Page 4 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 15 own decisions, guided by the Constitution, applicable case law, and its best professional judgment . .. . \")(emphasis in original). B. 5. Waiver and Estoppel. For the third time now, Joshua waited until it was too late for the Board to change course to bring to the Board's and the Court's attention alleged noncompliance. See Memorandum Opinion dated September 13, 2002, pp. 58-59 (\"The record is undisputed that Joshua's counsel never raised any compliance issues under 8.2 of the Revised Plan. The record is also undisputed that the first time Joshua raised any of the specific compliance issues now before the court was when they filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) on June 25, 2001.\"); Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 20 (\"LRSD's March 12, 2004 Compliance Report constituted my first notice that Ms. Marshall's facilitation efforts in - late 2002 failed -- neither the parties2 nor the ODM brought this to my attention, although they were required to do so by subpart D of the Compliance Remedy and by my November 6, 2002, letter to Ms. Marshall.\"); LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 539 (\"[I]n light of its failure to call the district court's attention to 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.\"). If Joshua became aware of compliance problems, the 2004 Compliance Remedy required Joshua to \"immediately bring them to my attention so that I can 2In fact, subpart D of the 2002 Compliance Remedy required Joshua, not the Board, to bring compliance issues to the Court's attention. The Board understood Joshua's silence to mean that Joshua accepted the Board's interpretation. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 536 (\"Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law.\"). Page 4 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 15 resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make 'mid-course corrections.\"' Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 66. 6. The first notice the Court received of alleged noncompliance was on June 21, 2004 - almost two years to the date after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On June 28, 2006, Joshua filed an affidavit from Joy Springer describing the District's alleged noncompliance. See Docket Nos. 4018 and 4024. Springer worked for Joshua counsel as a paralegal and her responsibilities included monitoring the Board on behalf of Joshua. Springer reported that the District was not in compliance with the \"embedding program assessments\" requirement of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Springer Affidavit, 'I[ 12 (Docket No. 4024). Springer was referring to the requirement of paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that a comprehensive program assessment process be \"deeply embedded as a permanent part of the - Board's curriculum and instruction program.\" Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 62. 7. Joshua attempted to place other paragraphs of the 2004 Compliance Remedy at issue in objections filed November 15, 2006. See Docket No. 4058. The Court finds that these issues could have, and therefore should have, been brought to the Board's and the Court's attention much earlier, and by failing to do so, Joshua \"waive[d] its right to insist on the breach.\" Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 278, 647 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1983). Applying ordinary rules of contract interpretation, the Court finds that Joshua waived and should be estopped from claiming that the Board failed to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, with the exception of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of paragraph B. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581, 585 (1999)(\"It has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens, 7 Ark. Page 5 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 15 resolve them while there is still time for LRSD to make 'mid-course corrections.\"' Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 66. 6. The first notice the Court received of alleged noncompliance was on June 21, 2004 - almost two years to the date after entry of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On June 28, 2006, Joshua filed an affidavit from Joy Springer describing the District's alleged noncompliance. See Docket Nos. 4018 and 4024. Springer worked for Joshua counsel as a paralegal and her responsibilities included monitoring the Board on behalf of Joshua. Springer reported that the District was not in compliance with the \"embedding program assessments\" requirement of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Springer Affidavit, \u0026lt;J[ 12 (Docket No. 4024). Springer was referring to the requirement of paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy that a comprehensive program assessment process be \"deeply embedded as a permanent part of the - Board's curriculum and instruction program.\" Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 62. ' 7. Joshua attempted to place other paragraphs of the 2004 Compliance Remedy at issue in objections filed November 15, 2006. See Docket No. 4058. The Court finds that these issues could have, and therefore should have, been brought to the Board's and the Court's attention much earlier, and by failing to do so, Joshua \"waive[d] its right to insist on the breach.\" Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 278, 647 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1983). Applying ordinary rules of contract interpretation, the Court finds that Joshua waived and should be estopped from claiming that the Board failed to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, with the exception of the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of paragraph B. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581, 585 (1999)(\"1t has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens, 7 Ark . . Page 5 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 15 App. at 278, 647 S. W.2d at 493 (\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). 8. Joshua argued that its silence should be excused because District administrators failed to cooperate with Joshua. This argument has no merit. The Board and District administrators cooperated with Joshua to the extent required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and beyond. PRE provided Joshua the comprehensive evaluation process, the names of the programs to be evaluated, quarterly updates and the program evaluations as required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, PRE provided Joshua notice of and an opportunity to participate in evaluation team meetings. Finally, PRE and other District administrators responded to dozens requests for documents by Joshua. - 9. Joshua argued that the District failed to cooperate by refusing to treat Joshua just like ODM. No order of this Court required the District to treat Joshua just like ODM, especially considering that Joshua's counsel and his paralegal performed all of Joshua's monitoring. This Court has on three occasions ordered Joshua's counsel to comply with Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct before communicating with District officers and personnel. See Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483) and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court, interpreting Rule 4.2, ordered Joshua (1) \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information\" pertaining to matters pending before the court; and (2) \"to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.\" Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. See ABA Formal Opinion 97-408. Moreover, after the October 3, 2001 Order, Joshua promised to comply that Order, and in reliance on that promise, the Board Page 6 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 15 App. at 278, 647 S.W.2d at 493 (\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). 8. Joshua argued that its silence should be excused because District administrators failed to cooperate with Joshua. This argument has no merit. The Board and District administrators cooperated with Joshua to the extent required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and beyond. PRE provided Joshua the comprehensive evaluation process, the names of the programs to be evaluated, quarterly updates and the program evaluations as required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. In addition, PRE provided Joshua notice of and an opportunity to participate in evaluation team meetings. Finally, PRE and other District administrators responded to dozens requests for documents by Joshua. - 9. Joshua argued that the District failed to cooperate by refusing to treat Joshua just like ODM. No order of this Court required the District to treat Joshua just like ODM, especially considering that Joshua's counsel and his paralegal performed all of Joshua's monitoring. This Court has on three occasions ordered Joshua's counsel to comply with Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct before communicating with District officers and personnel. See Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483) and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court, interpreting Rule 4.2, ordered Joshua (1) \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information\" pertaining to matters pending before the court; and (2) \"to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.\" Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. See ABA Formal Opinion 97\"408. Moreover, after the October 3, 2001 Order, Joshua promised to comply that Order, and in reliance on that promise, the Board Page 6 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 15 withdrew a pending Motion for Contempt. See Docket No. 3516. Therefore, Joshua's contacts with District personnel were subject to Rule 4.2, as clarified by the Court's October 3, 2001 Order. 10. Joshua violated Rule 4.2 and engaged in numerous ex parte communications with LRSD's Director of PRE, Dr. Karen DeJarnette, without notice to or the consent of LRSD counsel. Consistent with Rule 4.2 and the Court's orders, LRSD's senior administrators directed Dr. DeJarnette not to communicate with Joshua without LRSD counsel present. Nevertheless, Joshua succeeded in convincing Dr. DeJarnette that she had a duty to communicate with Joshua regarding the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Many of these communications occurred after Joshua filed its June 21, 2006 request for a hearing, and thus, LRSD counsel's consent was required before communications with the District officials and personnel pertaining to the 2004 - Compliance Remedy. See Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. 11. Joshua's unethical communications with Dr. DeJarnette clearly prejudiced the Board in this case. During a September 18, 2006 ex parte meeting with Dr. DeJamette, Springer testified that Dr. DeJarnette agreed \"that the Court wanted the District -- specifically PRE -- to be cooperative, not only with ODM, but Joshua as well.\" See Springer 12/7/2006, p. 35-38. Dr. DeJ amette' s belief that she was being ordered to violate the Court's orders caused Dr. DeJ amette to \"fe[el] estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, p. 3 of 5 (Docket No. 4058). This estrangement resulted in Dr. DeJamette filing an employee grievance alleging \"interference on the part of LRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy ... \" and recommending that the District's senior administrators be \"replac[ed]\" because they were \"not trustworthy.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, pp. 3-4 of 5. Dr. Page 7 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 15 withdrew a pending Motion for Contempt. See Docket No. 3516. Therefore, Joshua's contacts with District personnel were subject to Rule 4.2, as clarified by the Court's October 3, 2001 Order. 10. Joshua violated Rule 4.2 and engaged in numerous ex parte communications with LRSD's Director of PRE, Dr. Karen DeJame~te, without notice to or the consent of LRSD counsel. Consistent with Rule 4.2 and the Court's orders, LRSD's senior administrators directed Dr. DeJamette not to communicate with Joshua without LRSD counsel present. Nevertheless, Joshua succeeded in convincing Dr. DeJamette that she had a duty to communicate with Joshua regarding the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Many of these communications occurred after Joshua filed its June 21, 2006 request for a hearing, and thus, LRSD counsel's consent was required before communications with the District officials and personnel pertaining to the 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Order filed October 3, 2001, p. 3. I 1. Joshua's unethical communications with Dr. DeJamette clearly prejudiced the Board in this case. During a September 18, 2006 ex parte meeting with Dr. DeJarnette, Springer testified that Dr. DeJamette agreed \"that the Court wanted the District -- specifically PRE -- to be cooperative, not only with ODM, but Joshua as well.\" See Springer 12/7/2006, p. 35-38. Dr. DeJamette's belief that she was being ordered to violate the Court's orders caused Dr. DeJamette to \"fe[el] estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua .. \" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, p. 3 of 5 (Docket No. 4058). This estrangement resulted in Dr. DeJarnette filing an employee grievance alleging \"interference on the part of LRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy . . . \" and recommending that the District's senior administrators be \"replac[ed]\" because they were \"not trustworthy.\" See Joshua's Objections, Compliance History, pp. 3-4 of 5. Dr. Page 7 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 15 DeJarnette's grievance against LRSD's senior administrators now provides the basis for Joshua's allegations in this case. In other words, Joshua's allegations represent one side of an internal, personnel dispute that arose, at least in part, due to Joshua's conduct.3 C. Burden of Proof. 12. The Revised Plan 11 placed the burden on Joshua to establish noncompliance. In evaluating the Board's compliance with the 2002 Compliance Remedy, the Court stated: While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Plan no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the (2002] Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. [citations omitted]. Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C of the (2002] Compliance Remedy. - Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 37. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit did not address the burden of proof. However, the Eighth Circuit made it clear that there were no constitutional issues remaining in this case: \"LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual '. matters.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 531. Consequently, the Court finds that traditional contract principles should govern allocation of the burden of proof. Thus, Joshua, the party alleging noncompliance, bears the burden of proof. Hydrotex Industries v. Sharp, 212 Ark. 886, 208 S.W.2d 183 (1948). 3This Court has authority to sanction counsel for Joshua for violating Rule 4.2 and orders of this Court pertaining thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (E.D. Ark. 1999); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir. 1978). Joshua's ex parte communications with Dr. DeJarnette violated Rule 4.2 and the Court's Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483), and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court will determine an appropriate sanction at a future hearing. Page 8 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 15 DeJarnette's grievance against LRSD's senior administrators now provides the basis for Joshua's allegations in this case. In other words, Joshua's allegations represent one side of an internal, personnel dispute that arose, at least in part, due to Joshua's conduct.3 C. Burden of Proof. 12. The Revised Plan 11 placed the burden on Joshua to establish noncompliance. In evaluating the Board's compliance with the 2002 Compliance Remedy, the Court stated: While  11 of the Revised Plan contained the parties' binding contractual agreement on the allocation of the burden of proof, for purposes of the unitary status hearings, that section of the Revised Plan no longer controls my decision on whether LRSD has met its obligations under the [2002) Compliance Remedy. It is black letter law that a school district seeking an end to court supervision has the burden of proving substantial compliance with the judicially imposed remedy. [citations omitted]. Thus, I conclude that LRSD has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that it has substantially complied with each of the obligations contained in subparts A, B, and C of the (2002) Compliance Remedy. - Memorandum Opinion filed June 30, 2004, p. 37. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit did not address the burden of proof. However, the Eighth Circuit made it clear that there were no constitutional issues remaining in this case: \"LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual \\ matters.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d at 531. Consequently, the Court finds that traditional contract principles should govern allocation of the burden of proof. Thus, Joshua, the party alleging noncompliance, bears the burden of proof. Hydrotex Industries v. Sharp, 212 Ark. 886, 208 S.W.2d 183 (1948). 3This Court has authority to sanction counsel for Joshua for violating Rule 4.2 and orders of this Court pertaining thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2); Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (E.D. Ark. 1999); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 790 (8th Cir. 1998); Meat Price Investigators Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 572 F.2d 163, 165 (8th Cir. 1978). Joshua's ex parte communications with Dr. DeJamette violated Rule 4.2 and the Court's Orders of June 29, 2001 (Docket No. 3448), August 20, 2001 (Docket No. 3483), and October 3, 2001 (Docket No. 3575). The Court will determine an appropriate sanction at a future hearing. Page 8 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 15 With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with Paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. D. 13. The Board's Efforts to Comply with Paragraph B. The Board made a sincere, good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Board employed Dr. Karen DeJarnette to lead PRE and a team of highly trained professionals. The Board approved regulation IL-R, the comprehensive program evaluation process. The Board approved and filed eight Quarterly Updates. Finally, the Board approved and filed the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 14. Sometime in the summer of 2006, Springer learned of a disagreement between Dr. DeJarnette and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and filed an affidavit based on information provided by Dr. DeJamette. See Docket No. 4024. On November 13, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette recommended to the Board that the Superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks, and other senior administrators (presumably including Dr. Roberts) be terminated for impeding her ability to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. DeJarnette and recommended her termination for insubordination, among other things. On January 8, 2006, the Board rejected Dr. Brooks recommendation and reinstated Dr. DeJarnette as Director of PRE. 15. Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette disagreed about what the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of Paragraph B required the District to do.4 Dr. DeJarnette viewed school portfolios as necessary for the District to meet the deeply embedded requirement of Paragraph B, and thus, 4Paragraph B stated, \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process .. . . [T]he comprehensive program assessment process must be Page 9 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 15 With these considerations in mind, the Court turns to the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with Paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. D. The Board's Efforts to Comply with Paragraph B. 13. The Board made a sincere, good faith effort to satisfy the requirements of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Board employed Dr. Karen DeJarnette to lead PRE and a team of highly trained professionals. The Board approved regulation IL-R, the comprehensive program evaluation process. The Board approved and filed eight Quarterly Updates. Finally, the Board approved and filed the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. 14. Sometime in the summer of 2006, Springer learned of a disagreement between Dr. DeJarnette and her immediate supervisor, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and filed an affidavit based on information provided by Dr. DeJarnette. See Docket No. 4024. On November 13, 2006, Dr. - DeJarnette recommended to the Board that the Superintendent, Dr. Roy Brooks, and other senior adIIllnistrators (presumably including Dr. Roberts) be terminated for impeding her ability to comply with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 1, 2006, Dr. Brooks suspended Dr. , DeJamette and recommended her termination for insubordination, among other things. On January 8, 2006, the Board rejected Dr. Brooks recommendation and reinstated Dr. DeJarnette as Director of PRE. 15. Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette disagreed about what the \"deeply embedded\" requirement of Paragraph B required the District to do.4 Dr. DeJarnette viewed school portfolios as necessary for the District to meet the deeply embedded requirement of Paragraph B, and thus, 4Paragraph B stated, \"The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process .... [T]he comprehensive program assessment process must be Page 9 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 10 of 15 foresaw implementing school portfolios during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette planned to use Dr. Victoria Bernhardt (at a cost to LRSD of $5,000 per day), a nationally recognized expert on school improvement, to train school and District portfolio teams. Dr. Bernhardt invented the term \"school portfolio\" to describe her comprehensive school improvement plan. She defined a school portfolio as follows: A school portfolio is a purposeful collection of work telling the story of the school. A school portfolio describes efforts to engender and maintain systemic and continuous school improvement; it exhibits the schools goals, vision, plan and progress. A school portfolio allows for the continuous collection and assessment of evidence and is always evolving, growing, improving, and enabling school personnel to make better decisions. Victoria L. Bernhardt, The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (2d Ed. 1999), p. 9. Dr. Bernhardt stated that school _{)ortfolios served the following purposes: establish one document that describes an overall school plan, and the scho,ol' s mission, vision, beliefs, and ratioriale for improvement; document efforts on a number of elements important to school wide improvement; understand the complexities of the schoor org_anization; provide readily accessible and necessary information for data-based decision making; reflect on progress and purpose; trouble-shoot the continuous improvement efforts of the school; assess and guide the school's unique approach to continuous improvement; be accountable; and communicate. Id., p. 10-11. Notably absent from this list is evaluation of academic programs. 16. Dr. Roberts agreed that the District should implement school portfolios but did not believe the District was ready to implement them during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. Roberts wanted to put the infrastructure in place to prepare schools for deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program.\" Page 10 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 10 of 15 foresaw implementing school portfolios during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. DeJarnette planned to use Dr. Victoria Bernhardt (at a cost to LRSD of $5,000 per day), a nationally recognized expert on school improvement, to train school and District portfolio teams. Dr. Bernhardt invented the term \"school portfolio\" to describe her comprehensive school improvement plan. She defined a school portfolio as follows: A school portfolio is a purposeful collection of work telling the story of the school. A school portfolio describes efforts to engender and maintain systemic and continuous school improvement; it exhibits the schools goals, vision, plan and progress. A school portfolio allows for the continuous collection and assessment of evidence and is always evolving, growing, improving, and enabling school personnel to make better decisions. Victoria L. Bernhardt, The School Portfolio: A Comprehensive Framework for School Improvement (2d Ed. 1999), p. 9. Dr. Bernhardt stated that school portfolios served the following purposes: establish one document that describes an overall school plan, and the scho?l' s mission, vision, beliefs, and rationale for improvement; document efforts on a number of elements important to school wide improvement; understand the complexities of the school org~ization; provide readily accessible and necessary information for data-based decision making; reflect on progress and purpose; trouble-shoot the continuous improvement efforts of the school; assess and guide the school's unique approach to continuous improvement; be accountable; and communicate. Id., p. 10-11 . Notably absent from this list is evaluation of academic programs. 16. Dr. Roberts agreed that the District should implement school portfolios but did not believe the District was ready to implement them during the term of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Dr. Roberts wanted to put the infrastructure in place to prepare schools for deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program.\" Page 10 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 11 of 15 implementation of school portfolios. Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supported the need for this. Discussing implementation of school portfolios, she stated that \"in order to get people ... using data on an ongoing basis in a way that they maybe haven't done it before, there has to be new structures put in place ... \" Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 11. Moreover, Dr. Roberts did not believe school portfolios were related to deeply embedding IL-R because school portfolios are not necessary for program assessment. Again, Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supports Dr. Roberts. She testified that school portfolios are not necessary for program evaluation. See Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 54. Dr. Bernhardt further testified: Q. Can you embed the comprehensive program assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Bernhardt went on to explain that the school portfolio is only a framework for using data to improve achievement. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Roberts testified that the District already has in place a framework for using data to improve achjevement mandated by the State known as the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP) model. In short, school portfolios, like ACSIP plans and Student Online Achievement Reports (SOAR)5, are good ways to use data for school improvement but are not necessary to assess \"academic programs\" as required by Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (emphasis in original). 5SOAR is a Public Education Foundation and District project that provides a formative assessment of student learning which is aligned to the State Benchmark exam. SOAR can be used to assist schools and teachers in immediately assessing students' strengths and weaknesses, improving instruction, and increasing student achievement. Page 11 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 11 of 15 implementation of school portfolios. Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supported the need for this. Discussing implementation of school portfolios, she stated that \"in order to get people . .. using data on an ongoing basis in a way that they maybe haven't done it before, there has to be new structures put in place . . . \" Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 11. Moreover, Dr. Roberts did not believe school portfolios were related to deeply embedding IL-R because school portfolios are not necessary for program assessment. Again, Dr. Bernhardt's testimony supports Dr. Roberts. She testified that school portfolios are not necessary for program evaluation. See Dr. Bernhardt, 1/10/2007, p. 54. Dr. Bernhardt further testified: Q. Can you embed the comprehensive program assessment process into the curriculum of the district without development of school portfolios? A. Yes. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Bernhardt went on to explain that the school portfolio is only a framework for using data to improve achievement. See Dr. Bernhardt 1/10/2007, p. 25. Dr. Roberts testified that the District already has in place a framework for using data to improve achievement mandated by the State known as the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning (ACSIP) model. fu short, school portfolios, like ACSIP plans and Student Online Achievement Reports (SOAR)5, are good ways to use data for school improvement but are not necessary to assess \"academic programs\" as required by Revised Plan 2.7.1 and the 2004 Compliance Remedy. (emphasis in original). 5SOAR is a Public Education Foundation and District project that provides a formative assessment of student learning which is aligned to the State Benchmark exam. SOAR can be used to assist schools and teachers in immediately assessing students' strengths and weaknesses, improving instruction, and increasing student achievement. Pagellof 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 12 of 15 17. Thus, the District has not yet implemented school portfolios. The District currently plans to implement school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year. See LRSD's Revised Compliance Report, \u0026lt;J[ 15 (Docket No. 4055). 18. The Court finds that school portfolios, like ACSIP Plans and SOAR, are beneficial ways to use data to improve student achievement but were not necessary for the Board to comply with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Court required a comprehensive program assessment process, and it's clear that LRSD's programs can be, and have been, assessed. The Court finds that the Board substantially complied with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy based on the following evidence: (a) the Board reinvigorated PRE by hiring a team of highly qualified professionals; (b) the Board approved IL-R, the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004; (c) the Board implemented - IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda; (d) the District constructed a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment; (e) PRE began development of a District portfolio; (f) the District made program decisions based on the recommendations included in the eight evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy; and (f) the Board passed a resolution affirming its commitment to IL-Rand improving African-American achievement. 19. The Board reinvigorated PRE and now has a highly qualified staff in place capable of doing quality program assessments. In addition to Dr. DeJarnette, PRE has three statisticians on staff, Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams. The District plans to hire a fourth statistician to increase its ability to assess programs without using expensive, outside consultants. 20. The District devised a comprehensive program assessment process, IL-R, in accordance with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. As the Court suggested, the Page 12 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 12 of 15 17. Thus, the District has not yet implemented school portfolios. The District currently plans to implement school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year. See LRSD's Revised Compliance Report,\u0026lt;][ 15 (Docket No. 4055). 18. The Court finds that school portfolios, like ACSIP Plans and SOAR, are beneficial ways to use data to improve student achievement but were not necessary for the Board to comply with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The Court required a comprehensive program assessment process, and it's clear that LRSD's programs can be, and have been, assessed. The Court finds that the Board substantially complied with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy based on the following evidence: (a) the Board reinvigorated PRE by hiring a team of highly qualified professionals; (b) the Board approved IL-R, the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004; (c) the Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda; (d) the District constructed a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment; (e) PRE began development of a District portfolio; (f) the District made program decisions based on the recommendations included in the eight evaiuations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy; and (t) the Board passed a resolution affirming its commitment to IL-Rand improving African-American achievement. 19. The Board reinvigorated PRE and now has a highly qualified staff in place . capable of doing quality program assessments. In addition to Dr. DeJarnette, PRE has three statisticians on staff, Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams. The District plans to hire a fourth statistician to increase its ability to assess programs without using expensive, outside consultants. 20. The District devised a comprehensive program assessment process, IL-R, in accordance with paragraph B of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. As the Court suggested, the Page 12 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 13 of 15 District used Dr. Ross to assist in developing IL-R. The District shared the proposed IL-R with ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of it being approved by the Board. IL-R was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004 with no objection being raised by either ODM or Joshua. 21. The Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda recommended by PRE. In addition to the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the Board approved the evaluation of District's magnet schools and programs. 22. The District contracted with the Janis Group to construct a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment and the future implementation of school portfolios. Larry Naeyaert of the Janis Group testified about his work for the District. He explained that a data - warehouse is a comprehensive database that allows for quick and easy access to and analysis of District data. The District's data warehouse consists of four data marts: student, assessment, financial and employee. As a part of constructing and maintaining the data warehouse, the District hired a full time employee to detect and resolve data errors and to train District employees to prevent errors during data entry. PRE has been trained on the use of the data warehouse and has full and complete access to all four data marts. The data warehouse will make it easier for PRE to conduct program evaluations or assessments in the future. 23, In the summer of 2005, PRE traveled to California for training by Dr. Bernhardt and began development of a District portfolio. The District portfolio is an ongoing process, but the District has several important components in place. In the future, PRE may use the District portfolio to identify programs for assessment pursuant to IL-R. Page 13 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 13 of 15 District used Dr. Ross to assist in developing IL-R. The District shared the proposed IL-R with ODM and Joshua more than a month in advance of it being approved by the Board. IL-R was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004 with no objection being raised by either ODM or Joshua. 21. The Board implemented IL-R by annually adopting a program evaluation agenda recommended by PRE. In addition to the eight step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the Board approved the evaluation of District's magnet schools and programs. 22. The District contracted with the Janis Group to construct a \"data warehouse\" to facilitate program assessment and the future implementation of school portfolios. Larry Naeyaert of the Janis Group testified about his work for the District. He explained that a data - warehouse is a comprehensive database that allows for quick and easy access to and analysis of District data. The District's data warehouse consists of four data marts: student, assessment, financial and employee. As a part of constructing and maintaining the data warehouse, the District hired a full time employee to detect and resolve data errors and to train District employees to prevent errors during data entry. PRE has been trained on the use of the data warehouse and has full and complete access to all four data marts. The data warehouse will make it easier for PRE to conduct program evaluations or assessments in the future. 23, In the summer of 2005, PRE traveled to California for training by Dr. Bernhardt and began development of a District portfolio. The District portfolio is an ongoing process, but the District has several important components in place. In the future, PRE may use the District portfolio to identify programs for assessment pursuant to IL-R. Page 13 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 14 of 15 24. The 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside evaluators to include recommendations for program modifications in the eight step 2 evaluations. After the evaluations were completed, PRE reconvened the evaluation teams to consider the recommended modifications. Based on the recommendations of the evaluation teams, the District has implemented program modifications consistent with the evaluator's recommendations. 25. On November 16, 2006, the Board renewed its commitment to deeply embedding the 2004 Compliance Remedy by passing the following resolution: It is the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to assess Little Rock School District programs, particularly those programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students, and to modify or replace programs which are not working, even after LRSD is released from Court supervision. It is further the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors 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. See Board Exhibit 5. The Court ordered the Board to attend the hearing. Several Board members provided testimony that assured the Court that the District intends to continue using its comprehensive program assessment process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of its curriculum and instruction programs at improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 26. The need for this Court's monitoring and supervision of the Board has come to an end. Whatever challenges the Board faces in the future, \"these challenges are better met by communities than by courts.\" Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1307 (D. Colo. 1995). The Board is now unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. All supervision and monitoring of the Board is terminated forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 14 of 15 24. The 2004 Compliance Remedy required the outside evaluators to include recommendations for program modifications in the eight step 2 evaluations. After the evaluations were completed, PRE reconvened the evaluation teams to consider the recommended modifications. Based on the recommendations of the evaluation teams, the District has implemented program modifications consistent with the evaluator's recommendations. 25. On November 16, 2006, the Board renewed its commitment to deeply embedding the 2004 Compliance Remedy by passing the following resolution: It is the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to continue to assess Little Rock School District programs, particularly those programs designed to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students, and to modify or replace programs which are not working, even after LRSD is released from Court supervision. It is further the intention of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors 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. See Board Exhibit 5. The Court ordered the Board to attend the hearing. Several Board members provided testimony that assured the Court that the District intends to continue using its comprehensive program assessment process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of its curriculum and instruction programs at improving the academic achievement of African-American students. 26. The need for this Court's monitoring and supervision of the Board has come to an end. Whatever challenges the Board faces in the future, \"these challenges are better met by communities than by courts.\" Keyes v. Congress of Hispanic Educators, 902 F.Supp. 1274, 1307 (D. Colo. 1995). The Board is now unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. All supervision and monitoring of the Board is terminated forthwith. Respectfully submitted, Page 14 of 15 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 15 of 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 15, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us scott.richardson@ag.state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 15 of 15 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4092 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 15 of 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 15, 2007, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us scott.richardson@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@j lj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 15 of 15 /s/ Christopher Heller \"Lisa Walters (ADE)\" \u0026lt;Lisa. Walters@arkansas.gov \u0026gt; 01/10/2007 03:26 PM Lisa Walters ADE Attorney's Office -----Original Message----From: Lisa Walters (ADE) To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc bee Subject FW: amended notice to file in lrsd v pcssd, no. 4:82-cv-866 wrw; cause doc no. 4083 Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:01 PM To: ' clerksoffice@are.uscourts.gov ' Subject : amended notice to file in lrsd v pcssd, no. 4 :82-cv-866 wrw; cause doc no. 4083 See attached cover letter and amended notice of filing which you requested. Lisa Walters ADE Attorney\"s Office -----Original Message--- - - From: Toshiba 350 ATT [mailto:ToshibaATT@ADE~CAMPUSl) Sent : Monday, January 08, 2007 1:58 PM To: Lisa Walters (ADE) Subject : Scanned from att350 [LWalters_Mail Scan) 01 / 08 / 2007 14:58 Sc;anned from att350. LWalters_Mail Scan Date: 01/08 / 2007 14: 58 Pages:3 Resolution:200x200 DPI Please see attached PDF for your file. -m D0C070108.pdf MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@localhost.localdomain  essage-Id: \u0026lt;8l87 57@ared . uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc : Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Docket Correction \" 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 1/11/2007 at 8:56 AM CST and filed on 1/11/2007 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 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4090 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?4090,26052 ,, MAGIC,,,2005584 Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: [4083) Notice of Filing. CORRECTION : The o.riginal document was submitted in error (contained an incorrect date identifier); the correct document was added to docket entry (4083] , and the docket text was modified to correct the description of the document filed as \"NOTICE of Filing the Project Management Tool for December , 2006\" based on the attached correspondence. (thd) A The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : ~ ocument description: Main Document Original filename : n/a - Electronic 'document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date=l/11/2007) [FileNumber=818756-0] [8d484cl6b5ldf4bec702ccb4b6fld02c4c52d7458fa27a43825a6157f84562c8c5618a66d2702dc ec7b8flb9d77d402f7458f4b3ad7e374f0ea77035baffc295)] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net , yeldnef@yahoo . com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net , brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec . net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate . jones@jlj .com; linda . calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw .net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott . richardson@arkansasag . gov , patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol . com; jspringer@gabrielmail . com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by othe r means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street RECEIVED JAN 12 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A . Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 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 \\ Case : 4 : 82cv866 Office of Desegregation Monitor 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .lames, Commissioner .Educatii'n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org January 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 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 ill FEB 2 - 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG 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 January 2007 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feeJ free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 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 January 2007. Respectfully Submitted, \u0026amp;~ 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 January 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,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 _Jg~ RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 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 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented iri 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 mq~th, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 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.    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\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_893","title":"Report: ''Extracurricular Activity Report,'' North Little Rock School District","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":["2007/2008"],"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","Educational statistics","Student activities","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Extracurricular Activity Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"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/893"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"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\nFrancical J. Jackson, Director of Student Affairs\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_975","title":"Report: ''School Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,'' North Little Rock School District","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":["2007/2008"],"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 enrollment","School facilities","School principals","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''School Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,'' North Little Rock School District"],"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/975"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1424","title":"Report: ''Update of the Pulaski County Special School District's Implementation of the Staffing Provisions of Plan 2000,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2006-12-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School employees","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Update of the Pulaski County Special School District's Implementation of the Staffing Provisions of Plan 2000,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1424"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["87 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1229","title":"Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, 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":["2006-12-13"],"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","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Roy Brooks, 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/1229"],"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 MR . ROY BROOKS DECEMBER 13TH , 2006 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING'  620 WEST THIRD SUITE 201 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 372-5115 bushma.nreporting@aoi.com RECEIVED _IMI 1 0 2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGA\"iiuN MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 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 STYLE AND NUMBER APPEARANCES STIPULATION PAGE I N D E X Examination by Mr . Walker . .......................... . Examination by Mr . Heller ........................ . Deposition concluded ..... : ........... . . . .... . ...... . COURT REPORTER ' S CERTIFICATE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 1 3 5 73 74 75 3 4 ROY BROOKS PRODUCED, SWORN, AND EXAMINED at the law office of John Walker, 1723 Broadway, in Little Rock, Arkansas, beginning at 10:10 a . m. on December 13th, 2006, 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 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 . A Roy Brooks. Q Dr. Brooks, you have been deposed before? A Yes. Q I won 't go through the preliminary ' s . When you were hired 5 did you have any experience first of all, in your training -- you do have a doctorate degree in education? A Q A Q A Q A Yes, that's correct. From what institution? Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale . Is that an on-line university? No . You had actual classes? Yes, sir. Q Did you have classes that dealt with evaluation and curriculum? A Q A Q A Q I would think so, yes . You don't recall? Yeah. I see. Undergrad. All right. I take it you don't mind giving us a copy of t his undergraduate transcript and this graduate transcript? 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 . HELLER : We ' ll see if it's part of his application . may be . BY MR. WALKER : Q Where did you attend college? A Florida . Q Which college? A Florida A\u0026amp;M . Q FAMU? A Uh huh. Q Do you remember my namesake and \"friend down there , Dr . Charles Walker? A No . He was head of the pharmacology department . No. What year did you graduate? '73 . With a major in what? Elementary ed. Were you an honor graduate? No . I see . It Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there . I was happy to get the degree . Did you receive a master's degree? Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 6 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 7 Q From what institution? A Nova Southeastern University. Q What year? A I don't remember . Q Would it have been within three or four years after you graduated from college? A It could have been . I don ' t have that document in front of me . Q I see . Did you graduate with honors from Nova Southeast University with respect to your master ' s degree? A Q A Q A Q A I barely got out of there too . Are you being facetious? No, I 'm being honest . I had to work hard to get it. Okay. Now, when did you get your doctorate degree? Sometime in the '90 ' s . I don't remember . So that would have been in the last 10 years? Perhaps, yeah. Would it be 10 years or almost 20? It was '90 and it's 2006, that ' s 16, 17 years. Q But you said '90's so I just assumed that it was in mid- 90's, which would have been A Q I think it was earlier than that . I see. Now, have you ever been a superintendent of schools before you came to Little Rock? A Q No . Have you ever written any books on any subject? 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 . Q Have you written any articles which appeared in any learning journals? A No . Q Have you published anything under your authorship or name? A Q A Q A Q A Q No, just when I was in school . What was the subject of your Ph . D dissertation? I don ' t remember . Do you have a copy of it? I don ' t think so . Is it capable of being reviewed? Oh , I 'm sure you could pull it up fro~ th~ archives . Of what institution? A The university I just said , Nova Southeast University, the second largest private university in America . Q I understand. Most of the students that attend there are on- line\naren ' t they? A No . It ' s a full university in Fort Lauderdale with football, baseball, soccer, dormitories . Q I see. A Q Go on-line and look it up . Weil, with respect to your dissertation, can you give me any general subject that you addressed in your dissertation? A Mr . Walker, I don't remember . That was a long time ago. don't remember what it was about. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 8 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 Q A You don't recall what your investigation was? I don't remember what that was about. It had something to do with self-esteem or -- I don't remember. Q Were you employed during the time you were obtaining your master's and doctorate degrees? A Yes. Where were you employed? Orange County, Florida. 9 Q A Q Would you tell me your employment history in Orange County, Florida? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A I was a teacher . For how many years? 10 or 8. I don't remember exactly. All right. Then what were you next? Assistant Principal. For how many years? A couple. I don't remember exactly. At what school? Chickasaw. Is that an elementary school? Yes. What was your next job there? Principal. Of which school? There were a number of schools. 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 A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Tell me the names in order . Tangelo Park. T- A- N-G- E- L-O Park . For how many years? Four or five . I don't remember exactly. All right . That's an elementary school? Yes . And ih~ next one? Catalina . Is that an elementary school? Yes. For how many years? Three or four. I don ' t remember exactly. And the next one? Orange Center. Is that an elementary school? Yes . For how many years? The same. Three or four? Yes . And the next one? I became an area superintendent . What year was that? '96, I think . And in Orange County, were the areas geographically BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 10 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 arranged? A Yes. Q Were they also grade level arranged? A No. The schools were -- it was geography . Q Did they cover K through 12? A Q A Q A Yes. I see . Your training was in elementary education? Yes . Was your certification in K through 12 as a teacher? No . Q I see . Was your -- all right . So you ' ve never been certified for high school? A Q A Q A Not as a teacher . I see . How many schools were in your area? 34 or 35 . Were most of the elementary? No. Elementary, middle and high school . Q By definition, most of the schools in any district are elementary\naren't they? A Most of them were elementary, yes. Q All right. Now, what was the -- for the Orange County School System what were the demographics of the student body? A For the district? Yes. 11 Q A I would say maybe 25 percent African- American and maybe 15 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 or 20 percent Hispanic and the rest white. Q So your experience as a supervisor is with a majority white school system\nis that correct? A That ' s correct . Q All right . So you have no previous experi ence with a majority black school system? A Orange County was more white kids , yes . Q So your experience is with a predominately white school system\nisn ' t that correct? A As an area superintendent , yes . Q I see . Also as a teacher and principal? All of it is within a majority white school system\nisn ' t it? A No . As a teacher, yes . Q Weren ' t the schools Tangelo Park , Catalina and Orange Center -- A Q A Q A Q No. They were -- Black schools , yes. They were black schools? Yes, sir . I see . What do you call a black school in terms of percentages? A I think if it's a majority. Q A That means 51 percent or more? I think that whatever if there are more black kids than BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 \" II 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 white kids then I would think it would be the majority of the kids would be black, yes . Q I see . Are there any results that you have that are 13 reduced to writing which reflect the achievement of the students under your leadership at Tangelo Park, Catalina and Orange Center? A I don ' t know exactly what you mean . Q Were any written reports made by the county school system which address the issue of academic achievement of Tangelo Park, Catalina A Oh , yeah. There were standardized tests at all those schools consistent with policy, district policy and Florida law , yes . Q What I 'm asking is is there a report which reflects the relative achievement of those students in which A I'm sure back in the archives that you can go and get the achievement results of those youngsters in those schools . Q I'm not talking about the achievement results. I'm not talking about the test results . Is there any report which sets ' out how well, in writing, how well, comparatively speaking, those children in those three schools did -- A I 'don't know if that exists, Mr . Walker . Q I see . I see. Now, have you been the subject, other than in Little Rock, of any article or comment regarding your qualifications for anything, other than when you came to 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 Rock in newspapers or otherwise? A Yes. Q Which publications? A The Orlando Sentinel . Q A Q A Q What year was that? It was i n the '90 ' s . Was that when you got ready to leave? No, that was before . Do you recall what the Orlando Sentinel -- was that an editorial or was it just a news report? A There were several editorials but I 'm sure you can pull them up . Q What was the subject of the editorial? A Q A Q A I don't remember the subject . Were you the subject of the editorial? A couple, yes . What do you recall the comments of the editorials to be? The Orlando Sentinel talked about the title was expecting excellence and it chronicled my success in being able to move one of Orlando's poorest and highest minority schools forward. That was just not a editorial, it was a feature article in Florida Magazine, which was a insert into the Orlando Sentinel and distributed to almost, I guess , 700,000 people . Q A I see . Do you recall what year that was? It was in the '90's. I don't remember what year , Mr . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 14 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 Walker . Q I see . Now, what school was that? A That was Orange Center . I think I have a big copy of that in my office on the wall . Q So you can make that available to us? A Oh, s ure . I ' d love for you to read that. Q All right. Now , can you tell me any programs that you initiated on purpose to address academic achievement of minority students while you were there? On purpose . Not just that were already there or were required by the curriculum. Any new programs that you initiated? A I can ' t recall . Q Did you initiate any new programs that you can identify by name? A Q A Q Academic programs? Yes, sir . I can't I don't remember initiating any . I see. Now, I take it then that basically your forte was to see to it that the teachers did well or better than they were doing before in that school . Is that fair to say? A To supervise the school, yes, as principal. Q I see. And you held the teachers more accountable\nis that fair to say? A I held e veryone accountable. Q I see . Is i t fair to say that most of the teachers in 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 16 school were white? A I don ' t know what the percentage was. Q Well, you know that more than 51 percent is majority so is it fair to say that most of them were white or were most of them black? A I'd have to see something in front of me to answer that completely . Q You can't recall? A I would think that a majority were probably white . Q I see. Okay . Is it fair to say that in Catalina and Tangelo Park that a majority of those teachers were also white? A Here again , I ' d have to have that in front of me . I can 't recall. Q Do you recall ever being in a situation as a teacher or a principal where a majority of your staff, professional staff , were African-American? A I don ' t recall that, no . Q All right. So your basic experience is also with situations where white people ran everything and did the teaching and everything else\nisn ' t that correct? A Q I'm not clear on your question . Well, they ran the school system\ndidn't they? The board was majority white\nwasn't it? A Q Yes. I see . And the administration was majority white\nwasn't BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 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 it? A Q Yes . And the teaching staff where you were when you were principal were majority white? A Q Yes . I see . Were you under court order? Was this district under court order at the time you were area superintendent? A Q Yes . Did you ever make or give any testimony in any proceeding while the case was in court? No . 17 A Q With all the wonderful results that you obtained, you were never called upon to give testimony? A Q No . What was the court order that you were under , to your knowledge? A Q A Q any A Q A Q There was a 1972 court order . Do you know the name of the case? No . I see. Did you have any responsibility for aspect of the court order? No . Did you ever make any report to the court? No. implementing I see. What was the district ordered to do while you were 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 the area superintendent? Do you recall? A The court order was in place long before I became area superintendent. Q I understand. What did you understand your duties, under the court order, to be during the time you were area superintendent? A To comply with it . Q Well, I understand. What specifically were you to do in order to comply? A It was a court order that really focused in on attendance zones. Q That ' s right. It didn't have to deal with remediation of achievement disparities\ndid it? A Not that I recall. 18 Q I see. Is it fair to say that the achievement disparities between black and white students in Orange County were comparable to those that you found when you came to Little Rock? A I would think so. Probably everywhere . Q You have no first-hand experience with everywhere\ndo you? You only have first - hand experience with two districts? A Q That's correct. I see. You haven't had any training that allows you to make a judgment about what is everywhere\ndo you? A Q That's correct. Now, do you recall when you came here that you caused 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 removal of a number of principals? A I didn't cause the removal. Q Do you recall that a number of principals left the school system for one reason or another? Do you recall that? A I think there were some retirements and that kind of thing. Q For one reason or another? A Yeah. Q Is it fair to say that they are as follows: The principal at Hall High School\nthe principal at McClellan\nthe principal at Fair\nthe principal at Forrest Park, Forrest Heights Middle School\nthe principal at Cloverdale Middle School? Do you recall those four? A There are different principals at those schools, yes, sir. Q But soon after you got here those principals left\nis that fair to say? A I was here for a year with some of those . Q I understand. Soon after you got here, they left. Is that right? A For one reason or another, yes. Q And they were all African-American? Is that fair to say? A No. Q Was not the principals at Cloverdale, Forrest Heights, Fair and McClellan, the ones who left the district, were they not all African-Americans? A No. McClellan was a white principal. 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 Q A Q A Q Was that Mr . Larry Buck? Yes . Did you not assign Mr . Larry Buck to McClellan? No. That was by Dr . James, I take it? A I wouldn ' t know who assigned him, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Do you recall the name of the principal at McDermott that left? A I don't want to take a guess. I don't recall the name . 20 Q You did replace the principals at McClellan, Fair, Forrest Heights, and Cloverdale in the first year with white persons\ndidn't you? A No. Q Upon the leaving or departure of the principal, which one of those people was replaced by a black person? A All those principals are black at all those schools . Q I'm not talking about now. The immediate replacement upon the departure of the people were white\nweren't they? A No. Q Isn't it true that last year during the 2004 - 2005 school year, all of your secondary principals were white? All of your high school principals were white? A I would have to think of the schools. I don't think so . Q That's fine. Now, Dr. Brooks, how much did you know about the court order in the Little Rock School District at the time 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 21 you were interviewing for the job? A Very little. Q And when did you, after being hired, or have you ever read all the court opinions in this case? A No. Q I see. Can you tell me any of them that you have read? A The first and most important one I read was Judge Wilson 's Order upon my appointment as superintendent . In fact , that was the first document that I received and I think I received that document in Florida , if I recall , before I permanently settled in here in Little Rock . In fact, I remember reading the document on an airplane , I think . Q Do you recall the date of that order? A I think it was 2004 . I think it was either June or July of 2004 . Q Have you read any of the other orders that Judge Wilson or any other judge entered in this case? A I have looked at some of those -- Q No . Read is my question . Have you read any of the other orders of any other persons? A Not with the thoroughness that I've read Judge Wilson ' s Order because Judge Wilson ' s Order was the one that was most important and most pertinent to me. Q I see. Now, the only one that you recall with some recollection is the order of 2004? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 I I 22 J 1 A That 's correct . 2 Q I see . Now, did you, upon being hired , meet with Mr . 3 Heller? 4 A Soon after I was hired , yes , I got together with Mr. 5 Heller . 6 Q Did you have a discussion regarding the 2004 order with 7 him? 8 A Yes . 9 Q Do you recall who else was present? 10 A I don ' t remember . 11 Q Was anybody else present at the time? 12 A I don ' t remember , Mr. Walker . 3 Q How long did the meeting last? 14 A I don ' t remember, Mr . Walker . 15 Q I see . Was it more than one meeting regarding the 2004 16 order? 17 A I probably met more than one time with Mr . Heller regarding 18 that . 19 Q Do you recall a second meeting? 20 A I recall a number of times talking with Mr\nHeller about 21 the 2004 order . I can't list times, dates, etcetera, etcetera . 22 I've sp'oke with Mr . Heller on a number of occasions. 23 Q Do you make a distinction between meetings and 24 conversations? 25 A I think they are distinctly different. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 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 23 Q Do you recall more than one meeting regarding the judge 's 2004 order with Mr. Heller? A I remember mult i ple meetings with Mr . Heller regarding that order . Q Where did those meetings take place? A Mo s tly in my office. Q A Q A Were any other people present? I don't remember. Were any Board members present? I don ' t remember . Q Do you recall having any one on one discussions with any Board member regarding the 2004 order? A Yeah , I ' ve talked with the Board members about that order. Q Tell me when you first talked with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the 2004 order . A I don ' t remember exactly . Q Tell me what conversation took place between you and Mr . Rose with respect to the 2004 order . A I think that the fact that the district was still in court came up, if I refall, during my interview . Q I'm talking about meetings after you were hired. Tell me about the conversations you had one on one with Mr . Rose regarding A I can't go back and recall , with as many times as I have interacted with Board meetings, individual times with BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 specificity in terms of when I talk with a Board member about the order . Here is what I am going to say : I do recall on occasions having spoke with Board members about the order reassuring them that we would do everything we could to comply with the Judge ' s order. 24 Q Let me ask you : Have you created any writings with re s pec t to this r eassurance or which reflects your understanding of the court order? A Q I don't think there is anything that I -- I see. Now , going back to my question : Do you recall any meeting one on one with Mr . Tony Rose regarding the evaluations? A The evaluation of -- Q The evaluation process , yes . Do you recall any one on one meeting with him regarding that? A I don ' t recall . Q I see . That doesn ' t mean you didn't have any\ndoes it? A Q A Q A Q No, it doesn ' t. Did you regularly speak with Mr . Tony Rose? I regularly spoke with each and every Board member. I'm asking about Mr. Tony Rose now. In what regard? Any regard . A Here again, I spoke -- Q That ' s yes or no . Did you regularly speak with Mr. Tony Rose during the time that he was on the Board? 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 Yes , as I did with every other Board member. I see. Have you regularly spoken with Mr. Armstrong? Since Mr . Armstrong has been on the Board, I have spoken with him by phone a number of occasions . I think we ' ve eaten lunch at least once, maybe twice . I think we ate lunch at a school together. Q I see. Have you ever discussed with Mr . Armstrong the subject of program evaluation? A Not specifically . 25 Q Have you ever discussed with him this Board resolution that was dated November 16th, 2006, which is Exhibit 8 to the previous deposition? Have you ever discussed that with -him? A Before the Board votes on anything , I call Board members to Q I 'm not asking you about A Let me finish this . Q Go ahead. I'll let you finish. A I call Board members and I ask Board members if they have any questions about any of the agenda items . That has been my longstanding practice. The Board members are provided with the i -nformation and they read it, review it, and if they have questions then they ask me . Q My question again is: Did you have any discussion with Mr . Armstrong regarding this resolution before the Board meeting? A Not one on one with Mr . Armstrong . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 - ~ 26 1 Q I see . How did you get this resolution? Did you develop 2 it yourself? 3 A It was part of what we needed to do . 4 Q Did you develop it yourself? How did you get it is my 5 question . I 'm not asking why yo had it . How did you get it is 6 my question. 7 A It was through our attorney. 8 Q Did it come to you by letter or by e-mail? 9 A I don 't remember. It could have been e-mail. 10 Q Did you send it to the Board members the day you got it? 11 A I don 't know if I sent it the day I got it, no . I don't 12 know if I send anything everyday. 3 Q Well, it's written in here , \"it is so resolved this 16th 14 day of November\". 15 A They all got it. 16 Q Did they get it before the meeting? 17 A Yes, sir . 18 Q How much in advance of the meeting did they get it? 19 A They got it, I think, 48 hours before. 20 Q Now, at the time that you sent this resolution did you send 21 a whole volume, a large volume of other documents? 22 A An- agenda packet. It's on-line, yes. 23 Q It's your practice, isn't it, to give them the agenda 24 packet two days before the meeting? Is that fair to say? 25 A That's the law . You have 48 hours. 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 27 Q What is the time that Board members have to review these documents? 48 hours? A That and somet i mes less if it is an emergency . Q Was there any emergency involving this? A It was part of the agenda packet . I don't know if an emergency meet i ng was called because of that . Q Now, did you tell anybody on the Board what the purpose of this resolution was? A It ' s self- explanator y. Q No . Did you tell anybody what the purpose of this resolution was? A I don ' t recall. Q I see . Now , did you know what was happening in PRE as of November 16th, 2006? A What do you mean what was happening? Q Did you know what was taking place within the department of PRE during that time? A What was taking place? Q Yes. A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q Let me ask you : You were aware that there had been for much of the year a number of evaluation team meetings regarding PRE matters and evaluations? You were aware of that\nweren't you? A Sure . 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 A Q A Did you ever attend one of those team meetings? No . I see . Yes . Is there a reason you chose not to? What is that reason? I had staff members attend . Q I see. With this being so important , is there any reason 28 that you, as a CEO, would not come to not one of those meetings? A I tell you , there are a lot of meetings that I didn ' t attend but I had staff there. Q Well, I notice that you regularly met with the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A Pardon? Q You regularly met with people from the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn ' t you? A We're a member of the Chamber of Commerce . Q I understand. But you regularly met with the executive director and the president of the Chamber of Commerce\ndidn't you? A I have met with members of the Chamber of Commerce, yes . Q Name each one of them, please . A I met with the executive director, previous executive director. I don't think I met him with just one on one and I remember being in a meeting with Jay Chesher (phonetic sp. ) Q Is it fair to say that you met with them at least every 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 month? A Q I don ' t think I met every month , no, sir . But pretty regularly, wouldn't you say? 29 A I don ' t think -- I wouldn't characterize it , Mr . Walker , as regularly . Q How often would you say you met with them in the last 12 months? A I would say that I met with Mr . Chesher may two or three times , along with other superintendents . Q A Oh, you were not the only person meeting with them? No . The last two or three meetings I think we met with the superintendent of Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock . Q Did you discuss the subject with those people release from court supervision? A Q A Q My discussions with those That's yes or no. - - people was regarding Please listen to my question . I didn't ask what all of them were. I asked if you discussed the subject of release from court supervision . A The last time the three superintendents met with Jay Chesher, I think that did come up. Q Did you ever tell anybody what the advantages to being out of court were? 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 30 Who is anybody? Anybody in the world. Anybody? A Q A I think one of the most important advantages is is that for the first time the court is not really supervising the district but the Board of Directors are supervisini the district. I would think with the historic hoopla about a majority black board that those members would readily embrace the fact that now we can supervise this district without the intervention of the court, without the intervention of the lawyers, etcetera, etcetera . I think it would be something that would be historic in nature. Q That's the only one that you can come up with? A I think that's a very important one. Q What are the disadvantages to court release? A I think the public . I think the expense . I think that getting -- Q A You said the expense is a disadvantage? I think there are expenses associated with this court supervision. We're paying lawyers -- Q Let me go back. I'm asking you about the difference between a pro and a con . I'm asking you what are the disadvantages. Do you know what is meant by disadvantage? A Q A Yes .. What are the disadvantages of getting out of court? The disadvantages? 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 Yeah . I think there are advantages -- Q I'm asking only about disadvantages . 31 A I am not going to suggest to anyone that not getting out of court is not a good thing . Getting out of court is a good thing . Q You see no disadvantages? A Personally, I think it would be a glorious day to get out of court. Q My question is : Do you see any disadvantage in A I only see advantages in getting out of court . Q Let me ask you this : If you lose 30 million dollars a year or 40 million dollars a year, what is the advantage of that? A That is a number that I ' ve heard you throw around and I don't think Q Wait a minute . Let ' s assume if you lose 10 million , whatever million, what is the disadvantage of losing that money? A We don ' t know how much we'll lose if we lose and we don't know when we'll lose it . I think that that is something that people have overstated and exaggerated and it's speculation . Q Just a moment . Have you sought to conduct a study to determ~ne what the loss will be -- A Q A I've done no study . --and how it will be made up and from where it will come? We've done no study . 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 . A No , sir . Q Now, what will be the disadvantage in losing the magnet schools? What will be the advantage in losing the magnet schools? A I think the magnet schools are very important. Q What would be the advantage in losing them? A I don ' t want to think about losing them, sir . Q I see . But you haven ' t considered that\nhave you? A I don ' t think we ' ll lose them . Q Have you considered that? A We ' ve -- Q That ' s yes or no . 32 A We ' ve considered that we would have to really find ways to continue what I think is something very important . Q Have you had a discussion with Mr . Heller about that subject? A We've talked about the magnet schools , yes . Q Now, have you reported to the Board the results of those conversations with Mr . Heller on retention of and continuation of magnet schools upon court - - A No, there hasn't been any reason to do that. Q All right . Have you - - what is the advantage of eliminating the M to M transfer program? A Here again, it - - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 q 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q What is the advantage? The advantage? Yes . What is the advantage of doing that? A I'm not sure I understand your question . Q You don't understand? You're a superintendent and I am 33 sure that is a simple question . What is the advantage of losing the M to M transfer programs? A Well , the advantage would be that some districts have a lack of kids- - Q A Your district . --going from majority to minority schools and being provided with the transportation. Q So the advantage would be to put them back in their neighborhoods? A I don't think that will happen. Q Well, just a moment . What will happen upon the loss of M to M funds by this district if you chose to let that happen? What would be the advantage of that? A I don't see that happening . Q You don't see that happening? Hasn't Mr. Heller informed you and you have informed others that you may expect to lose M to M funding? That's yes or no. BY MR . HELLER : Object to the form of the question . 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 34 Have you not been informed that you will soon, by the 2007 year, lose M to M funding? A I don't think that taxpayers Q Just yes or no . A I have to -- Q I'm not asking you about what you think. I'm asking you about your information now. Your thoughts -- A Nothing is going to last forever. Jhis funding one day is going to go away. Q Just a moment. Have you been. infermed that you will lose M to M funding at the beginnirig of the 2007- 2008 school year? A r don't think a decision has been made about that. Q Have you been so informed? Yes or no? A No. That would be speculation. Q In the event that M to M funding is lost, do you have a plan for replacing that money? A We have no plan, Mr . Walker. Q In the event that those children are no longer able to go their regular schools, where will they be assigned? Do you have a plan for that? A We have no plan . Q I see. Who will be the children most disadvantaged by being removed from their M to M transfer schools? race of the students? A I'm not sure. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 What is 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 Q Who are the students being transferred from tl School District to Pulaski County now under the M to M transfer rules? A Q Black children. Which means that if they have to, if they are no longer able to go to the county schools under M to M then that means they ' ll h ave to return to Little Rock\ndoesn ' t it? A And we will get the funding for those youngsters . Q Do you know how much funding that will take? A Whatever the foundation funding is per student. Q No . I 'm asking you : Do you know how much funding that will take? A Q A Q Oh, no, I don't know that . Do you know the schools to which they would be assigned? No, I don ' t . No , sir. Have you asked Mark Millholland to run an analysis of cost benefit to that endeavor? A No. Q A Have you had cabinet discussions regarding that subject? No . Q I see . Have you had discussions with Tony Rose and Mr . Brock regarding that subject? A No. Q Now, have you had discussions before she became president of the Board in the last year with Dr . Katherine Mitchell on any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 1.5 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 Ill 23 24 25 36 subject? A Oh , sure . Q Is it fair to say that she told you in no uncertain terms that you were not treating the teachers of the district fairly? Did she tell you that one on one? A I don ' t recall if she used those words, no . Q Did she tell you that your performance as superintendent was sorely lacking? A I don ' t remember that . Q Did she oppose your getting a raise? A She probably did. Q Probably? Do you know? A I ' d have to have it in front of me . I don't know. Q When you say she probably did, did she not tell you face to face that she felt that you were adversely impacting upon black children and poor children in southwest Little Rock? A No. Q She did not? A She ' s never told me that. Q Do you play tennis with her? A If she'd give me a call, I'd love to play tennis with Dr . Mitchell . Q I understand. Do you play tennis with Mr . Berkley regularly? A Yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 37 1 Q Y' all go to eat every so often after playing tennis? 2 A No, we don't. 3 Q Y'all don ' t socialize afterwards? 4 A No. 5 Q You don ' t socialize with Mr . Berkley at all? 6 A I've been to Mr . Berkley 's house, yes . 7 Q Okay. Now, how many times have you been to Mr . Walter 8 Hussman's house? 9 A I don't recall going to Mr . Hussman ' s house . 10 Q Not at all? 11 A I don't recall . 12 Q You don't recall? 3 A No . 14 Q Are you saying you never did? ) 15 A No, I haven ' t been 16 Q How many ~imes do you regularly meet with Mr . Hussman? 17 Have you in the last year met with Mr. Hussman? 18 A I've met with Mr. Hussman on several occasions . 19 Q Is several more than five or six or just one or two? 20 A I don't kn9w exactly how many times, Mr. Walker. 21 Q How many times have you met with his staff? Somebody other 22 than him representing the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette? 23 A I don't recall meeting with anyone else. 24 Q You don't remember meeting with Mr . Paul Greenburg? 25 A I do remember that, yes . - BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 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 38 Q All right. You understand he ' s on Mr . Hussman ' s staff? A Yes. Q You do recall meeting with him and Hussman together\ndon't you? A yes, that ' s correct . Q On more than one occasion\ndon't you? A No, only one occasion . Q What was the subject of that meeting? A We talked about, I think, the district's reorganization , if I remember correctly. I don't think Mr . Hussman was there . In fa~t , Mr . Hussman was not there . Q I see . Did Mr. Hussman privately fund yo~r merit pay initiative? A The first year Mr . Hussman did fund that, yes , sir. Q And did you ask the Board to approve him doing that at the time that it was done? A The second year, yes . Q No , the first year . A The first year I wasn't here . Q Well, was that done through the Public Education Foundation? A The first year? Q Yes . A Yes, it was. Q Now, the Public Education Foundation was not really a 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 private organization\nwas it? A Yes, it's a private organization . Q But y ' all paid from this district payroll at least one of the staff members\ndidn't you? A A portion of her salary, yes . Q You paid all of her salary for three years\ndidn't you? A I don ' t remember paying all of it . I do remember paying a portion of it . Q And you do remember paying a portion of the salary of other people\ndon ' t you? A No , I don't recall that . Q Isn ' t it true that you let them bill you on a monthly basis for at least one- third of their salary and Mr . Millholland regularly cuts the check upon presentation of an invoice? A I only recall one employee that we were some how or another helping with her salary . Q Does the Public Education Foundation have any voice or role in the evaluation process? A Not in Little Rock Public Schools. Q How is Project Sword being evaluated? A Project Sword is not being evaluated . Project Sword is Q That's all I asked . You said it's not being evaluated. Now, does the Little Rock Public Education Foundation have interaction with the teachers involved in Project Sword? A Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 537 - 5110 I I 1 I 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 Q And who is the principal person from the Little Rock Public Education Foundation who interac~s with your teachers from the Public Education Foundation? Who is that person? A You'd have to ask Olivine Roberts . I'm not sure I know . Q Are you on the board of the Public Education Foundation? A Yes . Q Is the Public Education Foundation subject to the pol i cies, rules and requirements of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A They're independent . Q I see . So the Board cannot determine what the Public Education Foundation ' s role with it is\nis that your position? A No . Public Education Foundation is a separate entity. It ' s not regulated by the school board of Little Rock . Q Now , is there any board resolution authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive public funding from the Little Rock School District? A Any what? Q Has the board approved any regulation authorizing the Public Education Foundation to get funding directly or indirectly from the Little Rock School District? A The Public Education Foundation -- Q That's yes or no. A - - has contributed magnificent Q Listen to my question. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTI-NG (5 01 ) 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 A Okay . Q Is there anything authorizing the Public Education Foundation to receive funds from the Little Rock School District? A Not that I 'm aware of . Q Are you aware that regularly every month Mr . Millholland cuts a check to the Public Education Foundation? A He no longer does that . Q When did he stop doing that? Last month? A Q It could have been . Why did he stop doing that? 41 A Because it was an agreement that cince the Public Education Foundation got solid enough that they would assume that responsibility . Q I see . Now, have you explained the role, including Mr. Armstrong, the relationship between the Public Education Foundation and the Little Rock School District? Have you done so? A I asked Lisa Black -- Q I'm asking if you have done so . A I wouldn't be the one to do that, Mr. Walker . Q I see. Now, Ms. Black doesn't work for the school district\ndoes she? A Q No, sir . -She did until last month\ndidn't she? About the time of 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 \\ this resolution? Ms . Black didn't work for the school district . She was just paid by the district? A portion of her salary, yes . Did she have a written contract with the district? I don ' t know that. You'd have to ask Mr . Millholland . You don ' t recall seeing the contract? No, sir . 42 A Q A Q A Q A Q All right . That's fine . Let me ask about this evaluation . Before I get to that part , have you had occasion to refer to present counsel as a parasitic lawyer? A I would never do that, Mr . Walker . Q I see . Are you aware of any payments that have been made to the Joshua counsel in this matter in the last two to three years? A Only what I ' ve seen on paper . Q Have you seen anything on any paper indicating that we've received any payment for cost or fees in that period of time? A What period of time? Q Between the time you got here and now . A Q Since I've been here, I haven't seen anything, sir . Now, do you contend that you have the authority to hire lawyers for the district? Do you contend that you have that authority? A Yes, I ho~e 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 43 Q Is there a writing that sets the terms and conditions under which you may hire lawyers? A There is a policy, yes. Q Does it set the hourly pay and things like that or is it subject to bidding? A I'm not sure. Q I see. Let me go to direct matters . Is there a difference, in your opinion, between of policy of the school district and a regulation of the school district? A Yes . Q A Q What is the difference? A policy needs Board approval. What about a regulation? A I don't think a regulation needs approval of the Board . can be part of a policy. Q I see . Is there a process -- let me understand it . One needs approval from . the Board and one doesn't. What is the purpose of a policy? It A The purpose of a policy is something you abide by . It's a rule. Q A Q What is the purpose of the rule? To make sure there is consistency in what you do. Doesn't it set the standard for the district as to what conduct may be engaged in by the administration? A I hope 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 A Q 44 I see . Isn't a regulation something to implement a policy? It can be part of a policy, yes. But a regulation itself is not a policy\nis it? A A regulation is separate from a policy but it can be part of a policy . Q Is Policy IL-Ra policy or part of a policy? A That is a Board policy that was approved by the Board . It is the comprehensive assessment process. Q I'll show you a policy that says IL-R. Is that the Board policy? A Q A Q A Q A Q It seems as if it's the policy, yes. Do you know whether that was approved by the Board? Yes, it was. When was it approved? December 2004. Were you present at the time? Yes. So there should be a motion and a second and all the other things that.approves it in that process? A I'm sure the minutes would reflect that. Q Now, if this is a policy it is supposed to be posted to the website\nisn't it? A It is posted. BY MR. HELLER: Should we make that an exhibit t.o his deposition 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 we can see what we're talking about? BY MR. WALKER: Yes. We'll make copies and give it to you. BY MR. WALKER: Q Now, is there a difference between the program evaluation 45 agenda, which also has JL-R as its code and what will be to your deposition Exhibit 3, is there a difference between the two? Is there a difference? A Q is? A Q I don't know what this is. In other words, Exhibit 3, you 're not aware of what that I'm familiar with this , yes . And you're not aware whether Exhibit 3 is posted on your website? A I'm only familiar with this, yes. Q So it's your position that the document that is entitled as . Comprehensive Program Assessment Process is posted, not the Program Evaluation Agenda\nis that right? A I'm aware of this, yes. Q And you 're referring to Exhibit 2, Comprehensive Program Assessment Process? A Yes . Q Thank you. Now, you don 't know what number three is at all? You've never seen it before? A Not to my recollection. 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. A I see a lot of stuff. Q Let's get to your testimony about evaluation. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirements with respect to program evaluation? 46 A Mr. Armstrong met with legal counsel the first week or two he was on board . Q My question is you. I'm talking about you. Would you agree that you have not informed Mr. Armstrong of the Court's requirement? A I have not talked-with Mr. Armstrong about that document, no. Q I see . Have you heard Mr. Armstrong express in a public place -- you were aware that he ran for office? A Yes. Q And were you aware that he ran for office in part for the purpose of focusing attention upon the achievement of AfricanAmerican students? Were you aware of that? A I heard him talk about the achievement of students, yes. Q Okay. At the time that he was talking about the achievement of students, is it or is it not to true that you were aware that I was in the audience? A I'm not aware of that, no . Q Did he ask that Dr. DeJarnette or did any Board member ask that Dr . DeJarnette provide information to the Board regarding 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 program evaluation? A Q Dr. DeJarnette did report to the Board . My question was: Was this on the initiative of some Board member? A Q I 'm not sure I follow your question . Do you not recall sending an e - mail to Dr . DeJarnette indicating that the Board members had some questions regarding prQgram evaluation? A Q Yes . And is it fair to say that that e--mail was approximately dated November 3rd, 2006? A Q I would have to see it but -- If the Board members requested information from Dr. DeJarnette regarding program evaluation, would it have been appropriate for her to have responded at the public meeting to their concerns? A Q If they asked that, yes. I see. You were aware that they did ask it\nisn ' t that correct? A Q A Q A Q Yes . Which Board member asked you to ask that? I think there were two . Who were they? Dr. Mitchell and Mr . Berkley. I see. Now, did they tell you why they wanted her to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (50 1 ) 537-5110 47  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 48 address the issue of program evaluation? A I don't recall. Q That was just in October or November. Are you saying that less than six weeks ago you have no recollection of what they told you? A Dr . Mitchell and Mr . Berkley asked for the report I believe because there was some disagreement in some information that had been shared _with them, with the whole Board, in factj I think . Q I'll show you an e - mail dated November 2nd and a response on November 6th regarding the evaluation. Do you recall that? November 2nd from 'you . It says, \"Olivine , Please notify Dr. DeJarnette that the Board has requested a compliance reme9y update at the November 9 agenda meeting. That presentation should also involve other members of PRE. Everyone in the department should be available that evening \". A Yes. Q You sent that? A Yes, I did. Q- Did yo_u expect her to give an honest appraisal or presentation to the Board of Directors at that time? A I would hope so. Q I see . Now, did you inform the Board, the other Board members, that the request for Dr. DeJarnette to appear before it had come from at least two of them? A They were there that night . 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 Q I understand they were there that night but did you , before they got there, inform them that the Board members had initiated the request that Dr . DeJarnette make an appearance and presentation to the Board? A I didn't see it necessary . They were all there that night . Q I see . But you understood that at that meeting that night that Mr . Baker Kurrus raised the question of Dr. DeJarnette coming directly to the Board with her presentation. Do you recall that? A No, I don ' t recall that. I think that ' s taken out of context. I think what Mr . Kurrus said that night, as I recall, was Dr . DeJarnette providing information to Board members and everybody else without going through appropriate protocol. Q All right . What was the appropriate protocol after the Board requested the update? A Q I think we ' re . talking about two different things. Tell me what the protocol was that she was required to follow according to Mr. Kurrus . A I think we're talking about two different things. We need . to clarify - - Q was A Q I'm talking about Mr. Kurrus' response . Your answer to me Are you talking about Mr. Kurrus' response that night? Yes, that night. 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 I I A At the Board meeting? Q Yes. You're saying that Mr. Kurrus was dealing with protocol\nis that correct? A Yes. Q What did he understand, according to what you understood, the proper protocol to have been? A To go through the proper chain of command . Q What was that? A Dr. Roberts. Q And then whom? A Mr. Hattabaugh. Q And then whom? A Me. Q Before going to the Board? A Before presenting to the Board? Q Yes. A We're talking about information. That information was shared that was inconsistent with the chain of command and protocol. Q What information was shared with the Board that was not shared with Dr. Roberts or Mr. Hattabaugh or you by Dr . DeJarnette? 50 A I'm not sure I know what information you're talking about. You tell me what information and I could -- Q You're saying that she did not f o llow protocol and that she 9USHMAN 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 went directly to the Board\nis that correct? A Q Yes . So what information did she present to the Board that had 51 not previously been given to you , Dr . Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts? A You have to help me here . Tell me exactly what information are you referring to and then I can help you , then I can answer your question . Q You ' re saying that when she went to the Board directly she did follow protocol , according to Mr . Baker Kurrus . Now , what information did she provide to the Board that had not been previously provided to you by her? What information? A Did she provide - - Q To the Board that had not been previously provided to you . A She sent a letter to the Board that I had never seen before. Q A Q A Q Was it dated after November 2nd? I don't remember what date it was. And what did the letter say? I don't remember exactly . What do you understand the content or the substance of the letter to have said? A I think the substance of the letter was to imply that the Board had not been given all of the information which was false and erroneous and to also suggest that what was turned in was not factual and accurate, which was also false and erroneous . 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 Q I see . It was turned in to whom? A Provided to the Board in a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell . Q I see . Now, so you're saying that she should not have written a letter to Dr . Katherine Mitchell? A I'm not saying she shouldn't have written the letter . Q You ' re saying that she should have provided accurate information? A I'm saying that her actions with that information going to the Board after something had been submitted to you and the Court and everyone else gave me reason to believe that something improper was going on here. Q What was improper that was going on? A To send a letter to the president of the Board and to other Board members that had very little or no factual basis. Q Let ' s just deal with that for a moment. What was it that had no factual basis? A I think the letter and report -- Q Just the contents of the letter as you recall it . Just identify the things that -- A I can ' t identify the specifics of that letter. If you put it in front of me - - Q All right . Since I don't have that letter can you tell me whether she indicated that program evaluations had not been embedded in the curriculum? 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 I don't have the letter in front of me. Did she indicate that program evaluations had not been embedded in the assessment and evaluation process? A I don't know if that was in the letter . It was not accurate. 53 Q I see. Tell me this: Has program assessment been embedded, in your opinion , in the fabric of the school district? A I think that - - Q A Q That's yes or no. Yes. All right . Tell me how it has been embedded, please. A I think it's a part of our process to use data and to look r at programs in terms of whether or not they are effective to determine if kids are learning . Q All right. Tell me what is your definition of embedded in the process . A Being able to provide data and information to determin~ the effectiveness of the programs, particularly those programs that were a part of the Court order, to determine whether or not we're getting the desired results. Q How do you embed something? I'm not talking about how you use it. How do you embed it? How did you expect it to be embedded? A You embed it by it becoming a part of the actual pr0cess that you use to determine what you do. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q 54 Tell me how the process is embedded in the school district at this time. A I think it's embedded because we have data now . We have information that can be used to determine whether or not something is being effective and, if it is, then certainly we want to continue to do it. Q A Where are those data at this moment? I'm talking about data as it relates to where kids are, test scores, etcetera. Q Where are those data maintained? I'm using data plural and that's why I'm saying are. A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Data is everywhere. Data is Just everywhere? Yeah. All right. It's at the schools. It's at the district level. I see. Now, is there a central source where it is? I think we're working to do that . There is a warehouse But you haven't done it? I think to a degree we have. I understand. What is the status of that at this time? What is the status of what you've just described at this time? A I think it's good. Q Good doesn't mean anyt hing to me. Is it complete? Is the data storage -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (5 01 ) 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 don ' t think that nothing is as it relates to continuous improvement is ever complete. You continue to work . You continue to improve . 55 Q Doctor , is there a data warehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think there ' s a data warehouse that can provide the information that we need . Q Is there a data wa rehouse completed in the district at this time? A I think that there is a data warehouse that we can still work and make better . Q A Make better? Yes , sir . Q Going back to your memo dated November 2nd . Did Dr. Olivine Roberts tell you that she had asked Dr . DeJarnette to respond to the Board? A I would think she did . This is what she was asked to do . Q Is this the letter that Dr . DeJarnette sent in response to Dr . Mitchell ' s request that is dated November 3rd? Do you recall that? BY MR. HELLER : I ' ll object to the form of the question . recall anything about Dr . Mitchell ' s letter . BY MR. WALKER : Well, the request for Dr. Mitchell is the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 I don ' t 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 question. BY MR. BROOKS : This is interesting because I've never seen this letter . BY MR . WALKER : Q Can you tell me anything in that letter -- first of all , should that letter first have gone to Dr . Roberts for approva l? A Apparently it didn ' t . Q No . Should it have, according to protocol? A I think I would have , yes. She should have been aware of that. Q Is there anything in writing that requires that that level of protocol be-applied? A Yes, the chain of command . Q Is the chain of command in writing? A Q Yes , it ' s the organizational chart . Well , that ' s the chart but the chart just shows who reports to whom\ndoesn ' t it? A It certainly does . Q I see . Now , did you before that time ever require that any letter that came from Dr . DeJarnette be first given to Dr. Roberts? A I would hope so if it ' s going to the Board . Q If it's going anywhere is there a requirement that she cannot directly communicate to those persons that she feels 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 necessary, that ~s Dr . DeJarnette, that she feels necessary to be responded to? A I think this was a very aifferent circumstance here . 57 Q So you're saying that she should, after you have requested that she make a report to the Board , you are taking the position that she should have gone directly to Dr . Mitchell? A This was a situation where Dr. DeJarnette provided information that was not accurate and it was not proper . Q What was the information in that letter that you recall was not accurate? A I don't have it . Q Now, at the time that she sent this , she sent it to Mr . Heller\ndidn ' t she? A Q Mr . Heller has been copied. He ' ll have to answer . Now, she indicated first that she thought that there was some important information that the Board had not received directly from PRE on some occasions . A Q A Yes . Was that improper for her to say? And it was not factual . Q Well, how do you know that the Board had received information that all the Board members had received information directly from PRE? A I can only say that since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information direct from PRE BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 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 58 on some occasions that this unusual delivery should be. That's not true . Q How do you know it IS not true? A All information relative to -- Q How do you know it I S not true? A Pardon me? Q How do you know it's not true? BY MR . HELLER: Let him answer . BY MR . WALKER: Q I'm not talking about what you normally do. You say you give information out that is given to you but now how do you know that it's not true that the Board did not receive some important direct information? How do you know that's not true? A No one has ever told me that the Board has not received all important information as it related to this compliance issue . Q All right . I'll just go to the next one. \"One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update\" . Was the last quarterly written update provided to the Board, the one dated September 1, 2006? That's yes or no. A Q A Q Here again, I -You don't know? (No audible response) All right. The second sentence -- is it true that 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 59 don't know? Is that fair to say? A I wouldn't say that . One of the occasions when we feared the Board did not receive the department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update Q Did you provide the Board the last written quarterly update dated September 1, 2006? That 's yes or no . A I would think so, yes . Q You would think so? A Q Yes. You don ' t know. A Yes . Q Okay. The version delivered to the superintendent's office for the Board's review is Appendix A. The version submitted to ODM omitted all of Section Band much of Section C\nisn ' t that correct? A What is correct? Q That there -- first of all, the version that was delivered by her to you all had been edited and then the edited version was submitted to ODM\nisn't that correct? A The version that was submitted was an accurate, factual version upon which Dr. DeJarnette, as I understand it, was in a meeting and agreed Q Please listen to my question . You had two different versions of this report\ndidn't you? A There was only one version submitted. 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 60 Q Listen to my question. It is true that there were two different versions of this report\nisn't that correct? A There was only one version submitted -- BY MR. HELLER: Listen to his question . BY MR. WALKER: Q There were two different versions of this report\nwasn't there? A Yes. Q All right . The one that was submitted to you was given to Mr . Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A Q It was just not Mr. Heller. Whoever . But it was given to Mr. Heller and Mr. Heller edited it\nisn't that correct? A It was just not Mr . Heller. Q Who else edited it? A It involved Dr . Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and I think input from other members of the PRE staff that had a different opinion about what was in this document and Dr . DeJarnette. It was just not Q Let me ask you: It is true that the version that she submitted to your office was not given to the Board\nisn't that correct? A Q Which version? The first version was edited, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537 -5 110 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 And it was not given to the Board? A Exactly . We ' re not going to give the Board unfactual information . Q All right . Now , the first one she says , \"On these pages PRE described obstacles to the district's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its program\". A That ' s not true. 61 Q She says , \"it ' s omission from the update allows a reader ' s false i mpression that the district has progressed further than it has \". Now, is that not a conclusion that perhaps reasonable people can disagree with? A No, that ' s not true . Q What is not true? A Q A Q A What you just read. Well, it was the description That ' s her opinion . I understand . But it's not true . Q Isn ' t that what the Board members requested was her opinion? A Q A No . Let me ask you this - - The Board members expected factual information . It was her opinion. It was not the opinion of Or . Olivine Roberts. It was not the opinion of Hugh Hattabaugh. It was not the opinion of 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 our attorney and it was not the opinion of members in the PRE Department who work with her . This was her opinion . Q A Q Wasn't she -- Her opinion only. Wasn ' t she entitled to give, as a director of that department, her opinion to the Board? That's yes or no. A Q A No . All right . That ' s fine. Now Everybody has an opinion. We want facts given to the Board. Q Now, if the Board asks for opinions, isn't she obliged to give the opinion? A Facts. That's what we give to the Board . I can give an opinion to the Board. You can give an opinion. Q If the Board asks for an opinion -BY MR. HELLER: Just answer the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q If the Board asks for an opinion from one of your staff members regarding that person's best professional judgment -- A Then that's fine. Q Isn't that what the Board asked? A Not from her, sir. Q They did not? A No, sir. This is a very important document. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-5110 62 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 . Now , \"another reason for submitting this document to you is a probable absence by two of our department ' s members on November 9\". Is that correct? A I think there were a couple of people out for whatever reason or another . Q I see . So you object to her conclusion that the district may give, by what it is submitted, a false impression that the district has progressed further than it , in fact, has? A I object to anyone in the organization who is producing and giving a document that is not factual . Q Now , has any of the other quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A Q We review all the quarterly reports . Listen to my question . Had any of the previous quarterly reports been edited by Mr . Heller? A I 'm sure someone has . If it wasn't Mr. Heller, it was someone else . Q Did you direct Mr . Hattabaugh or Mr . Heller to edit this _,,)\nreport that had been delivered to you by Dr . DeJarnette? A I asked Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, and Mr. Heller to make sure and assure me that the information that we were going to submit to the Board for approval to be submitted to the Court was accurate and was truthful, yes, I did that . Q Isn't it true that Mr . Heller informed you and other people that it wasn't that the information was not accurate, it 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 that it was unnecessary to provide to the Court? A Q There was some information Listen to my question . BY MR . HELLER : Let him answer the question . BY MR . WALKER : Q Go ahead . A There was not only information that was not necessary, there was information that was not accurate and there was information that was not factual . Q What information was not accurate? A Some information regarding the Arkansas Department of 64 Education , some information regarding the programs, some information regarding Tetra data as it relates to business objects was not only not factual but it was untruthful and a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. I was not happy about it. Q Where does she say anything in here about Tetra data? A That was all a part of the report that you were asking me about. Q All right. So that was in the initial report\nis that fair to say, that was taken out by Mr . Heller? A Mr . Heller did not just alone do that. Q A Can you tell me Let me finish. It 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 Q I understand what your answer is . Now, can you tell me what portions of the report were edited by Dr. Roberts? A It was a team effort. Q A Q Can you tell me? Dr. Roberts -- Please listen to my question. 65 A --Mr. Hattabaugh, Mr . Heller, people in the PRE Department all working together to make sure that the information that was provided to the Board was accurate and was factual because this was a very important document. It's not one person that Dr. DeJarnette has tried to create that really is all encompassing to do this. That's not how we operate in this district. I'm sorry people felt that way. BY MR. HELLER: Just answer his question. Do you know any particular part that Dr. Roberts edited? BY MR . WALKER: Q A Q Do you know what part of the report -I wasn't in the meeting, no. I see. Did anybody ever report to you the parts that they individually edited? A Not on an individual basis, no. Q I see. She submitted one report and that was edited and then the edited report was sent to the ODM and it would be useful for the Board to have both reports\nthat's what she said 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 wasn't it? A That's what she said in the letter . Q And you're saying that she should not have told the Board that there were two reports? You ' re saying that\naren't you? A Absolutely, because one report -- Q That 's fine . A -- was not accurate . Q All right . And she's saying that because one report has an commission it allows the false impression that the district has progressed further than it has . That's what she said\nright? And you disagree with that? A In the letter, yes . Q I see . All right . Now, you ' re saying that she should not have told the district that one report may give a false impression? She should not have said that to the Board\nis that your position? A If it were not true . Q All right. Isn't it for the Board to determine whether or not one report gave a false impression rather than the other? Isn't that the Board's duty? A The Board relies on us, the staff, to be able to make sure that information we bring to them is accurate and is factual. Q A Q Now, you understand that -I hope they do. --the present Board members have questioned your judgment, 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 some of them , both in the election and thereafter? You understand that\ndon't you? You don ' t understand that? A I understand it and that ' s fine . That ' s their opinion . Q Now , didn't they tell you that they wanted to get this information and that was after the e lection? Di dn ' t they tell you that . they wanted to find out what Dr . DeJarnette was actually saying be fore a court date was actually attended? A That ' s when we -- 67 Q And if they asked what i s the status and they wanted to get her view, as opposed to yours , is there some reason that you would disallow that? A It's not a view. It ' s a staff working together . It ' s many people making sure that the information provided is accurate . Not one person -- if the Board wants to believe one person then that ' s their opinion . Q That's right. But now the Board, if ,they had wanted to have Dr . Ed Williams' view , they could have asked for that\ncouldn ' t they? A I think they asked for that . Q Well, did they ask for that - - they asked for Dr . DeJarnette's view\ndidn ' t they? A The presentation should involve other members of the PRE staff . BY MR . HELLER : We're two hours into a 15 to 30 minute deposition 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 now. BY MR. WALKER : Well, let me just sort of finish. BY MR . WALKER: Q You do acknowledge that it was within their prerogative to ask her any question they wanted to\nisn't that correct? A Oh, sure . Q I see. And if they had asked the question were there two reports and she had said yes, there would have been no problem with that\nisn't that correct? A Yeah . Q And if she had said that the matter had been edited and that it gives a false impression, there would have been nothing wrong with that, in her opinion? A In her opinion, yes . Q And then you would have been in a position -to state your contrary opinion to the Board\nwouldn't you? A I think that happened . Q When have you stated your contrary opinion to the Board? A The revised repor~. Q The revised report? A Yes. Q So that's what you were saying to the Board at the time\nright? 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 I 69 Q Now, let me go on to some other things about you . Have you ever spoken to Dr. Victoria Burnhart , personally? A No. Q I see . So you ' re not aware of who she is or what she does? A I know she works with us . Q Do you know of any of her qua l ifications? A No . Q I see . You disagree with Dr . DeJarnette that the process of the school district has not been embedded into its assessment process? A Not I. Q I 'm asking about you . A No. Q Do you know anything about the portfolio ' s that were supposed to have been developed? A No. Q Were there any impediments that you knew of to implementing a data warehouse , any cost impediments to implementing that? A I 'm not aware of that . Q All right . Do you disagree that a data warehouse system is not now in place? A I think we have something in place . Q You have something . Would you call it a completed data warehouse? A To the extent practically, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 - 5110 I I I 1 - 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 ' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 Q To the extent practically? A Yes. Q Are you aware that much of the information in one of these reports is based on false data? BY MR. HELLER : Object to the form of the question . BY MR . WALKER: Q Are you? A What report? Q The report submitted to the Court . The evaluation report . A We submitted a truthful report to the Court. Q Let me ask you : Did you have occasion in September and October to meet several times with Dr . Ed Williams outside of the presence of Dr . DeJarnette? A Perhaps, yes. Q Let me ask you now: Did you ever speak with Dr . Steven Ross regarding anything connected herewith? A No . Q Did Mr. John Ruffin have any role with respect to any of this? A Not that I know of. Q Did you ever speak with Mr. James Wohlleb? A Yeah, I've spoken with James before. Q Were you aware that Mr . Wohlleb and Dr. DeJarnette hired their own lawyers on or about November 3rd or before? 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 71 A I know Dr . DeJarnette did . Q Did Dr . DeJarnette -- she's indicated that you said several things to her to express displeasure with her work performance . Did that happen before November 3rd? BY MR. HELLER: Object to the form. BY MR . WALKER : Q You can answer. A Dr. Roberts is the person that evaluates Dr. DeJarnette . Q I'm asking about you. Did you ever express displeasure with the work performance of Dr. DeJarnette? A I don't recall doing that, no, sir. Q All right. Now , have you ever given her a written evaluation before November of her work performance? A No, sir . Q Have you ever approved one? A Q No , sir. Have you ever seen one? A No, sir . Q Isn't it true that she was recommended for renewal at the end of the 2005-2006 school year? A Yes, sir. Q So that meant at that time that her work performance was satisfactory? A At that time, yes . BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 537-5110 ' ' ,1 1 - 2 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 72 Q All right. I take it you haven ' t had any direct discussions with Mr. Armstrong or any of the other Board members regarding your decision to remove her temporarily for her position\nis that correct? A No . Q All right . Who is the present director of the department? A There is an interim director . Q Who is that person? A Dr. Ed Williams . Q Was that position posted before you put him in it? A I t ' s not a vacancy, sir. Q Was it posted? A It ' s not a vacancy . Q Was there another position in PRE posted upon his being placed as interim director? A Yes , sir . Q Who made the decision to post another position? A We did. Q Who is we? Did you make that decision? A Dr . Roberts, Mr . Hattabaugh, and, yes, I was involved. Q Was that a position for a statistician? A Yes, sir. Q Was that the position that Mr . Williams formerly held? A Yes, sir . Q Did you all make a judgement that there was a need for 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 73 second statistician? A Yes, sir. We wanted the department to have what they needed . Q So you wanted to have two statisticians in the department at this time? A We have three. Q All right. Let's assume that Dr . DeJarnette is reinstated . What happens to Dr . Williams? Does he go back to his former position? A We can't make a decision about that now . Q I see . But at this point it is intended that Dr . Williams will go back to his former position? A We haven ' t made a decision, sir . Q Is it his position that you all are advertising for to be filled? A It's the position he held , yes. Q I see . All right . BY MR. WALKER: I don't have any more questions. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR . HELLER : Q Dr. Brooks, with respect to Exhibit 4, the letter to Dr. Mitchell from Dr . DeJarnette, it references an accompanying document . Was there an accompanying document? 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 \\ Q A Q 74 Was that document called the Compliance History 2004-2006? I think so, yes. Okay. And were there things in the accompanying document to which you objected? A Yes, sir . Q Did Dr. DeJarnette have a grievance pending at the time on November 3rd, 2006? A Yes, sir. Q Did the submission of the letter, which is Exhibit 4, and the accompanying document violate the district's policy with respect to processing grievances? A Yes, it did, sir. Q Okay. BY MR: HELLER: That's all I have . BY MR. WALKER: I want to make sure I have not gone into her grievance. I'm not representing her and I don't have any questions about her grievan~e and I didn't ask any questions about it. I don't have any questions . WHEREUPON, the deposition of Mr . Brooks concluded at 12 : 05 p.m . , December 13th, 2006. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537 -5 110 I 75 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 17th day of December 2006 . KELLY S . DCOC~ Certified Court Reporter #643 My Commission Expires : 04 / 15 / 14 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501 ) 537-511 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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_1421","title":"\"2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2006-12-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1421"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["172 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_133","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":["2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["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/133"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2006 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 JAN - 3 2007 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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. 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 December 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, ar # 922 1 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 December 20, 2006, 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 M~ Scott Smith I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31 , 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (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 arid 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 (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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 1. 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31 , 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 11. 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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. 21 111. 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31 , 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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. 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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. 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 December 31, 2006 (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 17 48 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 December 31, 2006 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. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 Ongoing 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 December 31, 2006 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 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 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 December 31, 2006 (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. 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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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. 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 December 31, 2006 (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. 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 December 31, 2006 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 servicerepresentatives 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 NGA/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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 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 December 31, 2006 (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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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 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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (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 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 December 31, 2006 (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 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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) A!gebra 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 technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (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 December 31, 2006 (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. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (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 training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 59 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of December 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchm\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_1788","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' witness list, notice for substitution of counsel, two Office of Desegregation Management reports, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification.","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":["2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","School board members","School principals","Franklin Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Cloverdale Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' witness list, notice for substitution of counsel, two Office of Desegregation Management reports, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification."],"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/1788"],"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":["98 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, notice for substitution of counsel; District Court, entry of appearance; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2006-07 Enrollment and Racial Composition of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) Implementation of the Staffing Provisions of Plan 2000''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for contempt and motion for disqualification    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    \u0026gt; I :e I Ut.C. 8.2006 1:43PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 JOHN W. WALKERJ P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Lirrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (50/) 374--3758 Fa.~ (501) J7-l--1187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET P.1/12 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;{SOI) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contuned in th is facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidenti!l,l information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader oftl,is message is not the intended recipient, or the einployee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intctlded recipient. you are hereby notified that any di$semination, diSll'ibution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have   receive4 this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, ~d return the oriiinal message to us at the above address via the U.S. PoStal Service. Thank you. DEC. 8 .2006 1: 43PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AT'I'ORNEY AT LAW . 1'723 BROADWAY LlT'rL.8 Rocx, ARKANSAS 7.2.206 TELEPHONE (501) 374--3768 FAX(501)374:-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.eoui Honorable Judge William R Wtlson United States District Court Judge 6-00 West Capitol. Suite 423 Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201 Via Facsimile - 604--5149 December 8. 2006 N0.273 P.2/12 OFCOUNSEI., ROBERT M.eBENEY. P.A. DONNA J. Mu!ENRY 8210 Hi:NDER8oN ROAD Lrrru; Roa. ARKAN8A4 1l2lO 'PHONE: (501) 3'7l-34.25  FtJ. (501) 3'123428 Email: mcbamyd@swbell.net Re: Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR ' Dear Judge Wtlson: Per the Court letter Order ofDecembet\" 6, 2006, Joshua Intervenors submit the following: - A. Witnesses: Mr. Charles Armstrong [25 minutesJ He will testify that he has not been informed by Dr. Roy Brooks of the Court's requirements, of the district's activities regarding program evaluation and assessment; that it appears that the district does not focus its attention upon achievement of African Amerioan students and that he has no indication that program evaluation is embedded in the district's cuniculum and instructional programs. He wm. testify that it appears that the efforts of the district are devoted to creating an environment attractive to white students and their parents. He will also testify that when he and other board members sought information regarding program evaluation, the director was removed from her position; and that district counsel has not provided information to him regarding the process and the status of the 1 . - -------------------------- JJt.C. B.2006 1:43PM JOHN W WALKER P A N0.273 P.3/ 12 district, s compliance, Dr. Victoria Bemb.ardt [ 45 minutes] She bas expertise in the preparation and I manipulation of school data bases, facilitating the assessment and evaluation of educational programs for effectiveness in buil~ student achievement. She provided training to PRE staff regarding such sY~~. She identified an existing \"data warehouse\" methodology designed for use in school systems; to facilitate their assessment and evaluation of programs for effectiveness in building student achievement. While presentations regarding this system were made to LRSD, it was not adopted. This system could have been operative in the LRSD by mid October, 2006 had it been adopted. MJ. Lisa Black (30 minutes] She will testify that she bas significant evaluation and assessment obligations for the LRSD and that her activities are unknown to PRE or ODM She will also testify that she bas refused to provide information to Joshua regarding the evaluation - and assessments undertaking that she performs for the LRSD, as a private contractor on the public payroll. Mr. Tom Brode [ 20 minutes] See description of Mr. Tony Rose's testimony below. Dr. Roy Brooks [30 minutes] His lack of knowledge about the court's requirements and PRE compliance efforts and his affirmative actions designed to dirlnish the supplying of imormation to ODM and Joshua regarding the status of compliance with the 2004 remedy. Ms. Diane Curry [ 25 minutes] Her testimony will be similar to that of newly elected fellow board member Charles Armstrong. Dr. Michael Daugherty [25 minutes] His testimony will be similar to that of fellow board members Cbarles Armstrong and Di~e Cuny, He VJill also testify that he is unaware of 2 JVHN W WHLK~~ ~ H N0.273 P.4/ 12 any spcci:.fic programs which have worked to sigoifiC3lltly improve the academic achievement of African American students in the LRSD. Dr. Karen DeJamette (2 hours] [l] The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [2] The LRSD assigned additional duties to PRE staff; a filctor which played a role in l..RSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed the comprehensive program assessment process as a permanent part of the LR.SD' cuni.culwn and instruction program. Thus: [aJ In the preparation of the 8 \"formal step 2\" evaluatio11$, ''PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, fonnulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. Building the abilities of the PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistance of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the assistanceof outside evaluators ( or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators) was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations ofLRSD. [b] LR.SD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress - .in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. It is and has been feasi'ble for LRSD to create one or more computer data bases allowing compilation and manipulation of many forms of data and variables. Such data and variables could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools exposed to two different r~ programs, taking account as well as student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [3] LR.SD' s \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school'' and \"district\"\" \"portfolios\" - compilations of data like that listed in paragraph (2-b] [E.g., updates of9-1-0S at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [a] Although L.RSD first mentioned \"school 3 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.S/ 12 portfolios\" in its quarterly report of 9-1-05 at 3, corrections in the \"Little Rock: School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school year,\" show that \"LR.SD expects to ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-0S school year.\" [ At 7, para. 14; emphasis added] [b] The quarterly update dated 12-1 05 states: '--\"Data to be included in the district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] One can not determined the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,\" compared to what needs to be accomplished from the LllSD' s Revised Compliance Report,\" 10-25-06 at 6-7]. [4] The quarterly update of12-1..05 states (at 3): \"PRE is slso investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are - . currently developing.\" The (lllarterly updm:e of3-l--06 states (at 3): \"To suppon the portfolio's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been finlctioning as one of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See \"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para., 3 (a)J. Upper level LRSD administrator rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in panieular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [ls!.. at para. 3 (c)] No data warehouse system is in place. [5] Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy ofLRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., para. 2; para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\") [ 6] Some LRSD representatives censored the eighth update, prepared by 4 - -- -- - - ----------- - - - ------ - - - --- JOHN W WALKER PA N0 . 273 P.6/ 12 PRE stat: to minimize the notice of some compliance probletQS noted in this document. See \"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2. para., 4. PJ The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors. See Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7(a) (The superintendent threatened . . . (the dismissal (of PRE' s Director] if she shared information with ODM or Joshua.\"). [8] The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the school system regarding the content of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously reported directly to the Superintendent. A$ a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Asrociate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. [9] The work of PRE staff bas been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments in the Compliance Remedy. See paragraph 7 of the PRE. \"Compliance History . \" [10] Upon her hiring as PRE Director and her reading of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, she - understood that she had major responsibilities flowing from the court's 2004 remedy. She sought to fulfill these responsioilities in a diligent manner, to provide information to ODM and Joshua Intervenors consistent with their responsibilities under the remedy, and to be frank and honest in reporting on the status of compliance. She perceives that she has been suspended and faces termination for her efforu. Ms. Ethel Dunb~ [15 mim.ltes] She is the principal ofFranklinElementary school, a racially identifiable elementary school. She has not received training on how she can use district and school portfolios to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in her schools designed to improve African American achievement. She has not been illfonned that such portfolios are available for her use, or been provided assessments for programs at her school based upon the 5 JUHN W WHLK~~ PA N0.273 P .7/12 use of such materials by oth~ persons. Mr. Freddie Fields ( 15 minutes) He is the principal of Cloverdale Middle SchooL a racially identifiable middle school. He has not received the training on how be can use district and school portfolios to assess the effectiveness of educational programs in bis school designed to improve Afiican American achievement. He has not been informed that such portfolios are available for his use, or been provided assessments of programs at hls school based on the use of such material by other persons. He is also not familiar with the SMART/THRIVE programs which the district has identmed as one of the programs that has been deeply imbedded with ongoing assessments. Ms. Mebnie Fox (25 minutes] Her testimony will be similar to that _of Mr. Armstrong and Ms. C\\lil'Y. She will also testify that she bas been integrally involved with district activities for three (3) years. Ms. Beverly Griffen [IO minutes] She will discuss her involvement regarding the posting of the gltl Quarterly Update for the Board review and comments. Mr. Gene Jones (45 minutes] He will discuss his monitoring efforts, ODM 's attempts to assist the district with the compliance requirements, his interaction '\\Jlith PRE staff, his awareness of the dilectory requests by district counsel for extensions for extensions of time, promises made for followup work by district counsel which were unmet, LRSD' s failure to embed the an effective evaluation ai:t\u0026lt;I assessment pr-ocess into the LRSD's curriculum and instructional programs, his awareness of upper level district officials unhappiness with Dr. DeJamette and their circumvention of her through use of Dr. Ed Williams in a way which 6 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.8/ 12 undermined and otherwise divided the PRE staff. He will discuss other failing'S of the district with respect to the court's order. Mr. Chris Heller [30 minutes] He will discuss: a) directions to PRE not to cooperate except through him with ODM and Joshua; b) his unavailability and unresponsiveness to PRE for assistance subsequent to the last hearing before the court; c) promises made to provide information to Joshua and ODM in August, 2006 which were not kept; d) his refusal to make timely requests for extensions of time in violation of the court's November 29, 2005 order; e) his rewriting the gill Quarterly report .so as to mislead the court and to distort the status of compliance as represented by PRE st.aft; his advice to senior administrators nt to cooperate with PRE, Joshua and ODM; and t) his recommendation to Dr. Brooks to terminate Dr. DeJarnette. Dr. Katherine M\"rtc:hell [30 minutes] She will address the same issues as the other board members and she will opine that the senior administration did not intend to fully comply ~h the - court's ordei-. Ms. Margie Powell [ 25 miuutes] -Her areas willoverlap those ofMr. Gene Jones. She ~ also ~lain how the district's failure to timely comply and to otherwise obstruct compliance worked to prevent the embedding of an effective evaluation and assessment process. She will also discuss Mr. Heller's editing the 81b Quanerly Update so as to delete pages 2-6 of the draft therefrom. Mr. Tony Rose [20 mimrtesJ He is a former member of the LR.SD Board who directed the administration to be negative to the cooperation of ODM and Joshua with respect to the Compliance Remedy. He will also testify that he never became aware of the progress of PRE activities after 2004 and that he requested no reports of PRE regarding compliance before 7 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.273 P.9/ 12 September, 2006. Joshua ~ill seek to establish that it was Mr. Rose's guidance to Dr. Brooks and senior administrators which helped to create a lack of diligent, good faith compliance with the 2004 compliance remedy by upper level administration. Moreover, he did not agree with the court's compliance remedy. Dr. Steven Rou (30 mimrtes] He and bis colleagues received full cooperation from Dr. DeJarnette and other members of the PRE staff: Upper level administrators exhibited disinterest in the evaluation process. In the course of completing the evaluations problems regarding inaccurate data arose. He will be asked about the descriptions of programs in the four 2005-2006 evaluations. He is unfamiliar regarding the activities undertaken by LRSD with respect to embedding the comprehensive assessment process. Mr. John Ruffin [15 minutes] He is the Director of Information Technology. He will testify that is unaware of any process that is complete or substantially complete which has - embedded the evaluation process into the district curriculum. He will also testify that bis office had only become involved in the process in the last 6 months and that he had no earthly idea of what the court bas required. Ms. Joy Spl'll;lgtr [l hour] She will testify in a manner consistent with b.er affidavit filed on June 28, 2006. Ms. Springer will provide testimony regarding her monitoring activities. She will also provide examples of information requests made on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors which LRSD did not respond. Mr. James Wohlleb [ 45 minutes] He will testify regarding PRE work activities, cooperation or lack thereof from the administration, failure of support by the administration, the importance of the process and how it is integral for raising the achievement level of the majority N0.273 P.10/ 12 of the students in the district. He will also address the administration's efforts to undcmune the leadership ofDr. DeJarnette. B. Exhibiq,_ The numbers indicated below may not be the order presented at the hearing. 1. Court's Order of June 30, 2004 2. Court's Order ofNpvember 29, 2005 3. LRSD' s Programs Interventions and Models in LRSD Schools 4. Guidelines for Completing Program Evaluations by Steven M. Ross, PhD 5. LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process NEPN Code: IL-R 6. LRSD Program Evaluation Agenda NEPN Code: IL-R posted on website . 7. Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated March 17, 2005 8. Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated May 24, 2005 9. Letter to Dr. DeJamette dated December I, 2005 10. Letter to Chris Heller dated October 3, 2006 11. Letter to Chris Heller dated Aui:,aust 17, 2 006 12. LRSD's Quarterly Update filed September 1, 2006 13. LRSD's draft Quanerly Update for September 1, 2006 14. LRSD's Compliance Report :filed October 16, 2006 15. Joshua Intervenors Objections to Compliance Report 16. Letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell dated 11/3/06 from Dr. DeJarnette w/atta.chments 17. Pre -K Literacy Evaluation pages 180, 192, 234 . 18. Magnet Schools and Magnet Programs Evaluation Report (2005-2006) page 9 I -I N0 .273 P.11/12 19. Emails dated 7/14/06 between DeJamette and Griffen regarding status on compliance report with attachment 20. Cover Pages of the eight (8) Step 2 Evaluations 21. PRE Comments on 10-16-06 Compliance Report filed by Chris Heller 22. LRSD's Eight (8) Quarterly Report Updates 23. LRSD'sReorganization Audit dated March, 2005 24. LRSD Guiding Principles 25. Miscellaneous emails between PRE, district administration, district counsel and Joshua. 26. Joslwa reserves the right to introduce rebuttal exhibits regarding witnesses testimony. In addition, Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list based upon documents provided by LRSD counsel that was requested several weeks ago. - C. Matters regarding the Subject 9f Media Reports Dr. Roy Brooks has displaced Dr. Karen DeJarnette as Director of PRE, has placed Dr. Ed Williams in het position and has advertised Dr. Williams' position as a vacancy. He did so after the Board requested that she appear before it. Consequently Mr. Chris Heller and Dr. Brooks hired the Quattlebaum law firm to investigate a grievance that had been filed by Dr. DeJarnette. The matter became public when presented by Mr. Heller and Mr. Quattlebaum in a public meeting to the school board. Her grievance still pends. Joshua believes that appropriate grounds e\u0026gt;dst for the Court's intervention in that it appears that the Court's order is being flaunted by the adverse action which followed her response to the Board as requested by the Board and as required by the Court's order. Joshua reserves the right to address this matter 10 I I - Ut.l.... ts. C:~lab 1 : 4 f t-'M JOHN W WALKER P A N0.273 P. 12/ 12 subsequently in order that the Court's supremacy with respect to its orders be duly respected by those charged to implement it. Joshua notes that the Court pointedly directed counsel to be frugal and cost conscious in their representation of the LRSD. LRSD claims that economics required it to reduce PRE st.at: yet LR.SD appears to have given unlimited access to the district check book to the law firms involved for the purpose of undermining Dr. DeJarnette and PRE. D. Mr. Burnett and Mr; Ouattleb\u0026amp;wn It is not ne~ary for either of these gentlemen or their firms to be involved in this proceeding. Mr. Quattlebaum has absolutcly nothing to contribute to this endeavor. :Mt. Burnette is representing Dr. DeJamette individually. Her matter is not presently before the Court in that she has not exhausted her internal remedies as set forth by Arkansas state law. Undersigned counsel does not purport to represent her interests. All references to her interests - are made because of the proposition that those who do the work of the court, as a matter of public policy, cannot and should not be subject to retaliation or reprisal. JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Honorable Judge Thomas Ray . 11 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-1019 E-mail: scott. richardson@arkansasag.gov December 11 , 2006 Mr. Norman J. Chachklin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Find, Inc. New York 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818  Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear .Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a copy of the Motion for Substitution of Counsel and Entry of Appearance that were filed in the above referenced matter. Please contact me at (501) 682-1019 if you have any questions or need additional information. SPR/pjd Sincerely, k~ Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street  Suite 1100  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501 ) 682-2007  FAX (5 01 ) 682-2591 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL BNIHO!INOW NOl!Y93H93S30 ~03~,~~o 900Z SI J30 C3Al303~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel, states: 1. Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier has recently changed responsibilities in the Attorney General's Office. 2. Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson has been given responsibility as lead attorney for this case. WHEREFORE, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) requests that Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier be withdrawn from this case and that Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson be substituted in his stead and for all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General BY: Isl Scott P. Richardson RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTTP. RICHARDSON, BarNo. 01208 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 2 of 3 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Emai I: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 11, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier(a),arkansasag.gov Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com Mr. Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! bmlaw.net Ms. Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkerattv@aol.com 2 I --- - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4073 Filed 12/11/2006 Page 3 of 3 I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on December 11 , 2006, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \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 7220 l Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 3 Page 1 of2 Patsy Dooley From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, December 11 , 2006 10:34 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Motion to Substitute Attorney\" ***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 received from Richardson, Scott Paris entered on 12/11/2006 at 10:33 AM CST and filed on 12/ 11 /2006 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Arkansas, State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume,nt Number: 4073 Docket Text: MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of. (Richardson, Scott) The following docurnent(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=l2/l l /2006] [FileNumber=799638-0 ] [13349957099b9f6d33537ed0032adf7a072d99abel28b653605d3b4ef5512956dbc fl dd4a4a350dfbf4 70dcdl b 1 beaefl 0dafe587da7725403debb l 3bal 80884]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov; 12/1 1/2006 , ' .. agcivil@arkansasag.gov ,. 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, kate.jones@jlj .com; linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! bmlaw.net, nrnoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dooley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be 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 R;ock, AR 7220 i-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \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 12/11/2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed 1211112006 Page 1 of 3 UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, who is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Arkansas, hereby enters his appearance ih this case as counsel for Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Respectfu11y submitted, MIKE BEEBE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Isl Scott P. Richardson RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.goy COUNSEL FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 11 , 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CMIECF system, which sha11 send notification of such filing to the following: .-- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed 12/11/2006 Page, 2 of 3 Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net  Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mr. Philip E. Kaplan . pkaplan@k!bmlaw.net Ms. Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.riet Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty(@ao l.com I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on December 11, 2006, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Mr. William P. Thompson Mr. James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4072 Filed )2/11 /2006 .Page 3 of 3 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 . ( /s/ Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 3 Page 1 of2 Patsy Dooley From: / ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov \\ Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1 0: 31 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Notice of Appearance\" ***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 received from Richardson, Scott Paris entered on 12/ 11 /2006 at 10:31 AM CST and filed on 12/11/2006 Case Name: Case Number: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas,. State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4072 ' -- Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Paris Richardson on behalf of Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of (Richardson, Scott) 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=l2/ l l /2006] [FileNurnber=799633-0 ] [9e40375cd08dc8 l ae09cDfe0866 l aabff78 l 613add66602 l 6dfb0el 85bf55c8ae5 d2ef8fe0de33306f01J787el4dl8ecf4e456ad8dab9d2cd2a7864e4cc5022]] 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com '- John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov; 12/11/2006 agci vil@arkansasag.gov - 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, kate.jones@jlj.com; linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@k! brnlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Scott Paris Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, patsy.dociley@arkansasag.gov; agcivil@arkansasag.gov Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com Page 2 of 2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be 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 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 12/ 11 /2006 II  II I I I I I I -  I I I I I I \"I I rr J:ILED f  ., u.l. DISTRICT couRr  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 12 2006 JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK By I 2006-07 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE DEP CLERK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Horace R. Smith Monitor December 12, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager ' ' --- - ' ' -- .. -- I I I 1 -  -- - UPDATE ON THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STAFFING PROVISIONS OF PLAN 2000 . Margie L. Powell Monitor December 15, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Monitor : ~- IA8T~f J~ill~~SA8 DEC 15 2000 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By--------=o=EP=-c::-LERK= Gene Jones Monitor ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilfn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org December 20, 2006 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 JAN - 3 200j 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: .fer an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of December 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: 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  Mary Jane 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 November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, ar # 922 1 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 December 20, 2006, 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,ll Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 kit~ Scott Smith 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 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 of1Eiecember 31, 2006  .m:.9iiJ5eJJoto1~uwiEia6lm\u0026amp;fi@aviiii6efaa12oaa~era@1aiwm State1Eouriaaticm$iindjrdlfllll:1~I\u0026lt;fflEoi'eittcf6etio8ijfagfflsJMUI 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. RECEIVED JAN - 3 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFFICE OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERJ.'-T DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1 ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVNORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION On June 30, 2004, the court instructed the parties to cooperate in addressing their concerns with respect to implementation of the Court's directive regarding assessing programs designed to improve the academic achievement of African American students. The District appealed. The Court entered a separate Order to the effect that without or without an appeal the Court expected its Order to be implemented pendente lite. Rather than participate directly in the implementation process, Mr. Heller placed all of his eggs in one basket expecting the court's remedy to be overturned. Mr. Heller raised no questions regarding Joshua's continuing participation in the local PRE work until after the Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's Order. Ivfr. Heller and undersigned counsel had continuing disagreements regarding what information Joshua was to receive from PRE. Joshua, on the other hand, received its information in the same manner as it had previously done through October, 2006. Before that time, Mr. Heller did not 1 present to the Court any concerns that Joshua exceeded its bounds with respect to monitoring. Indeed, no motion to that effect has ever been filed. The instant proceeding is before the Court because :tvfr. Heller now has to regard the . interests of African American children and to provide more respect to the African American school board members than he did before. Before 2004, when the Court's remedy was set forth, Mr. Heller disregarded the two African American board members, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and Mr. Michael Daugherty. During the fall, Nfr. Heller opposed relief being sought by Nfr. Charles Armstrong and Ms. Dianne Curry with respect to their school board election campaigns. He continued to oppose those two board members until December 15, 2006 when an Order was entered dismissing their case intervention. He was in the unenviable position of opposing them in one action and representing them in another action. This appears to be a violation of ethics rules as well but is not being presented for the Court's present decision. Despite Nfr. Heller's antagonism to Nfr. Armstrong and Ms. Curry, they won school board seats. As of October, 2006, they joined Nfr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell to form a majority Africci American school board. It was only after this event that Nfr. Heller raised the issue of improper contact with his \"clients\" before the Court. The further background of this matter involves Dr. DeJarnette. Between June, 2006 and November, 2006, she made frequent complaints that she was being obstructed by the administration and not aided by Nfr. Heller in the PRE's efforts to comply with the Court 's order. The PRE's September draft report for the Court expressed PRE's concerns about noncompliance. The draft September report had initially been presented to the school administration in mid August, 2006. The response of:tvfr. Heller was to exclude from the Court 's 2 September final report the concerns which the PRE eA1Jressed in the draft report. When Mr. Heller learned that the September draft report had been shared with Joshua and ODM, he found no fault with that. (In the past, some draft reports had been shared with ODM and Joshua.) On August 4, 2006, Mr. Heller met with Joshua and ODM for more than an hour regarding concerns raised by Joshua to the effect that there were compliance issues outstanding. The meeting concluded upon l\\tfr. Heller's promise _that he would obtain further information regarding the issues raised by Joshua and ODM and that he would promptly get back ODM and Joshua. The meeting between Joshua and Heller was directed by the Court and coordinated by ODM in the manner contemplated by the Court. Despite his commitment, ]\\,fr. Heiler never met again with Joshua and ODM to further address the concerns presented at that c_ourt directed meeting. The Court subsequently inquired whether Joshua and LRSD were still at \"loggerheads\" to which Joshua replied in the affirmative. Mr. Heller's first acknowledgment of subsequent availability for the followup meeting came on November 1, 2006. See Exhibits 1 and 2. This was after newly elected Board President Dr. Katherine Mitchell requested that Dr. DeJarnette address the status of compliance with the Court's order and after the Board majority had shifted. At that point, Mr. Heller had been identified as an obstructor of the Court's Order and an accomplice of the school administration in seeking to retaliate against Dr. DeJarnette for sharing . her concerns with the Court, ODM, Joshua and the Board. What is before the Court are Joshua's objections to court release of the district because it has not complied with the letter and spirit of the Court's Order regarding program assessments. The sub-issues involve the following in Joshua's belief: 1) whether Mr. Heller deliberately delayed requesting an extension of time in which to comply with the Court's Order after Dr. 3 DeJ arnette made it known that the additional time was needed; 2) whether Dr. DeJ arnette' s proposed termination was retaliatory, i.e., undertaken for either or both punitive reasons and/or to discredit her when she testifies before the Court; and 3) whether the Joshua counsel and monitor acted outside the letter and the spirit of this Court's Order directing cooperation.1 The Court is being called upon to exclude the African American school board members and Dr. DeJamette as witnesses: \"that the Joshua Intervenors be prohibited from calling as witnesses at the January 20, 2007 hearing LRSD officials and personnel with whom Walker or Springer have had ex-parte communications related to LRSD's implementation of the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy.\" page 9 (7) Joshua contends that this pleading is an effort to preclude Joshua's calling :tvrr. Heller as a witness in the forthcoming proceeding. For the disqualification of IV.Ir. Walker would effectively  moot the issue of whether Mr. Heller complied with the Court's order to cooperate with and support PRE in its implementation efforts. In the supplemental pleading before the Court, facts are urged by :tvrr. Heller which cannot be e~tablished without an evidentiary hearing because they are disputed. Much of the objection regarding attorney client privilege between Heller and DeJarnette has to be more carefully considered. At some point, Dr. Brooks became adversary to Dr. DeJarnette or at least she contends that. Did :tvrr. Heller continue to represent both of them during that adversariness. Mr. Heller also became adversary to Dr. DeJarnette because she 1 . The Order referred to by Judge Wright was entered during the midst of compliance hearings before her which had begun in July, 2001. She was concerned that while the matter was being heard by her there would not be any communication between Joshua counsel and school officials except by informing counsel in advance. That situation ended when those hearings ended. Her proposition as a general rule is understood and has been respected by counsel and Ms. Springer. 4 informed him that the district, in her opinion, was non compliant with the Court's orders. Dr. DeJamette then obtained her own counsel because she apparently was being threatened by Dr. Brooks for setting forth her honest views regarding the status of compliance in her discussions before the school administration and with ODM , Joshua and the Board. She then filed a grievance allegmg that the administration and 1'fr. Heller had taken adverse action against her due to her PRE responsibility to the Court. Undersigned counsel also came to represent Ms. Yvette Dillingham, a member of PRE, who was adversely affected by the school district's reorganization plan which took place in 2005. Did 1ifr. Heller represent her or did 1ifr. Walker represent her? Clearly, the question is not so easily to be determined. At most, it is to be said that N.fr. Heller represented Dr. Brooks and that Dr. Brooks and the Board were directly accountable to the Court. Dr. DeJamette became directly  accountable to the Court because of the specific orders of the Court. Indeed, 1ifr. Heller was also obliged to respect the Court's orders. The only \"party\" including counsel prior to the election of the two African American board members who sought to respect the orders of the Court was Dr. DeJamette. The others sought to obstruct it. . Joshua counsel should not be disqualified for bringing matters to the attention of the Court which are established by papers, public discussion, and exchanges of correspondence. Seldom is the public's legitimate business known only to a limited number of people. This is one of those cases. Clearly, the old Board was not concerned by its actions about effectively addressing the underachievement of African American students nor was LRSD counsel. Nor did LRSD counsel inform either Board of his private actions which involved his previous client, Dr. Ken James, former LRSD Superintendent of Schools and now Commissioner of Education for 5 - Arkansas, regarding negotiations to end magnet school and M to M transfer funding. - - The motion for contempt and to disqualify and its supplement to disqualify Joshua counsel should be dismissed because thereis no evidentiary basis to support either. If it is to be considered on the merits by the Court, an evidentiary hearing is respectfully requested. Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (facsimile) Respectfully submitted, Isl Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, JVIA 02421 781-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 29th day of December, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and mailed to the following persons: Mr. Gene Jones ODM 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 West Third Street Little Rocle, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S . District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 6 ;ent 01 / 11 / 2006 at 16:54:14 - from to 5013744187 p3/3 ~ SCHEL H. F1UDr\\i\" {19?:. ; 994) ..'1 N M . .ElSEMAfl, JR., :I.A,  A .. 8UITR~. P.A. .,iRICK S. t.~ SRY, P .. \\. J~ C. CL\\RK, JR.. P.,.i,. T HOMAS?. LEGG'ETT, P.A. JOHN OEWY WA.'t:mN, P .. -\\. PAUL B. S'ENHJ\\M 111. P.A. t r\\RRY \\V. BURKS,? .. '\\. ,-\\ , WYCKLlFF NTS'BET, fR., P .. a\\.. JAMES EOW t\\RD H.'\\RRts, P .. \\. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHPR'EJU) aussnr. Ill, P.A. OON . .UO H. BACON, [I.,\\. WILLIAM THOMAS 8AXTt:lt. ?,A. JOS\"E.i'H 8 . HURST. JR .. P.A. ELlZABETR ROBBEN MURRAY, P-~ CHRlSTOPRER HELLER. P.A. LAUlL-\\ ITENSt.\"EY SMini, P.A. ROBt::RTS. SHAF!l\\. P .. s\\, Wllt.lM,( ~l. GRl l-''FIS UI, P,A ~ICHAH S. ~ C ORE. P.i. WALTER M. on m. ?- \" 'K!Vl N' A. CR.ASS, P.A. WlLUAM A. WA.DDiLL.JR., P.A. SCOTT ). L,NCASTE.R. ?_'\\.. R08ERT 'B. 3EACH, JlL. P. A. J. UE 'BROWN, P.A. ).UIES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARR'! A- U GHT. P .. '\\. SCOTT H. TUCKER, ? . .-\\ .. Gl1Y ALTON WADE, ?.A. PRtCE C. OAR'DNER. P .. \\ . TONl,\\ P. JOl-Jts, I' . .\\, OAVtO D. WtLSON, P.A. JEFFltEY H. MOORE, P.A. OAVTO }.(. G'RA.f, Jl .. \\ . CARL..\\ CUNN'tts SJIAlNHOU'R, P.A. JON.\\NN C. CHlLES , P.A. R. CHRlSTOPHER L.\\WSON, P,A. BITTY ). DEMORY. P . .\\. Ll'l'f-OA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JtUO:S W. S\u0026gt;.(tTH, P .. \\. CLIFFORD VI , Pt.UNKlITT, P .. '\\.. DANIEL 1... HEJ\\RlNGTON, P.A.. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 - FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LJMJTED LIA.BIL!TY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm .com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LJTTL.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 50.13762011 FAX 501,JH-2147 1  15 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, .SUIT'S\" 103 F.l.YETTEVILLE.. ARKAM!5.AS 72703 .. -'111 TELEPMONE 471~eos.2011 FAX  7 t-H5-Z 147 November 1, 2006 J. MICH.UL rlICJ.'..l:NS, P.A. .MAR VlN L CHlLDERS X. COLEM.\"i.N WESTBROOK, JR., P.A. ALUSON ). CORNWEil.. P.A. '-. nl.'EN OWENS SMITH, P.A. JASON'!. HENDREN, P.A. :SRUC? B. TIDW'El.L. P.A. JOSEPH P. MC-~AY. P . .\\. ,\\UXANOR..._ .-\\. lFRhK, :P .A. JAY T. TAY!.OR. P .. , . MARTIN.\\.. K.-\\.n!N, P.A. BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. ~'lCHOLS 'if.OBERT T. SMm-t R. YAN A .. BOWM..-\\.N TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MlC'HE'LU .\\TOR. ?.A, JC-'..R.EN S. RAL11'ERT SAKAH b-l. COTTON \\.\"'RtSTEN S. ROWL\\.NOS .\\LAN G. BRYAN UNUSE.\\' MITCH..'\\M LORENCE. KHAY~AM M. :EDDlNGs_ VIA FACSILE and REGULAR lVIAIL Re: Meet and Confer Dear John: JOHN F. Pb15ER1C:1 AM.A'NOA CAPPS ROSE STI.VEN L BROOKS H. WAYNE YOUNC, JR. JAMtE HUFFMAN JONE5 iCIMBIRLY l), r o UNG JASON N, BR.o\\.MLEIT BRlAN C. SMlt'H O. b-UCH.An ~,tOYE'RS S'Ent M. HAIN'ES CRI N!.. CULLUM KRlSTOl\u0026gt;HIR B. KNOX l\u0026lt;.\\.'I'HRYN A, 11'. RKPAT'RlC..: J. ADAM W!U.S U ,U'RA J, .\\SBUl\\Y 0 1 C:OVNSlL WlLLlhM H, SUTTO N, !',.\\ , \\l.'lll..1.1\\M \\.. TERRY WtLLMM l.. P,'\\TTO~. JR. H.T. LARn.LER.E. ?.A. OSCAR E. DA\\-7 S , JR. . .?.A. CRR.lSTOPHER H.t LLER 1.lrrL'E ROCK nL rn 1.Ji'O-U06 FAX S 0 1 ,l  -!5H  bcllu ci;(c,;.nct You now have our Compliance Report and have participated in the evaluation team meetings regarding Read 180, 21st Century and A+. You also have other information and documents from PRE concerning our compliance. I will be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss any compliance concerns you may have. It will be more difficult to anange a meeting and, I believe, beyond the scope of what the Court has required of us, if you continue to insist that LRSD Board Members and PRE staff be present. Please give me a call at your converuence. CJH/bk cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJarnette Margie Power Gene Jones Christopher Heller I PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT I -.. JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS :tvir. Chris Heller FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Meet and Confer Dear Chris: - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Email: jphnwalkeratty@aol.com November 1, 2006 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD 1rrTLE ROCIC, ARl0u'ISAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net PRE staff has been accessible in the past when you have not been. why don't you try to arrange a time wheri they are available and share that time with ODM. We will try to accommodate it. It would be better in the late afternoon. I am not available on the following dates: November 3, 8, 13-17, 2006. JWW:js cc: Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Margie Powell Sincerely, ls/John W: Walker PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT ;7.    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_1103","title":"\"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District\"","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":["Quattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-","Shannon, Michael N.","Moore, Benecia B."],"dc_date":["2006-11-21"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["\"Independent Investigation Report to the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District\""],"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/1103"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED NOV 2 1 2006 INDEPENDENT INVESTI~NfoRINI REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 PREPARED BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE Q ATILEBAUM, GROOM 'Tuu \u0026amp; BURROW PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900  Lmle Rock, Arl.ansas 72201 II (501) 379-1700 QGTB OUATTlEBAUM, GROOMS, lULL \u0026amp; BURROW PUC \u0026gt; Q. po .... REC 'iVED NOV 2 1 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS MADE IN A GRIEVANCE BY DR. KAREN DeJARNETTE AND IN A DOCUMENT TITLED COMPLIANCE HISTORY 2004-2006: PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 2006 BY STEVEN W. QUATTLEBAUM MICHAEL N. SHANNON BENECIA B. MOORE QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL \u0026amp; BURROWPLLC 111 CENTER STREET, SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-379-1700 \u0026gt; Q. ?- N ,\nC. C. ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 5 REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 19 I. QGTB ENGAGEMENT ........................................ ...................... ......... 19 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 21 III. A. B. Introduction ............................................................................... 21 The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command ...................... ...... .... 21 C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion ......................................... ....... 23 D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates ............................................................... 29 DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT .............. .............. 31 IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE ..... ... ............................ ................... 35 A. Documents Reviewed ............................................................... 35 B. Persons Interviewed .................................................................. 42 V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............... .............................................. 44 A. Timeline of Events .................................................................... 44 B. Factual Issues Identified ............................................................ 58 C. Discussion oflssues ..... ....................... ....... ........ ..................... .. 59 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update ........................................................... 60 a. What is an \"Update?\" .................... ........... .......... 60 b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process ............... 60 2  Q. p. N  Q. p. l,\n.l 2. 3. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update ................................. 61 d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website ................................................. 61 e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 64 f. August 22, 2006, Meeting .................................. 65 g. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting ........ 72 h. Instructed to Withhold Information ................... 76 Threats of Termination .................................................. 81 a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command ........................................................... 82 b. Direct Threats of Termination ............................ 85 I. ii. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article ..................................................... 85 Threats at Cabinet Meetings ................... 87 c. Indirect Threats of Termination ......................... 93 1. The Job Advertisement Incident.. ........... 93 11. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident ................................................... 94 111. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks .............................................. 95 Hostile Work Environment.. .......................................... 97 a. Direction of the PRE Staff ................................. 97 b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team ......... 99 c. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office .................................... 101 d. Painters in PRE Offices .................................... 102 e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE ............................................. 104 4. PRE Compliance History Document.. ......................... 105 3  Q. ?- N .,,,. Q. Q. (.,.I 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data .............................................................................. 109 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance ........ 113 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 114 ADDENDUM Add. 1. Add. 2. Add. 3. Add. 4. Add. 5. Add. 6. Add. 7. Add. 8. QGTB Resume and Biographical Information Investigation Specific Organizational Chart Textual Comparison of the Eight Quruterly Updates Submitted to the District Court A Comparison of the Various Iterations of the Q8 Update Employee Relations Complaint Form (Grievance) - Ex. 127 Letter and attached PRE Compliance History Document -Ex. 147 PRE's Initial Draft of the Q8 Update - Ex. 69 Final and Filed Version of the Q8 Update - Ex. 123 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow PLLC (\"QGTB\"), identified six major issues during its investigation. Although some factual overlap between them is unavoidable, those major issues are: 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update\n2. 3. Alleged Threats of Termination\nClaims of a Hostile Work Environment\n4. The document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department\n5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy ofLRSD's Data\nand 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance. This Executive Summary is intended to provide an abbreviated discussion of the factual disputes concerning these issues. A more detailed discussion of these disputes with accompanying cites to interview transcripts and exhibits can be found at section V. C. of this report. 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update The United States District Court' for the Eastern District of Arkansas (\"the Court\") was tasked with overseeing the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). The Court ordered certain program evaluations as part of the desegregation compliance remedy. In its June 30, 2004, Order (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"), the Court required the LRSD was to submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") eight Quarterly Updates regarding the status of the Court 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 5 ..... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N ordered program evaluations. A disagreement arose between the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\") and administration officials regarding the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\"), which was to be submitted to the Court on or before September I, 2006. The dispute within the LRSD regarding the Q8 Update centered on what information should be included in the Q8 Update and whether the removal of certain information from the draft Q8 Update was proper. PRE was of the opinion the information removed from the draft Q8 Update should be provided to the LRSD Board of Directors (\"the Board\") and the Court. LRSD administration officials and LRSD outside counsel were of the opinion that the information should not be included in the Q8 Update. Certain staff members in the PRE department, including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the Director of PRE, believed that all of the information included in the draft Q8 Update was crucial for the Board and the Court's consideration. PRE viewed the Q8 Update as an opportunity to present a comprehensive report to the Board and the Court. PRE included information in the draft Q8 Update TetraData, a \"warehouse\" of student data that PRE recommended but LRSD decided not to purchase. PRE also included concerns about the accuracy of the student data gathered and whether LRSD had a comprehensive program to verify the accuracy of student data. Further, PRE included a discussion of its attempts to ensure timely receipt of data from the Arkansas Department of Education. Finally, additional \"programs\" other than the eight step 2 programs identified in the 2004 Compliance Remedy were included in PRE's draft Q8 Update. 6 ....  Q. Q. N ,\n,\nQ. Q. n Administration officials and LRSD counsel disagreed with PRE about whether these issues should be included in the Q8 Update submitted to the Board and the Court. The administration was concerned that PRE had chosen to air \"in-house\" disputes that were irrelevant to the evaluation process outlined in the 2004 Compliance Remedy, particularly the data \"warehouse\" issue and PRE's criticisms of the Arkansas Department of Education. Administration officials and Mr. Heller were also concerned that certain statements made by PRE were inaccurate and did not reflect the position of LRSD. Among these were statements regarding the accuracy of student data. Finally, administration officials and LRSD counsel were concerned that by including \"programs\" that were not among those being evaluated pursuant to the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD could be creating an additional obligation to evaluate extra programs in the future. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh's office to discuss the concerns of the administration and PRE regarding the draft Q8 Update. Also in attendance at the meeting were Dr. Olivine Roberts, Dr. DeJarnette's immediate supervisor, Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, Dr. DeJarnette, and three statisticians from PRE, Dr. Ed Williams, Mr. Jim Wohlleb, and Ms. Maurecia Robinson. Both sides shared their opinions about whether the information should be included, and, at the end of the meeting, PRE was charged with incorporating suggestions made by the administration and redrafting the Q8 Update. Opinions within PRE on redrafting were not unanimous. It appears Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb believed that the draft should remain as it had been presented by PRE and that it was critical that all information be given to the Board and the Court. Dr. Williams was of the opinion that the edits suggested by the 7 ,. ti administration were clear and should be made. Ms. Robinson's opinion lay between these two, and she described her input as \"minimal.\" Initially, PRE sent a second draft of the Q8 Update that removed references to the additional \"programs.\" However, PRE stated that it was \"fuzzy\" on what other edits the administration wanted. PRE later reinstated references to the additional \"programs\" in a third draft of the Q8 Update that was circulated to the administration. Ultimately, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and removed the discussions of concern to the administration. Mr. Heller's edited version was submitted to the Board on August 24, 2006, and was approved. The approved Q8 Update was then filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. After the Q8 Update was filed with the Court, Dr. DeJarnette filed a grievance with LRSD (\"the Grievance\"). In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had been directed by Dr. Brooks, Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold from the Board, ODM, Joshua and the Court the information that was removed from PRE's draft Q8 Update. In addition, Dr. DeJarnette alleged that, on several occasions, Dr. Brooks threatened to terminate her employment if she shared information with Joshua or ODM. She also cited an e-mail dated August 17, 2006, from Mr. Heller wherein he instructed PRE not to discuss issues that will be litigated in December with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in the desegregation case without counsel present. Dr. DeJarnette provided a copy of PRE's draft Q8 Update to Joshua and ODM on or about August 8, 2006, when she says that she first posted the draft Q8 Update to the Board's 8 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. n Novus Agenda website.2 Thus, the information that was removed by Mr. Heller had already been provided to ODM and Joshua. Dr. DeJarnette is of the opinion that PRE should openly share all information with Joshua and that the 2004 Compliance Remedy requires a free flow of information between PRE and Joshua. Regarding sharing information with ODM and Joshua, the administration's position is that all ODM requests should be honored without any need to involve counsel but that requests for information from Joshua should be coordinated through Mr. Hattabaugh or counsel. Also, the administration and Mr. Heller do not believe that drafts of the Q8 Updates were to be shared with Joshua until agreement on a final version for submission to the Board had been reached. Mr. Heller stated that no one was instructed to withhold information from the Court. According to Mr. Heller, information removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update could be presented to the Court through, for example, testimony at the hearing in December. 2. Threats of Termination Interviews conducted by QGTB revealed that LRSD personnel generally understand that following the designated \"chain of command\" is very important. LRSD personnel understand that information and concerns are to be presented to an individual's direct supervisor who, in turn, can then present that information to his or her supervisor. It is also clear that LRSD personnel have been told on several occasions by Dr. Brooks that issues 2 Items to be discussed at Board meetings are posted initially to the Board's Novus Agenda website by the persons in charge of the items. After posting, items are subject to approval by that person's immediate supervisor and then that person 's immediate supervisor and so on until approval by the Superintendent. !fall necessary approvals are obtained, the item becomes available for the Board's review and ultimately for review by the public at large. 9  Q. Q. N  Q. Q.  I. I. n discussed within LRSD should remain confidential and should be shared outside LRSD only through proper channels. Dr. DeJarnette's alleged threats of termination can be divided into direct and indirect threats. Dr. DeJarnette claims that she was directly threatened with termination (1) in a meeting with Dr. Brooks following an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and (2) by statements made at meetings of the Superintendent's Cabinet. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette article referenced statements made by Joy Springer in an affidavit, a paralegal for Joshua's counsel, Mr. John Walker, that had been filed with the Court. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks called her into his office, showed her the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article and asked her to agree with him that Ms. Springer's statements were inaccurate. Dr. DeJarnette refused to do so and stated that she felt Ms. Springer had support for all the statements in her affidavit. Near the end of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalled that Dr. Roberts entered the room whereupon Dr. Brooks stated to Dr. Roberts that anyone who shared information with Joy Springer should be fired. Dr. DeJamette reports that Dr. Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks does not recall the meeting that Dr. DeJarnette describes or the specific article in the newspaper. He maintains that if he had had any concerns regarding an article, he would have expressed them to Mr. Hattabaugh or Dr. Roberts. Similarly, Dr. Roberts does not recall the article or meeting with Dr. DeJarnette about an article. Regarding threats allegedly made during the Superintendent's cabinet meetings, Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks pointed his finger at her in front of all the cabinet members and said that he would fire her if she shared information with ODM or Joshua if it was the last thing he did. Dr. Brooks denies making any such statements. Dr. Brooks affirmed that 10 ,\nQ, Q, there is a general understanding that PRE staff members should not communicate the Court, Joshua or others extraneous information outside of the Updates to. Likewise, Dr. Roberts did not recall any threatening statements like those described by Dr. DeJamette being made at cabinet meetings. None of the cabinet members recalled Dr. Brooks making any statements about disclosure of information directly to Dr. DeJarnette in cabinet meetings. Some cabinet members recalled that Dr. Brooks generally expressed that termination was a possible consequence if information was improperly shared outside LRSD but did not recall those threats being made in connection with the desegregation litigation or Joshua. Some cabinet members did not recall any threats of termination by Dr. Brooks in cabinet meetings. The first indirect threat of termination reported by Dr. DeJarnette is her allegation that Dr. Brooks brought an advertisement for a position in the Buffalo, New York, school district into a cabinet meeting and, while handing it directly to her, suggested that \"someone\" from the cabinet should look into the job posting. Dr. Brooks did not recall giving a job description to Dr. DeJarnette specifically but stated that he frequently shared job openings at the cabinet meetings. No other cabinet member recalled any job advertisements being handed directly to Dr. DeJarnette. The next indirect threat reportedly occurred at a cabinet retreat held in the Regions Bank building. Dr. DeJarnette states that Dr. Brooks presented certificates to various cabinet members and when he presented hers, he stated to all cabinet members that he was sorry she had become an \"outsider.\" Dr. Brooks does not recall making these statements. Other cabinet members do not recall any negative statements being made to Dr. DeJarnette when the certificates were distributed at the cabinet retreat. However, one cabinet member recalled 11 \u0026gt; Q. Q. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N Q. Q. n Dr. Brooks saying something \"different\" to Dr. DeJarnette during the presentation of her certificate. Next, Dr. DeJarnette states that she suffered indirect threats of termination in telephone calls from Dr. Brooks on three Friday afternoons in late October and early November wherein Dr. Brooks was very loud and angry. Dr. Brooks does not recall any phone conversations with Dr. DeJamette on the Fridays before November 3, 2006, but does recall phoning her after receiving the document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE Compliance History Document\") via e-mail from her. Dr. Brooks admitted being very frustrated during this phone call and asking Dr. DeJarnette who had authorized her to send a letter and the PRE Compliance History Document directly to the Board. In summary, there is a factual dispute about whether any direct or indirect threats of termination were made to Dr. DeJarnette. However, it appears that it was generally understood that information should only be shared outside LRSD if done through appropriate channels. It also appears that there was a general understanding that disciplinary action could result from sharing LRSD information with Joshua other than through counsel or other appropriate means. 3. Claims of Hostile Work Environment Dr. DeJarnette's claims of a hostile work environment began with the reorganization of the district in 2005 that resulted in Dr. Roberts replacing Dr. Brooks as her direct supervisor. In addition to the alleged threats of termination discussed above, Dr. DeJarnette related several instances of inappropriate conduct by Dr. Roberts and/or Dr. Brooks that contributed to her allegations of a hostile work environment. 12 \u0026gt; Q. p. ,,,.. Q. Q. :::. p. n First, Dr. DeJarnette complained that administration officials directed PRE staff without her knowledge. Examples include administrative officials inviting Dr. Williams' to a cabinet meeting and referencing Dr. Williams as a manager or leader of certain PRE projects. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Brooks and Walter Hussman took Dr. Williams to dinner in May of 2006 to discuss a particular program. Also, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Dr. Roberts went directly to Dr. Williams for information about certain PRE programs. Dr. Brooks recalls speaking with Dr. Williams regarding certain PRE programs and evaluations. He also recalls that Dr. Williams attended a cabinet meeting to provide his expertise on a particular subject. Dr. Brooks stated that it is not necessary for him to inform Dr. DeJarnette of these matters because he has the authority to go directly to the source that he knows has information. Dr. Roberts stated that she may communicate directly with PRE staff if necessary but that this was not a regular occurrence. Dr. Roberts also recalled that Dr. Brooks invited Dr. Williams to attend a cabinet meeting and give a report. Next, Dr. DeJarnette complained that certain personnel positions were eliminated from PRE that have made it difficult for PRE to operate adequately. The administrative assistant was cut completely. The testing coordinator position was first reduced to an elevenmonth position which, according to Dr. DeJarnette, caused the person occupying that position to resign. According to Dr. DeJarnette, the testing coordinator position was not filled for fourteen months although Dr. Hattabaugh did reinstate the position to a twelve-month contract. Administration officials stated that Dr. DeJarnette was on the transition team charged with determining where personnel cuts would be made and that she recommended 13 ,\nQ. Q.  L, \" eliminating the administrative assistant position without hesitancy. Other members of the transition team do not recall any specific comments from Dr. DeJarnette regarding cutting the administrative assistant position although at least one member reported that Dr. DeJarnette did not have a good relationship with the administrative assistant. Administration officials also contradict Dr. DeJarnette's statement concerning why the person in the testing coordinator position left the LRSD. According to them, the testing coordinator left to take an assistant principal position in the Pulaski County Special School District. Dr. DeJarnette also alleged that Dr. Roberts unnecessarily moved persons from the Gifted and Talented department into her office despite an available office next door and that Dr. Roberts moved painters into a room that contained secured testing materials. According to Dr. DeJarnette, her department may be reprimanded because certain testing information was lost when she was forced to move the testing materials. Dr. Roberts states that she asked Dr. DeJarnette if it would be permissible to temporarily locate the Gifted and Talented personnel in her office and that they were moved out after Dr. DeJarnette complained. Dr. Roberts does not recall Dr. DeJarnette expressing any concern about the secured testing materials in the painters' room. Dr. Hattabaugh recalls mediating a dispute in his office on these issues between Dr. Roberts and Dr. DeJarnette. 4. The PRE Compliance History Document On November, 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette sent to the Board a letter with the PRE Compliance History Document attached. The PRE Compliance History Document contained detailed information regarding topics that were removed from PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. It also included discussions of errors in the Compliance Report submitted to the Court in October 2006, statement concerning difficulty in cooperation between LRSD and PRE, and 14 \u0026gt; Q. Q. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. L. n allegations regarding threats of termination to Dr. DeJarnette. And recommendations for Board action were also included. According to Dr. DeJarnette and Mr. Wohlleb, the PRE Compliance History Document was prepared because it was imperative that the Board be advised of the obstacles to the LRSD's embedding and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. Dr. Williams stated that he would not have provided the PRE Compliance History Document to the Board and would have used it for internal discussions only. Dr. Williams also disagreed with many statements in the document. Ms. Robinson voiced some concerns with the document including her feelings that a lot of the information could not be supported with evidence and was based on hearsay. 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data One of the issues addressed in both PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and the PRE Compliance History Document concerns the accuracy ofLRSD's student-related data and the effect on the reliability of LRSD's eight step 2 program evaluations provided to the Board and the Court. PRE states that the extent of errors in LRSD data is unknown, and, therefore, any evaluations based on that data are unreliable. According to PRE, a comprehensive procedure needs to be developed by an outside consultant to address measuring and guarding the accuracy of the data. PRE also is concerned by the fact that LRSD elected not to purchase a data warehousing program titled TetraData that PRE claims would have been operational by the end of the Court's two-year monitoring period. According to PRE, it is unclear when the 15 11 data warehouse vendor selected by LRSD will be able to implement sufficiently its program to support PRE's data needs. Administration officials and certain persons within PRE take issue with the concerns about data accuracy. Generally, these persons state that the student data has never been perfect and that it is better now than it has been in the past. They also assert that PRE has been unable to identify any specific problems with the data. They suggest that PRE's complaints are not valid. Concerns from the administration about the TetraData product included (1) that the expert recommending the product to PRE was also on the Board of Directors of the company selling the software, (2) that the data would reside on space leased from the vendor instead of LRSD servers, and (3) that LRSD has had a long-standing relationship with the vendor chosen by LRSD to implement the requested data warehouse by expanding on data programs already in place at LRSD. One of the outside evaluators hired by LRSD to perform some of the step 2 evaluations required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy did not identify any significant problems with the data. That evaluator stated that the data had been substantially accurate and did not affect his findings in any meaningful way. 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The final issue discussed in this report concerns Dr. DeJarnette's claims that LRSD was not responsive to the Grievance. According to Dr. DeJarnette, she filed the Grievance in order to get an audience with the Board to discuss the issues removed from the draft Q8 Update prepared by PRE. Dr. DeJarnette expected that her Grievance would be addressed within five days of filing. When her Grievance was not dealt with in a timely manner, PRE 16  0. 0. N  Q. Q. t..J drafted the PRE Compliance History Document. The PRE Compliance History Document was then sent to the Board on November 3, 2006. Mr. David Hartz, LRSD's Director of Human Resources, was charged with processing Dr. DeJamette's grievance because of her relatively high position in LRSD. He states that he first met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 12, 2006, but had to end the meeting early because of his mother's illness and hospitalization. Mr. Hartz later met with Dr. DeJarnette on October 18, 2006. During that meeting, Mr. Hartz obtained general information from Dr. DeJarnette about the nature of her Grievance in order to determine the process that his department would employ in resolving the Grievance. Again, due to his mother's health, Dr. Hartz was unable to address the Grievance other than to touch base with Dr. DeJarnette to state that he had not forgotten about her and would soon schedule a meeting. After the PRE Compliance History Document was provided to the Board on November 3, 2006, Mr. Hartz was informed that the Grievance would be investigated by outside counsel and he wrote a letter to that effect to Dr. DeJarnette. 7. Conclusion This investigation included the examination of many documents and e-mail messages and interviews of persons who had a significant role in the facts relevant to the issues identified. It is beyond our engagement in this investigation to make or suggest any \"findings\" or determinations, regarding which side is right and which side is wrong. It is clear, however, that significant disagreement exists between administration officials and some PRE staff members about whether the issues identified in the PRE Compliance History Document are material to compliance by LRSD with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. There is also disagreement about the accuracy of data utilized by PRE and the accuracy and 17 \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. vJ veracity of Dr. DeJarnette's complaints of threats of termination and a hostile work environment. Resolution of these points of dispute rests with the Board. While our time was limited, we have diligently endeavored to provide the Board with the information necessary to make informed and knowledgeable decisions regarding the issues necessary for Board action. We have attempted to report the facts in a thorough and disciplined manner, but we also encourage the Board to examine the exhibits and interview transcripts with regard to any issue or fact about which the Board may have questions. 18 \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. w REPORT I. OUR ENGAGEMENT Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull \u0026amp; Burrow PLLC (\"QGTB\") was retained on Monday, November 6, 2006, by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to conduct an independent investigation of the facts relevant to the following: ( 1) the circumstances underlying an Employee Relations Complaint Form (\"Grievance\"), Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5, filed by Dr. Karen DeJarnette, the director of LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\")\n(2) allegations regarding the withholding of information in the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") submitted to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Ex. 123 \u0026amp; Add. 8\nand (3) the circumstances regarding allegations included in a document titled Compliance History 2004-2006: Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (\"PRE Compliance History Document\"). Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The LRSD Board of Directors (\"the Board\") voted on November 9, 2006, at its regularly scheduled Agenda Meeting to authorize QGTB to continue its investigation and complete a written report. The events giving rise to our engagement include the filing of Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance as well as the delivery to the Board on November 3, 2006, of the PRE Compliance History Document, which contained additional allegations regarding the conduct of senior administration officials within LRSD and outside legal counsel for LRSD. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a detailed description of the allegations asserted, the investigation conducted, and the facts developed during the 19 ....  Q. Q. N\n, Q. Q. ,.. ::.. ~ /1 investigation. It is our intention to provide in this report a comprehensive review of the facts discovered from the interviews of nineteen witnesses and the examination of numerous documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses. The interviews of witnesses were recorded and unofficial transcripts of the interviews have been prepared and attached to this report. The documents received from LRSD and individual witnesses have been sorted, placed in chronological order ( except where certain documents were combined due to related subject matter), and included in separate binders as exhibits to this report. Certain documents of particular significance have been attached to the report in an addendum. This report, the Addendum and the exhibits have been scanned as electronic files in Adobe .pdf format and placed on compact discs that accompany each paper copy of this report. The electronic copy of the report includes interactive references which are hyperlinked to the exhibits and documents in the Addendum, allowing the reader to view the documents referenced. QGTB's investigation in this matter has been independent and without influence from anyone connected with LRSD, PRE, Joshua or ODM. No persons outside of QGTB have been allowed to review this report or make any changes to it prior to its presentation to the Board. The investigation was conducted by Steven W. Quattlebaum, Michael N. Shannon and Benecia B. Moore. A copy of the firm 's resume and the biographical information of the individuals named above is included in the Addendum. Add. 1. 20 \u0026gt; 0. 0. ....  0. Q. ~ ,. /l II. BACKGROUND A. Introduction This investigation is focused on claims of misconduct by certain LRSD officials and LRSD's outside counsel that allegedly occurred in connection with the performance of certain obligations imposed upon LRSD in the desegregation litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Thus, a basic understanding of the structure of the school district and the nature and origin of the obligations and functions of certain departments and positions within the administration is necessary. The following addresses and explains this basic background information. B. The Organizational Structure of the Pertinent Witnesses within LRSD and the Chain of Command The following organizational chart depicts the chain of command for the relevant witnesses interviewed in connection with this report. This organizational chart is not intended to depict all persons in the LRSD structure, but only those persons relevant to this investigation. A full page version of this chart is included in the Addendum as Add. 2. 21\n.. Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ /l Add. 2. Chris Heller Outside Counsel LRSO Or Sadie 'v\\1tchell Assoc Superintendent Elementary Education Karen Carter President of Principals Roondtable INVESTIGATION SPECIFIC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART J~M1tt1ga Governmente,. Lagislet,ve. e. Pubhc Affairs Officer Sue11eri Venn Director Comm.1ntcat1ons tformer) Mark Milhollan Chief Fmancrdl orr1cer Dennis Glasgow SemorDlrector Curriculum Dr Ed W, 11ams Dstnct Sta11s11can cPREI Board of Directors LRSD Dr. Roy Brooks Supenntendent Hugh HattaMu!}h Deputy SUpenntendent Or Olivme Roberts Assoc \u0026amp;\np~mtendent Educa11onal SeMces Dr Karen DeJarnette Director Planning Research \u0026amp; Evalua11on Maurecia Robinson Oistnct Stat st1c1an (PRE1 Beverly Griffin Assistant to Dr Brooks Junious Bibbs Assoc Supenntendent Secondary Educat100 J1m\\l\\lohlleb Dio\ntnctSat1st1can tPREI [)f Linda Watson SeniorDtrtor Student Services The LRSD Board of Directors is at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Dr. Roy Brooks, LRSD Superintendent, is the chief executive officer of the school district. Persons reporting directly to Dr. Brooks include Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent, and Joseph Mittiga, the LRSD Governmental, Legislative and Public Affairs Officer. Beverly Griffin, Dr. Brooks' assistant, also reports to directly to Dr. Brooks. The Director of Communications, Suellen Vann, reported directly to Mr. Mittiga. She is no longer employed by LRSD. Several persons report directly to Mr. Hattabaugh, including Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of Elementary Education\nMark Milhollen, the Chief Financial Officer ofLRSD\nDr. Olivine Roberts, Associate Superintendent of Educational Services\n22 \u0026gt; 0. 0. .... \u0026gt; 0. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. w C. p... /l David Hartz, Director of Human Resources\nJunious Babbs, Associate Superintendent of Secondary Education\nand Dr. Linda Watson, Senior Director of Student Services. At the next level are those who report through Dr. Roberts to Mr. Hattabaugh including Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Director of PRE, and Dennis Glasgow, Senior Director of Curriculum. Karen Carter, the principal at Meadowcliff Elementary and the current President of the Principals' Roundtable, reports directly to Dr. Sadie Mitchell. Each of the persons mentioned above currently serves on the Superintendent's Cabinet which meets weekly to discuss the operations of the various LRSD departments. In addition to these persons, our interviews included three statisticians on the PRE staff: Mr. Jim Wohlleb, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams. We also interviewed Mr. Chris Heller, outside counsel for LRSD, and Dr. Steven Ross, one of the outside evaluators hired by the District to perform step 2 Evaluations in conjunction with the Compliance Remedy. The chain of command is also considered to be the proper line of communication within LRSD. Personnel of LRSD are expected to communicate upward through the structure, if possible. Complaints regarding one's immediate superior are to be communicated to that person's immediate superior. However, superiors occasionally communicate directly with persons multiple levels below. C. The Compliance Remedy as Outlined by the District Court's June 30, 2004, Opinion As stated by the United States District Court3 (\"the Court\") in its June 30, 2004, Opinion (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\"), LRSD has been involved in desegregation litigation since 1956. The obligations relevant to this investigation arise from certain plans filed in the 3 The Honorable William R. Wilson, presiding. 23 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. p. N ,. /l litigation and adopted by the Court and certain opinions issued by the Court. An understanding of the plans and opinions is necessary to this investigation. They are the 1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), Ex. 1, the September 13, 2002, Opinion from the Court and the compliance remedy contained therein, and the June 30, 2004, Opinion from the Court and the supplemental and substituted compliance remedy contained therein. Ex. 2. On January 16, 1998, LRSD and Joshua entered into the Revised Plan that outlined the agreed obligations of LRSD necessary to obtain unitary status4 and release from court supervision. The Court entered an order on September 13, 2002, finding that LRSD had substantially complied with all of its desegregation obligations set forth in the Revised Plan except those obligations outlined in  2. 7 .1. That section required that: 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 achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Ex. 1. The Court set forth a Compliance Remedy (\"2002 Compliance Remedy\"), which contained three subparts (A, B, and C) with which the Court expected LRSD to comply. Subpart A required that LRSD devise and implement a comprehensive process for assessing, on a year-to-year basis, the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs in remediating the academic achievement of African-American 4 \"Unitary Status\" is a term of art in school desegregation litigation and one that is difficult to accurately define. Courts have stated that unitary status is achieved when a wrongdoer proves that it has complied with the court decree in good faith and has done everything practicable to remedy the effects of prior discrimination. The idea of \"complete\" unitary status connotes a release from all judicial monitoring of a school district's efforts to remove the vestiges of prior discrimination. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 2049, 132 L.Ed.2d 63, 81 ( I 995). 24 \u0026gt; C. C. .....  C. C. N  C. C. (.,J students. Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of its assessment of each 2.7 program. Subpart C required LRSD to complete and file fourteen Page 148 Evaluations. On March 12, 2004, LRSD filed a Compliance Report with the Court and sought a declaration of complete unitary status on the ground that it had complied with the requirements of 2.7.1. On June 30, 2004, however, the Court issued an Opinion, Ex. 2, finding that although LRSD had substantially complied with the requirements of subpart C of the 2002 Compliance Remedy, it had not demonstrated substantial compliance with subparts A and B. At the end of the Court's Opinion, it set forth another Compliance Remedy (\"2004 Compliance Remedy\") which reads as follows: A. LRSD must promptly5 hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of AfricanAmerican students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE depai1ment. B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process.6 It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make 5 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By \"promptly hire,\" l mean, if possible, before school starts in August of this year. Because this team must consist of experienced and highly trained professionals, LRSD may not be able to accomplish this task by August. However, if LRSD believes that it needs more than ninety days to assemble this team of professionals, its attorneys should immediately notify me so that I can schedule a hearing on this matter. 6 At this point, the Court included the following footnote: By \"comprehensive program assessment process,\" I mean everything necessary to accurately assess the effectiveness of the key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African- 25  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t.,J .. C. sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2. 7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Part ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005- 06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of the step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross-to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the 2.7 program being evaluated improved American students. As explained in detail in subpart C of this Compliance Remedy, part of the \"comprehensive program assessment process\" must include formal step 2 evaluations of certain key  2.7 programs, as they have been implemented in schools throughout the district. I also expect part of LRSD's \"comprehensive program assessment process\" to include 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. While it should already be crystal clear, I am not using the term \"assessment\" to mean \"testing.\" 26  Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ ll E. F. G. the achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes[] the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2. 7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates much be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1 and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been 27 \u0026gt; Q. Q. N\n.. Q. Q. !,,,J completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. H. The ODM must actively assist LRSD in meeting its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. If problems arise, the ODM must work with LRSD to solve them. The ODM's primary mission is to do everything necessary to ensure that LRSD substantially complies with all of its obligations under this Compliance Remedy. I. J. K. I expect Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. If problems arise between LRSD and Joshua regarding the formulation and implementation of the comprehensive program assessment process, the key  2. 7 programs that will be the subject of the eight step 2 evaluations, or any other aspect ofLRSD's compliance obligations, the parties must bring such problems to my attention so that I can resolve them. 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.\" The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court not later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 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 VIII of the September 13 Decision. Ex. 2. In summary, the Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy places the following duties upon LRSD:  Reinvigoration of PRE through the hiring of a highly trained team of professionals\n28  C. C. N  C. C. ~  Devising a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\n Hiring outside consultants to prepare a total of eight step 2 evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement\n Overseeing the evaluations, working closely with the evaluators and providing them with all requested assistance and support\n Including within the evaluations ( 1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data to the evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by African-American students, and (3) brief explanations of how each change will increase a program's effectiveness\n Notifying ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight step 2 programs to be evaluated and providing a copy of the final draft comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval\n Submitting eight quarterly written updates on the status of the step 2 evaluations to ODM and Joshua\n Submitting to the Court four step 2 evaluations by October 1, 2005, and four more by October 1, 2006\nand  Submitting a Compliance Report to the Court by October 15, 2006. D. The Comprehensive Program Assessment Process and the Quarterly Updates In accordance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy, LRSD hired and added three new professionals to the PRE team in the fall of 2004: Dr. Karen DeJarnette, Ms. Maurecia Malcolm (now Robinson), and Mr. James C. Wohlleb. Ex. 6. On December 1, 2004, LRSD filed its first Quarterly Update to ODM and Joshua. Id. This Quarterly Update, as well as each of the others that followed, was organized into sections that matched the subparagraphs in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. On December 16, 2004, the LRSD implemented and the Board adopted a written Comprehensive Program Assessment Process as referenced in subparagraphs 29 /1 Band F of the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 7. The next seven required Quarterly Updates were filed on March l, 2005\nJune l, 2005\nAugust 31, 2005\nDecember 1, 2005\nMarch l, 2006\nJune 1, 2006\nand September l, 2006. Exs. 13A, 14, 16, 22, 24, 39 and 123. A discussion of the contents of the various updates and the differences between them can be found in a document attached hereto in the Addendum, as Add. 3. The contents of the Eighth (and final) Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") drafted by PRE became an issue between certain PRE staff members, senior administrators, and LRSD outside counsel and is central to one aspect of this investigation. Each of the four iterations of the Q8 Update are included as Exhibits 69, 97, 108 and 123. A \"redlined\" version of the Q8 Update showing the modifications made by Mr. Heller to the PRE draft can be found at Ex. 121. Also, a document discussing the changes that occurred between the four iterations of the Q8 Update is provided in the Addendum as Add. 4. According to certain PRE staff, PRE's draft of the Q8 Update contained information concerning the comprehensive assessment process that had not been included in previous updates but which they felt was crucial to include. LRSD senior administrators and outside counsel believed that much of the additional information included by PRE was unnecessary and some was inaccurate. A meeting was held on August 22, 2006, in Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh's office between Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb, and Ms. Robinson to discuss PRE's draft of the Q8 Update and whether certain information was necessary and accurate. After the meeting, PRE made certain minor deletions to its draft (which 30  Q. Q.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q, ~ \" it later requested be reinstated) but these changes did not satisfy the concerns of LRSD administrators and Mr. Heller. On August 24, 2006, Mr. Heller edited PRE's draft of the Q8 Update by deleting certain portions. As edited, the Q8 Update was presented to the Board for approval at its August 24, 2006, meeting. The Q8 Update was approved by the Board and ultimately filed with the Court on September 1, 2006. Certain PRE staff members disagreed strongly with the decision to delete portions of PRE's draft of the Q8 Update. These disagreements were later aired in Dr. DeJarnette's October 3, 2006, Grievance, Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5, and the PRE Compliance History Document delivered directly to the Board on November 3, 2006. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. III. DR. DeJARNETTE'S GRIEVANCE AND THE NOVEMBER 3, 2006, COMPLIANCE HISTORY DOCUMENT On October 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette filed the Grievance with the LRSD Human Resources Department. Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5. The allegations summarized below were included in the Grievance:  Senior administrators have created a hostile work environment by directing Dr. DeJarnette to withhold information from the District's Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, and if she did not withhold that information as directed, she would be terminated.  Withholding the information directly violates the Court's compliance remedy in its June 30, 2004, decision and is not in the best interests of the African-American students regarding their attaining academic achievement.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to perform her job as Director of PRE because if she does, she will be terminated.  Dr. DeJarnette is unable to provide information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court that is mandated by the compliance remedy for fear of termination. 31 ....  Q. Q. tJJ  If Dr. DeJarnette does not provide the information to the Board, ODM, Joshua, and the Court, the Court could find her and the LRSD in contempt of its mandate in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. In the Grievance, Dr. DeJarnette requested the following relief: Id.  That the hostile work environment created by senior administrators cease\n That the senior administrators stop threatening her with termination\n That she not be terminated by any senior administrator or the LRSD for performing her job as Director of PRE and for complying with the 2004 Compliance Remedy\n That she not be directed by any senior administrator to withhold information from the Board, ODM, Joshua, or the Court\nand  That the LRSD follow its policies, regulations and the 2004 Compliance Remedy related to the evaluation and assessment tasks pertaining to improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. On November 3, 2006, Dr. DeJarnette provided by letter to each Board member, Dr. Brooks, Mr. Heller, ODM, and Joshua, the PRE Compliance History Document. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. The PRE Compliance History Document contained a number of allegations and recommendations regarding compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. The following is a summary of the allegations included in the PRE Compliance History Document under a section titled \"Difficulties with Compliance\":  Rejuvenation of PRE. o Reorganization eliminated PRE's secretary and its test coordinator. o LRSD decreased the test coordinator position to an 11 month position. Before restoring it to a 12 month position, the test coordinator resigned, and PRE was without a full-time test coordinator for more than 12 months resulting in test infractions.  Eight Evaluations by External Experts. 32  Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l,.I J\\ o The External Evaluators have discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. o No policy or comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. o The extent of data errors is unknown which leads to uncertainty in the accuracy and validity of results based upon the data. o PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. o LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data.  Embedding assessments in LRSD operations. o PRE began planning a \"data warehouse\" in late 2004. o LRSD rejected PRE's plans and recommended software for the \"data warehouse and selected a firm which develops data warehouses for commercial applications. o It is unknown when the firm will complete enough of its \"data cube\" to support PRE's data needs. o LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data warehouse. o LRSD has undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally by refusing to implement surveys recommended by PRE. o LRSD opposed PRE's project to respond to Arkansas' new requirement for a wellness priority.  Q8 Update. o PRE's draft of the Q8 Update noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and the threat to sound decisions based on such information. o LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version of the Q8 Update from the Board and eliminated portions of the draft version without the Board's knowledge. o PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when originally posting the draft Q8 Update to the Board's Novus Agenda system.  Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua. o During the 2004-05 school year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not cooperative. During the 2005-06 school year, the \"chill\" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw while PRE experienced less responsiveness from LRSD counsel. o LRSD's counsel directed PRE not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel and PRE's plea for clarification went unanswered. o PRE felt estranged from LRSD and its counsel's rapport and became progressively cooperative with ODM and Joshua. 33 \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Compliance Report o LRSD's Compliance Report contained significant errors. After notification from PRE, counsel corrected some of these errors and submitted a revised report.  Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials. o The relationship between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. o The superintendent threatened Dr. DeJarnette' s dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. o Information from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. o Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without Dr. DeJarnette's knowledge. o LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. o PRE's director engaged a law firm for advice in the absence ofLRSD's legal counsel. o PRE's Director filed a Grievance. o LRSD has not tried remediation nor informed the Board of the Grievance. The PRE Compliance History Document also made recommendations to remedy these difficulties which are summarized below:  Restoration of Administrative Support. o Add an administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  Comprehensive Study of LRSD Data Accuracy and Policies and Procedures for managing data. o Hire consultants knowledgeable in public school data requirements.  More Resources Devoted to Completing the Data Warehouse. o Finish and test LRSD's data warehouse quickly. o Estimate error rates in previously collected data and correct errors. o Include additional information in the data warehouse needed by PRE. o If the data warehouse proves inadequate, reconsider using PRE's vendor.  Protection of PRE and LRSD from Senior Administrator's actions. o The Board should directly communicate with PRE similar to the internal auditor. 34 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. w Q. Q. ~ Jl o The Board should determine PRE's budget. o LRSD's senior officials are not trustworthy with communicating expert opinions to the Board and they should be replaced. IV. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE QGTB's investigation focused on the allegations contained in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document. Documents were accumulated and interviews were conducted to develop, as fully as practicable in the limited time allowed, the facts relevant to the topics addressed in these two documents. A. Documents Reviewed QGTB received a number of documents initially from LRSD. In addition, many documents were obtained from various individual witnesses as a result of their interviews. The documents received and examined have been placed in chronological order in three volumes accompanying this report. The documents are also imaged on a compact disc in Adobe .pdf format. What follows is an index of the documents by date and a short description of each document: Ex.# Date Description 1 1/16/1998 Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 2 6/30/2004 USDC Memorandum Opinion\nCase No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR 3 11/16/2004 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: memo from Ross 4 11/22/2004 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: response to ODM 5 11/23/2004 E-mail from Kampman to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: LRSD Quarterly Update 6 12/1/2004 Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Quarterly Update to Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua 7 12/16/2004 LRSD Comprehensive Program Assessment Process 8 1/18/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, Subject: Fw: March 1 Update 9 2/4/2005 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette 10 2/8/2005 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update 35 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. l,.J 11 2/8/2005 12 2/16/2005 13 2/22/2005 13A 3/1/2005 14 6/1/2005 15 8/9/2005 16 8/31/2005 17 11/16/2005 18 11/16/2005 19 11/16/2005 20 11/17/2005 21 11/18/2005 22 12/1/2005 23 2/7/2006 24 3/1/2006 25 4/24/2006 26 5/1/2006 27 5/9/2006 28 5/10/2006 29 5/26/2006 30 5/31/2006 31 5/31/2006 32 5/31/2006 33 5/31/2006 34 5/31/2006 35 6/1/2006 36 6/1/2006 E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update+ invitations to ODM \u0026amp; Joshua E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, DeJarnette, Subject: RE: addition to update E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Williams, Malcolm, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 2nd update ms LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Subject: RE: 4th update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 4:04 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report, Sent 8:25 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: quarterly final E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly report Letter from Heller to Walker, Subject: RE: LRSD LRSD's Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua [Notice of Filing Omittedl E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: work assignments LRSD Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors [File-Marked] E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: DeJarnette, Roberts, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: FW: Program Evaluations for 2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Brooks to DeJarnette, Subject: PRE Team E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: Cabinet Notes 05-08- 06 Notes from Meeting with Gene Jones E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller Notes from Meeting with Chris Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: E-mail from DeJarnette to Powell, Subject: FW: document enclosed E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: ODM concerns enclosed 36 \u0026gt; Q. p. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t-J 37 6/1/2006 38 6/1/2006 39 6/1/2006 40 6/7/2006 41 6/12/2006 42 6/12/2006 43 6/13/2006 44 6/13/2006 45 6/14/2006 46 6/19/2006 47 6/22/2006 48 6/23/2006 49 6/23/2006 50 6/26/2006 51 6/29/2006 52 6/30/2006 53 7/5/2006 54 7/7/2006 55 7/11/2006 56 7/12/2006 57 7/12/2006 58 7/14/2006 59 7/14/2006 60 7/18/2006 61 7/21/2006 E-mail from DeJamette to Hattabaugh, Subject: ODM contact name and number E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Brooks, Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshot LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update [File-Marked] E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: meeting Monday at 1 E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Brooks, cc: Roberts, Subject: PRE snapshots E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts and Williams, Subject: RE: Draft from this mornings comments E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: FW: Letter of request E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Subject: RE: Room 14 is too crowded E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: missing test book E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: statement to board members E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Heller, Subject: statements last night E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: letter Eighth Circuit Opinion News Article: LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing programs as it should E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: RE: foi E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller News Article: LR schools tell judge: No basis to hold hearing E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: need counsel on confidentiality E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: extension of time request E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Brooks, cc: Hattabaugh, Babbs, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Mitchell, Vann, Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 E-mail from DeJarnette to Kampman, cc: Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Heller, Subject, RE: Scott Smith .... E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Snapshot E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Brooks, Griffin, Subject: RE: letter to counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams, Robinson, Subject: counsel 37  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 62 7/24/2006 63 7/24/2006 64 7/24/2006 65 7/24/2006 66 8/7/2006 67 8/8/2006 68 8/9/2006 69 8/9/2006 70 8/9/2006 71 8/9/2006 72 8/9/2006 73 8/9/2006 74 8/9/2006 75 8/9/2006 76 8/9/2006 77 8/10/2006 78 8/10/2006 79 8/10/2006 80 8/10/2006 81 8/10/2006 82 8/10/2006 83 8/10/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, W ohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 7:00 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Eddings, Brooks, cc: Heller, Williams, Hattabaugh, Wohlleb, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel, Sent: 2:51 PM E-mail from Wohlleb to DeJarnette, Heller, Eddings, Brooks, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from Heller to Wohlleb, cc: Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: counsel E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly update for board agenda meeting E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: draft quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: quarterly - Attachment: LRSD Quarterly Update, September 1, 2006 DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to Roberts, Subject: quarterly - Attachments: updates ep06draft. doc E-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from Roberts to Griffin, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: RE: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly - Attachments: updateSep06draft.doc E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller, cc: Griffin, Brooks, Subject: FW: quarterly E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: quarterly update E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Williams, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: Re: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update E-mail from Roberts to Heller, cc: Brooks, Hattabaugh, Subject: RE: quarterly update - Attachments: Sep06 Quart. Draft.doc E-mail from Brooks to Griffin, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Subject: FW: quarterly update 38  C. C. N  C. ?- (.,.) 84 8/10/2006 85 8/14/2006 86 8/17/2006 87 8/17/2006 88 8/17/2006 89 8/21/2006 90 8/21/2006 91 8/21/2006 92 8/21/2006 93 8/21/2006 94 8/21/2006 95 8/21/2006 96 8/21/2006 97 8/21/2006 98 8/21/2006 99 8/21/2006 100 8/21/2006 101 8/21/2006 102 8/21/2006 103 8/21/2006 104 8/22/2006 105 8/22/2006 106 8/22/2006 E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts, cc: Griffin, Subject: agenda meeting E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, Subject: joshua concerns\nqtrly report E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Subject: assessment process E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Subject: FW: Data for Evaluation E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: hello E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - enclosed file follows E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - FINAL DRAFT E-mail from Griffin to Heller, cc: Brooks, Subject: FW: Quarterly Update E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Griffin, Roberts, Subject: quarterly revised - Attachments: updateSep06draftfinal.doc E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Heller, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Griffin to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from Roberts to Heller, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin, cc: Roberts, Subject: RE: quarterly revised E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: quarterly revised 39 \u0026gt; Q. p.. N 'Jl 107 8/22/2006 108 8/22/2006 109 8/22/2006 110 8/23/2006 111 8/23/2006 112 8/23/2006 113 8/23/2006 114 8/24/2006 115 8/24/2006 116 8/24/2006 117 8/24/2006 118 8/24/2006 1 I 9 8/24/2006 120 8/24/2006 121 9/ 1/2006 122 9/1/2006 123 9/1 /2006 124 9/5/2006 125 9/ 14/2006 126 9/19/2006 127 10/3/2006 E-mail from Griffin to Baker Kurrus and various e-mail addresses, Subject: Agenda E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, Attachments: updateSep06draftwithedit.doc E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, cc: Roberts, Hattabaugh, Robinson, Wohlleb, Williams, Subject: Quarterly Update, with attachment E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap E-mail from Kampman to Heller, Subject: Fwd: RE: Board Update E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:25 PM E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap, Sent: 4:45 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs w/attachment, Sent: 10:56 AM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:08 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Roberts, Subject: FW: assessments of programs, Sent: 12:12 PM E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson \u0026amp; Williams, Subject: RE: comments on the update E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts \u0026amp; Brooks, Subject: Quarterly Report E-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson, Williams, Subject: FW: Quarterly Report DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update (Red-lined Copy) FINAL DRAFT - LRSD's Quarterly Update LRSD's Notice of Filing Quarterly Update (File-Marked] E-mail from Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts \u0026amp; Brooks, Subject: LRSD Quarterly Update/Sept 1, 2006 ( enclosed file follows) E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette, cc: Brooks, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP E-mail from Heller to Brooks, Catterall, DeJarnette, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams, Wohlleb, Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Memo from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: Employee Relations Complaint, Attachment: Complaint Form 40 \u0026gt; Q. .P..-. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N 128 10/5/2006 129 l 0/6/2006 130 10/10/2006 131 10/10/2006 132 10/10/2006 133 10/11/2006 134 10/11/2006 135 10/12/2006 136 10/16/2006 137 10/16/2006 138 10/18/2006 139 10/18/2006 140 10/19/2006 141 10/20/2006 142 10/20/2006 143 10/25/2006 144 10/31/2006 145 11/2/2006 146 11/2/2006 147 11/2/2006 148 11/6/2006 149 11/13/2006 150 E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy. Reply to 10/4/2006 e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette E-mail from DeJarnette to Robinson, Subject: next steps E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: Meeting to discuss complaint E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin, Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 LRSD's Compliance Report [File-Marked] Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Appendix C DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz DeJarnette - Notes - Meeting with Hartz (Handwritten) E-mail from Brooks to Roberts, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Subject: Re: compliance report E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: FW: UPS Ship Notification, Reference Number 1: AR0705 NRT Enrollment Mailing - Dis LRSD's Revised Compliance Report [File-Marked] E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from Hartz to DeJarnette, Subject: meeting E-mail from DeJarnette, Attachment: Letter From DeJarnette to Mitchell, Attachment: Compliance History 2004 - 2006, Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department. 11/2/2006 E-mail from Roberts to DeJarnette, Subject: Agenda Meeting November 9 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette regarding independent investigation Handwritten note regarding testing investigation notices, Attachment: 11/2/2006 Letter from Smith to Brooks Checklist of LRSD's progress in uploading analytic data into its Business Objects data warehouse as defined in November 2005 41 \u0026gt; C. C. .... \u0026gt; C. p.. N  Q. C. t,J 151 I Sign-In Sheets B. Persons Interviewed QGTB interviewed the following persons as part of its investigation: Administration/Counsel Roy Brooks Beverly Griffin Hugh Hattabaugh Chris Heller  Mark Milhollen Olivine Roberts PRE Staff Karen DeJarnette Maurecia Robinson Ed Williams Jim Wohlleb Cabinet Members Junius Babbs Karen Carter Dennis Glasgow Sadie Mitchell Joe Mittiga Linda Watson Suellen Vann Human Resources David Hartz Outside Experts/Evaluators Steve Ross - CREP November 7'h and November 13th November 10th November 7th and November 14th November 13th November 10th November 7'h and November 13th November gth November 8th November 7'h November 14th November 13th November 10th November 8th November 10th November 8th November 9th November 10th November 9th November 13th Due to Dr. DeJarnette's schedule and that of her counsel, Dr. DeJarnette was not the first interview as was planned. Instead, the interviews began on Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 42 .... \u0026gt; Q. p. N \u0026gt; Q. Q. ~ with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Dr. DeJarnette was interviewed on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, after which it became clear that second interviews of Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh would be necessary. Those were accomplished on November 13 and 14, 2006. Each interview was conducted by two of the three QGTB investigation team members, except for the interview of Mr. Heller which was conducted by all three members of the investigation team. Each interview was recorded and the tapes were transcribed by QGTB staff persons as accurately as the recording quality would allow. The transcripts are included in two volumes accompanying this report which are divided by witness name and which include (1) the transcripts, (2) summary memoranda of each interview, and (3) copies of the documents received from each witness, if any. A court reporting service was not used during the interview procedure due to the expense involved. As with almost any investigation, there were additional persons who could have been interviewed in connection with this investigation if time and expense had permitted such as Mr. Khayyam Eddings, additional outside evaluators, the Board members and others. The same is true for documents as there are likely other documents that may have been discovered had more time been available. By way of example, witnesses were not required to produce copies of their daily calendars and no analysis of LRSD's database containing student information was conducted. Also, expert consultants were not employed to provide assistance with matters such as data accuracy. However, QGTB believes that its investigation has been thorough and that it has gathered sufficient information to make an informed report to the Board of the issues involved. 43  Q. Q. ....  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. t..,J :.n V. INVESTIGATION RESULTS A. Timeline of Events From the interviews and the documents reviewed, QGTB has created the following comprehensive timeline of relevant events: Date Event Reference Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and 1/16/1998 Education Plan Ex. 1 Memorandum Opinion from Judge William R. Wilson 6/30/2004 containing \"Compliance Remedy.\" Ex. 2 9/27/2004 Dr. DeJarnette hired by LRSD as Director of PRE Ex.6 Mr. Wohlleb hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/1/2004 department Ex.6 Ms. Robinson hired by LRSD as Statistician in PRE 10/4/2004 department Ex.6 E-mails between Wohlleb, Heller and DeJarnette regarding Heller's changes to draft reply to ODM regarding Quarterly 11/22/2004 Update. Ex. 4 E-mail from Kampman/Heller to Wohlleb enclosing draft 11/23/2004 with Heller's comments on Quarterly Update Ex. 5 12/1/2004 First Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex.6 Comprehensive Program Assessment Process (IL-R) 12/16/2004 approved Ex. 7 Wohlleb sends e-mail to Heller with copy to DeJarnette requesting to see comments and suggestions from Heller about draft of March 1 Quarterly Update before showing it to 2/4/2005 Dr. Brooks. Ex. 9 E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that we should meet with Joshua if they have any concerns about the Quarterly Reports when they are filed, but that we don't need to meet about each report otherwise. DeJarnette responds (and copies Wohlleb) that she is happy not to meet about the Quarterly 2/8/2005 Update with Joshua. Ex. 10 Wohlleb responds to e-mail asking questions about changes to 2/8/2005 the Quarterly Update suggested by Heller. Ex. 11 E-mail from Wohlleb to Heller regarding draft of the second 2/22/2005 Quarterly Update and whether it needs any further changes Ex. 13 3/1/2005 Second Quarterly Update filed with Court Ex. 13A 44 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q, Q, (.,.I ./l Board approves reorganization of district reporting responsibilities that results in DeJarnette reporting to Olivine 3/24/2005 Roberts instead of directly to Superintendent Brooks. 6/1/2005 Third Quarterly Update filed with Court E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette and Wohlleb suggesting a typographical revision to draft Quarterly Update and stating 8/9/2005 that PRE can \"fire away.\" 8/31/2005 Fourth Quarterly Update filed with Court 3:50 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that he has glanced at the draft Quarterly Update and will need to make 11/16/2005 some changes. 4:48 pm e-mail from Heller to DeJarnette with copy to Brooks 11/16/2005 suggesting several changes in Section D of Quarterly Update. 8:25 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson with copy to Heller enclosing final draft of Quarterly Update with Heller's edits. She states that she will 11/16/2005 print hard copies for the Board, ODM and Joshua. E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating that the Quarterly Report draft does not reflect the change he suggested in 1st paragraph of Section D. \"It still reads as if we still don't have any usable data.\" DeJarnette responds with a draft containing 11/17/2005 the changes. Letter from Heller to Walker with copies to Brooks, DeJarnette and Roberts requesting that Joshua's monitoring be done in a way that does not violate a legal ethics rule against direct contact with opposing counsel's clients. Heller states that if Walker will identify Joshua's monitors, he will make sure those persons have access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's monitoring 11/18/2005 expectations. 12/1/2005 Fifth Quarterly Update filed with Court DeJarnette e-mail to Dr. Roberts asking that she keep her in the loop regarding work assignments for statisticians. Dr. 2/7/2006 Roberts agrees to do so. 3/ 1/2006 Sixth Quarterly Update filed with Court Springer sends e-mail to Wohlleb and requests notes of evaluation team meetings. Wohlleb says that the request should be directed to Mr. Hattabaugh. Springer requests that her e-mail be forwarded to Hattabaugh and states that the information should be provided without a formal request. Springer requests that it be treated as if ODM was requesting 4/21/2006 the information. 45 Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex.21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 24 Ex.25  Q., -P-  Q., P-N  Q. Q., w ft Wohlleb forwards Springer's request for information to Hattabaugh who forwards it on to Heller asking him to inform Walker and Springer of the procedure regarding requests 4/24/2006 pertaining to the evaluations required by the court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing PRE draft of the 5/1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Report. DeJarnette e-mail to PRE Staff and Dr. Roberts re: expectations for PRE team members and process for handling data requests and projects assigned to department. She wants to be notified about requests from administration for 5/9/2006 information. Forwards e-mail to Dr. Brooks as an FYI. DeJarnette e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking whether Dr. Books will go forward with Ed Williams as project manager of Meadowcliff/Wakefield project. Griffin responds that this 5/10/2006 is not what Dr. Brooks told her but she will ask again. Meeting between DeJarnette and Gene Jones - Notes reflect ODM's concerns with issues such as PREs placement in the organizational chart, when the testing coordinator position will be filled and whether the closing of schools will affect 5/26/2006 programs being evaluated. DeJarnette says that she asked Heller to attend evaluation team meetings and told him that she will give Walker and 5/31/2006 Jones a copy of the Quarterly Update final draft. 10:26 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that she will give Walker and Gene Jones a copy of the Quarterly 5/31/2006 today at the team meetings. Meeting between DeJarnette, Gene Jones (ODM), Roberts, 6/1/2006 and Hattabaugh regarding ODM concerns. DeJarnette e-mail to Griffin, Brooks and Roberts regarding PRE Snapshot. She says Dr. Brooks may want to omit the list 6/ 1/2006 of OD M's questions. 6/ 1/2006 Seventh Quarterly Update filed with Court. DeJarnette says that she sent Heller OD M's concerns and 6/1/2006 notes on her meeting with Brooks, Hattabaugh and Roberts. 46 Ex.25 Ex. 26 Ex.27 Ex.28 Ex. 29 Ex.31 Ex. 30 Ex.31 Ex.38 Ex.39 Ex. 39 ..... \u0026gt; Q. p. N  Q. Q. (\n.) :Fl DeJarnette states that a meeting was held about the \"dashboard\" database. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts reported during the meeting that statisticians will not have access to this portion of the database but principals will. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Roberts, after the meeting, said \"the database is not for or about PRE.\" DeJarnette replied \"It should be since we are the department named in the compliance remedy.\" DeJarnette reports that she asked Dr. Roberts if she would meet with PRE staff to share the change of role in the PRE department. DeJarnette reports that she asked Heller to attend the meeting because she was concerned 6/7/2006 with the changes. E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Heller regarding whether Heller would participate in meeting - she wants Heller's advice about the role of PRE in relation to Judge Wilson's order. Roberts states, \"He [Heller] will not attend 6/7/2006 this meeting.\" DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Ark. Dept of Education with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh, Brooks, Joshua, Heller and 6/12/2006 others requesting a phone conference meeting. DeJarnette says that she called Heller to request that he meet with PRE regarding a call with Arkansas Department of Education about data. Heller says he will participate in the 6/12/2006 call. DeJarnette, PRE staff, and Heller (via phone) meet with Arkansas Department of Education staff regarding expected 6/12/2006 date for LRSD to receive electronic ACT AAP data. Joy Springer sends an e-mail to DeJarnette requesting a status 6/12/2006 report regarding telephone call with Ark. Dept of Education DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller asking 6/12/2006 whether he will take care of this or whether she should reply DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller again stating that Gene Jones with ODM has asked for a status report regarding Ark. Dept of Education phone conference. She asks whether it is appropriate for her to meet with Jones and Springer at 3:00 pm that day. DeJarnette states that Heller 6/13/2006 informed her not to meet. E-mails between Roberts, Williams and DeJarnette regarding 6/13/2006 Williams' involvement in report on Wakefield. 47 Exs. 31 \u0026amp; 40 Ex.40 Ex.42 Ex. 31 Ex.31 Ex.42 Ex.42 Ex.44 Ex. 43 \u0026gt; Q. p. - \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. l.,J ... ... :.n E-mails between DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks re: \"Room 14 is too crowded\" and other working conditions that need to be addressed - particularly Dr. Roberts' overstepping 6/14/2006 DeJarnette's direction. Cabinet Retreat is held in the Regions Bank Building where DeJarnette claims that Brooks referred to her as an \"outsider\" during a ceremony where certificates were given to individual 6/15/2006 cabinet members. E-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts concerning lost test book and need to search room where painters and paint materials 6/19/2006 are kept. DeJarnette states that she called Heller with concerns about 6/22/2006 statements made by Dr. Brooks to the Board members DeJarnette sends e-mail at 9: 16 pm to Heller regarding statements to the Board members by Dr. Brooks about when ACTAAP data will be received. Dr. Brooks said the data will be received by July 1st and the evaluations will not be delayed 6/22/2006 but this is not aligned with her conversations with others. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Roberts with copy to Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' statements to the Board on benchmark data. States that evaluators will receive the data at the end of July rather than July 1st and asks Heller to notify Judge Wilson that the final reports will be submitted to the Court after the October board meeting, not the original October 1 6/23/2006 due date. Eighth Circuit Opinion affirming June 30, 2004 Order from 6/26/2006 Judge William R. Wilson Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding Affidavit from Joy Springer, Mr. Walker's paralegal, entitled \"LR violating order, motion says Attorney: School District not assessing 6/29/2006 programs as it should\" DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks summoned her to his office on her cell phone and asked her to agree with him that the statements in Ms. Springer's affidavit were not true. She claims that she would not agree to that and that Ms. Springer had evidence to support each of the allegations in her affidavit. DeJarnette alleges that when Dr. Roberts came into the office toward the end of the meeting, Dr. Brooks said, \"Dr. Roberts, I believe that anyone who shares information with Joy Springer should be fired.\" DeJarnette alleges that Dr. 6/29/2006 Roberts agreed. Dr. Brooks did not recall such a meeting. 48 Ex.45 Ex.46 Ex.31 Ex.47 Ex.48 Ex. 50 Ex.51 Brooks Tr II at 4- 6\nDeJarnette Tr at 3-4 \u0026gt; Q. p.. \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ DeJarnette calls Heller about FOIA request from Walker. 6/30/2006 Assistant says that Heller is out of the office. DeJarnette sends Heller a copy of the FOIA request via e- 6/30/2006 mail. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller regarding her responses to 7/5/2006 the allegations in Springer's affidavit. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller and called 7/7/2006 but he was not in. Article appears in Democrat Gazette regarding response from LRSD to motion from Joshua entitled \"LR schools tell judge: 7/7/2006 No basis to hold hearing\" Cabinet meeting held where Dr. DeJarnette claims that Dr. Brooks pointed to her in front of all the cabinet members and said, \"I will fire you if it's the last thing I do if you share 7/11/2006 information with ODM or Joshua. They are the other side.\" DeJarnette e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks about Brooks mentioning on several occasions that a \"breach of confidentiality will lead to 7/11/2006 employee termination.\" DeJarnette states that she called Heller regarding Dr. Brooks' 7/11/2006 threats. DeJarnette states that she sent an e-mail to Heller asking that he please file an extension for the due date for filing evaluations with the Court and that she called him but spoke 7/11/2006 with Brenda Kampman DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Heller about data issues with NORMES and possibility that database will have to be constructed and data input internally. Heller responds asking to be reminded about the difference between what our expert needs and the information in today's paper. DeJarnette responds asking Heller to please respond to the inquiry about 7/12/2006 confidentiality. Heller sends e-mail to Brooks, Hattabaugh, Babbs, DeJarnette, Watson, Milhollen, Roberts, Sadie Mitchell and Vann regarding probable need for extension on last four evaluations if benchmark results are unavailable in the 7/12/2006 required format. DeJarnette sends e-mail to Heller forwarding letter from 7/12/2006 Steven Ross about format for data needed. 49 Ex.31 Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 31 Ex.54 DeJarnette Tr at 4\nEx. 55 Ex. 55 Ex.31 Ex.31 Ex.56 Ex.57 Ex. 57  0, 0, ....  0, 0, N  Q. Q. w Heller/Kampman send e-mail to DeJarnette regarding ADE's counsel's statements that he still is not sure what data LRSD 7/13/2006 needs and in what format. DeJarnette responds to Heller/Kampman e-mail stating that if ADE does not know what they need at this point, there is no 7/14/2006 hope of finishing evaluations by October deadline. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status on completing compliance report. DeJarnette states that Heller has provided an update to the court regarding the status of data but has not requested an extension. She includes a document regarding data issues and comparisons of Crystal 7/14/2006 Reports to TetraData E-mails between Heller and DeJarnette regarding update on 7/17/2006 filing a motion for extension of time. 2:59 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Brooks, Roberts, Hattabaugh, Heller, Eddings, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson that Heller has not responded to PRE's questions about confidentiality and that there are urgent legal issues affecting our department. If district's counsel is not available, 7/21/2006 they would like to seek other counsel. 3 :31 pm e-mail from Eddings to same group stating he has spoken with DeJarnette and hopefully quelled any concerns 7/21/2006 that she has. DeJarnette e-mail to group that Eddings advised that if a document currently exists and is requested through FOIA that PRE should provide the document to counsel for review and that counsel will forward the documents to the persons making the request. This includes documents requested by 7/24/2006 ODM. Eddings responds that this is correct. Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice agrees with Court's directive to LRSD in early l 990's. Heller states that Eddings advice was about FOIA requests and in the unlikely event that ODM makes any FOIA requests then Eddings' suggested process should be followed. He states that this has no effect 7/24/2006 on the typical ODM request for information. 50 Ex. 58 Ex.58 Ex. 59 Ex.60 Ex. 61 Ex.62 Ex. 62 Ex. 63  Q. .P..-.  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (\nJ .:.: . 'JI Wohlleb asks whether Eddings advice applies to non-FOIA requests by Joshua. Heller responds that counsel needs to know about all Joshua requests for information. LRSD is still in litigation and there are several issues at stake. Legal ethics rules do not allow direct contact of Heller's clients by an opposing attorney in litigation. Heller needs to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know. Heller states, \"I can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers.\" DeJarnette responds stating that Joshua usually makes an FOIA request and then ODM 7/24/2006 asks informally for the same information. E-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she was on vacation last week and did not think she could post the draft Quarterly Report to Novus Agenda by noon. She asks if she 8/7/2006 will be able to post it at the end of the day. 9:51 am e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing draft copy 8/8/2006 of the Quarterly Update DeJarnette claims to have posted PRE's draft Quarterly 8/8/2006 Update to the Novus Agenda Website DeJarnette provides copies of PRE's draft Quarterly Update to 8/8/2006 ODM and Joshua 4:51 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller enclosing a new draft of the Quarterly Update. She states that it is the one that went to Griffin for the board agenda packet. Additional 8/9/2006 sentences added to the first version sent to Heller on 8/8/06. 4:52 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin enclosing Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft 4:56 pm e-mail from Griffin to Roberts forwarding Quarterly 8/9/2006 Update draft received from DeJarnette 4:57 pm e-mail from Griffin to Hattabaugh forwarding 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update draft received from DeJarnette 51 Ex.63 Ex.66 Ex.67 Ex. 75 DeJarnette Tr at 21, 53\nEx. 147 \u0026amp;Add. 6 Ex.68 Ex. 69 \u0026amp; Add. 7 Exs. 70 \u0026amp; 71 Ex. 72  0, p. .....  0, 0, N 5:05 pm e-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette stating that the \"cover sheet\" is posted at the Novus site which gives it a place on the action agenda for August. \"Per my phone conversation with Dr. Roberts, I will wait and post the actual report sometime prior to the meeting on the 24th. That gives everyone another week for reading, reviewing, revising. If any of the board members ask why it's not posted, I will have to say that it was not complete prior to the agenda deadline of 8/9/2006 August 8th.\" 5:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Griffin stating that she posted the agenda item and draft report on 8/8. It's okay with PRE if the Board does not consider the report tomorrow as long as it is approved by the end of the month so Heller can 8/9/2006 file it with the Court. 5:29 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Roberts forwarding draft 8/9/2006 Quarterly Update. E-mail from Hattabaugh to Heller with copies to Griffin and Brooks stating that he wants PRE's draft Quarterly Report reviewed by legal counsel to ensure objective and concise information is reported. Wants \"biased comments\" 8/ 10/2006 eliminated. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller regarding posting of the draft Quarterly Update for the agenda meeting and whether Board members will have an adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update. Heller says that we have three weeks and 8/10/2006 did not see a problem. E-mail from Roberts to Heller with copies to Brooks and Hattabaugh attaching draft Quarterly Update from PRE and 8/ 10/2006 requesting that Heller please note pages 3, 4, 6, and 9. Brooks forwards Roberts' e-mail to Heller to Griffin, 8/10/2006 Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga and Roberts DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Roberts and Griffin stating that she will not be able to attend the agenda meeting but that 8/ 10/2006 Wohlleb will be there. Heller sends an e-mail to DeJarnette re: \"joshua concerns\nqtrly report\". States that he is sorry for delay but that they found out Thursday about an injunction hearing concerning an issue at Central scheduled for Monday, now Tuesday. He 8/14/2006 says he will call as soon as that gets under control. 52 Ex. 73 Ex. 75 Ex. 76 Ex. 77 Ex. 79 Ex. 81 Ex. 83 Ex. 84 Ex. 85 \u0026gt; Q. p. .....  Q,. p. (\n.I :JI E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette stating \"please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence.\" DeJarnette responds and says, \"Will 8/17/2006 do, Thanks.\" DeJarnette states that she left a voice mail message for Heller requesting clarification and did not receive a return call. Heller states in his interview that he does not recall such a 8/17/2006 voice mail. E-mail from Springer to DeJarnette, Powell (ODM) and Walker stating that it appears the data being provided to evaluators is not valid or is fraught with errors especially relating to student identity and attendance. Springer requests that DeJ arnette explain the process used by PRE for 8/17/2006 submitting data to experts. DeJarnette forwards Springer's e-mail to Heller with copies to Roberts, Hattabaugh and Brooks stating that she would not 8/17/2006 respond to the e-mail upon Heller's advice. E-mail from Griffin to DeJarnette and Roberts asking whether Quarterly Update is ready to be attached to the board agenda. DeJarnette responds saying that Wohlleb is amending the report to reflect the receipt of electronic data and that PRE has not heard from Heller yet about the Quarterly Update. Griffin responds saying that she needs the Quarterly Update by noon 8/21/2006 on August 22nd. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Griffin and Roberts attaching an amended Quarterly Update reflecting receipt of electronic data and that the data has been passed on to 8/21 /2006 external evaluators. E-mail from Griffin to Heller and Brooks asking whether the Quarterly Update can be posted to the board agenda by noon 8/21 /2006 on the 22nd 10: 15 am Meeting in Mr. Hattabaugh's office between Hattabaugh, Roberts, Heller, DeJarnette, Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams. Discussions are had concerning whether certain information in the draft Quarterly Update is 8/22/2006 appropriate for the report and/or inaccurate. 1 :02 pm e-mail from Griffin to Board members that agenda for 8/24 meeting has been posted but is not complete. The PRE is fine-tuning the Quarterly Report and it will be attached 8/22/2006 as soon as the revisions are made. 53 Exs. 86 \u0026amp; 87 DeJarnette Tr at 35\nHeller Tr at 23 Ex.88 Ex.88 Ex.92 Ex.96 Ex.95 Ex. 107  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. (.,.) 3:23 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Roberts, Hattabaugh and PRE staff that three of the PRE members put their notes together about the suggested edits. They have a clear understanding about the changes in section F regarding listing of programs and have struck all but the first sentence from that paragraph. They are fuzzy on exactly what else Heller, Roberts and Hattabaugh wanted to strike from the 8/22/2006 report. E-mails between Griffin and DeJarnette regarding status of the Quarterly Update and being able to post it for the Board. DeJarnette states that Heller suggested major edits yesterday but was not specific. PRE will make any edits the Board sees fit but feels it is inappropriate for Heller or senior administrators to exclude the Board from the review process. Griffin responds by stating that she thought that when PRE left the meeting on the 22nd that it would make the suggested revisions and that any report given to the board is subject to administrative/cabinet level review and that the attorneys have the option of making suggested changes before it is presented to the board. \"We are trying to comply with the court's order and get out of court. Chris is the one who should guide us in that endeavor.\" DeJ arnette responds stating that PRE made the specific edits suggested but Heller was not clear on the other edits. She states that if Heller, Roberts or Hattabaugh 8/23/2006 are clear on the needed edits, they can make the revisions. Griffin sends e-mail to Heller/Kampman stating that DeJarnette tells her that she hasn't received the final version of the Quarterly report. Griffin states that it needs to be posted 8/23/2006 to the board before she leaves today. 10:56 am E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh and Roberts requesting further conversation related to program assessments. After further reflection, she is uncomfortable removing the names of the programs from the Quarterly 8/24/2006 Update. 12: 12 pm e-mail from DeJarnette to Heller, Hattabaugh, Roberts, Brooks, Wohlleb, Williams and Robinson stating that she has given all the reflection and input she feels necessary regarding the Quarterly Update and that she defers to counsel 8/24/2006 to amend any portion of the report necessary. 54 Ex. 108 Ex. 110 Ex. 111 Ex. 114 Exs. 115 \u0026amp; 116 \u0026gt; C. p. .... \u0026gt; C. C. N \u0026gt; Q. C. c.,.i 1: 15 e-mail from DeJarnette to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams thanking Wohlleb for preparing comments on update but that she did not think PRE would need it as she planned to follow counsel's advice and defer any questions to 8/24/2006 Heller. 1 :37 e-mail from Heller/Kampman to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and Brooks attaching Quarterly Report with his most recent suggested changes. DeJarnette forwards 8/24/2006 to Wohlleb, Robinson and Williams at 4:05 pm. Board Meeting held where Heller's edited version of Eighth 8/24/2006 Quarterly Update is approved. 9/1/2006 Eighth Quarterly Update filed with Court Heller/Kampman e-mail filed copy of Eighth Quarterly Update to Griffin, Hattabaugh, DeJarnette, Roberts and 9/5/2006 Brooks DeJarnette e-mails Heller and others (possibly Joshua) stating that she has scheduled a conference call with Steven Ross to discuss his request for an extension of the deadline for reports. Heller responds stating that he sees no reason for an open conference call with Dr. Ross before LRSD has determined the status of the evaluation and reports to the Court, ODM and Joshua. Heller claims that DeJarnette held open conference 9/14/2006 call anyway. Heller e-mail to DeJarnette, Brooks, Catterall, Hattabaugh, Powell (ODM), Roberts, Robinson, Springer, Williams and Wohlleb stating that there is no reason for a conference call 9/ 19/2006 with Dr. Ross today. 10/3/2006 Grievance filed by Dr. DeJarnette E-mail from Heller to DeJarnette requesting \"what information 'mandated by the compliance remedy' [she] was 10/4/2006 directed to withhold and who directed rherl to withhold it.\" E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller in response to request for information stating that she was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts and Mr. Heller to withhold information in Subsection B and Subsection F of the September 1, 2006 10/5/2006 Quarterly Update and enclosing a file of documents. E-mail from DeJarnette to Robert Robinson regarding next 10/6/2006 steps in process for written grievance. 55 Ex. 118 Exs.119\u0026amp; 120 Ex. 123 \u0026amp; Add. 8 Ex. 124 Ex. 125 Ex. 126 Ex. 127 \u0026amp; Add. 5 Ex. 128 Ex. 128 Ex. 129  Q. p. N  Q.. Q.. ~ Q.. p. ... 2:03 pm E-mail from Hartz to DeJamette stating that he would like to have a meeting with her to discuss issues cited 10/10/2006 in her complaint and requesting dates and times for a meeting. 6:38 pm Response from DeJarnette to Hartz regarding request for meeting. She asks what the procedure for the meeting will be, whether other people will attend and whether it will 10/10/2006 include an informal conversation between Hartz and her. Phone conversation between DeJarnette and Hartz where Hartz explained that the meeting would be to establish the 10/10/2006 process and procedure of the grievance 8:38 am Response from Hartz to DeJarnette confirming a meeting at 1 :30 pm on 10/12/06. DeJarnette notes that when she arrived, Mr. Hartz said his mother was ill and he needed 10/11/2006 to leave and would reschedule. 20 minute meeting between Hartz and DeJarnette that had to be cut short because of the fact that Hartz's mother was in the 10/12/2006 hospital. DeJarnette sends an e-mail to Beverly Griffin asking that PRE be reorganized so as to report directly to the Board of 10/12/2006 Directors rather than to senior administrators. Little Rock School District's Compliance Report is filed with 10/16/2006 the Court. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE has concerns about statements in Compliance Report regarding school portfolios, accuracy of data, and readable reports. Heller/Kampman respond be asking (I) who at PRE is concerned and what is the concern, (2) to quote the language that is a concern and (3) an explanation in detail of the basis 10/18/2006 for each concern. 40 to 45 minute meeting between DeJarnette and Hartz - 10/18/2006 Typewritten and handwritten notes produced by Hartz. E-mail from DeJarnette to Heller stating that PRE can provide the information requested by Heller. Kampman responds that Heller would like to meet on October 20th but would like a 10/19/2006 written response in advance of any meeting. PRE creates document of its comments regarding the l 0/19/2006 Compliance Report submitted on 10/16/06 to the Court. 10/20/2006 DeJarnette e-mails Heller two documents created by PRE DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/20/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. 56 Ex. 130 Ex. 132 Hartz Transcript at 3. Exs. 133 \u0026amp; 134 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 135 Ex. 136 Ex. 141 Hartz Transcript at 3. Ex. 141 Ex. 137 Exs. 141 \u0026amp; 137 DeJarnette Tr at 17 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ .. ... :::. Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report is 10/25/2006 filed. Hartz reports that he spoke with DeJarnette during board meeting break and explained that mother was recently released from the hospital. DeJarnette reportedly stated \"no problem\" and that she was busy and probably would not have 10/26/2006 had the time until then anyway. DeJarnette claims Brooks made a phone call to her that she 10/27/2006 considered a subtle threat of termination. E-mail from DeJarnette to Hartz checking on potential date to 10/31/2006 discuss her complaint. Brooks e-mails Griffin, Hartz, Hattabaugh, Milhollen, Mittiga, Roberts, Heller, Mitchell and Babbs asking Dr. Roberts to notify Dr. DeJarnette that the board has requested a compliance history update at the November 9th agenda meeting and the presentation should involve other members of the PRE Department. Dr. Roberts forwards the e-mail to 11 /2/2006 DeJarnette. Response from Hartz to DeJarnette stating that he will be in touch with a date very soon and has been out due to continued 11 /2/2006 family illness. Two letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education, to Dr. Brooks regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11 /2/2006 from McClellan High DeJarnette responds to 11/2/06 e-mail from Brooks/Roberts by stating that both Robinson and Wohlleb are scheduled to be on vacation on the 9th but PRE would be happy to meet with the Board and answer any questions. She attaches 11/3/2006 Compliance History documents 2004-2005 Compliance History Document sent to Board of 11/3/2006 Directors by Karen DeJarnette Dennis Glasgow had a conversation with Wohlleb regarding the Compliance History document and took issue with certain portions. W ohlleb asked Glasglow whether he thought that PRE should report directly to the Board and Glasgow 11 /3/2006 responded that he did not think that should happen. Dr. Brooks phones Dr. DeJarnette after receiving the 11/3/2006 Compliance History Document. 57 Ex. 143 Hartz Transcript at 9. DeJ arnette Tr at 17 Ex. 144 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Ex. 145 Ex. 149 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6 Glasgow Transcript p. 9- 10 Brooks Transcript II at p. 1 \u0026gt; Q. p. .... \u0026gt; Q. Q. N 'JI Hartz reports that he phoned DeJarnette and informed her of 11/6/2006 the decision to have an outside counsel review her complaint. Hartz Tr at 10 Letter from Hartz to DeJarnette informing her that the Quattlebaum firm would conduct an independent investigation 11/6/2006 of her concerns Ex. 148 Fax from Dr. Brooks to Karen DeJarnette enclosing two November 2, 2006 letters from Scott Smith, counsel for Ark. Dept of Education regarding investigations of a missing test booklet at Central High and missing student answer sheets 11/13/2006 from McClellan High Ex. 149 B. Factual Issues Identified From the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, the following general categories and subcategories of factual issues were identified: 1. The Dispute Regarding Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update a. What is an \"Update?\" b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process c. Drafting of the Q8 Update d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting f. August 22, 2006, Meeting g. h. Events after the August 22, 2006, Meeting Instructions to Withhold Information 58  Q. Q. N  Q. Q. ~ 2. Threats of Termination a. Communicating Within the Chain of Command b. Direct Threats of Termination 1. Threats following the June 29, 2006, Arkansas Democrat Gazette Article. 11. Threats at Cabinet Meetings c. Indirect Threats of Termination 1. The Job Advertisement Incident ii. The Cabinet Retreat Certificate Incident iii. Threatening Telephone Calls from Dr. Brooks 3. Hostile Work Environment a. Direction of PRE Staff b. LRSD Reorganization - Transition Team c. Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Department Moved into Dr. DeJarnette's Office d. Painters in PRE Offices e. November 6, 2006, Meeting between Counsel and PRE 4. PRE Compliance History Document 5. Allegations Regarding the Accuracy of LRSD's Data 6. Lack of Response to Dr. DeJarnette's Grievance The investigation results regarding each of these categories are addressed and the statements of various witnesses summarized below. C. Discussion of Issues This section of the report addresses the facts discovered in the investigation of the issues raised in the Grievance and the PRE Compliance History Document, as well as issues raised during witness interviews. 59 \u0026gt; Q, P- ..... ::. \" 'JI 1. The Dispute Regarding the Content of the Eighth Quarterly Update (\"Q8 Update\") Issue: LRSD Administration and Mr. Heller disagreed with PRE regarding the topics and initiatives to be included in the Q8 Update. The primary issue in this investigation concerns the events leading to the preparation and filing of the Q8 Update. Dr. DeJarnette, in her November 3, 2006, letter to Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Chairperson of the Board, states that PRE believes that the Board has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. Dr. DeJarnette states in this letter, \"[o]ne of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006).\" Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6. This section addresses the facts as they relate to the Q8 Update. a. What is an \"Update?\" According to paragraph G of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, at page 65, \"PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year.\" Ex. 2. Thus, for the two school years at issue, PRE was required to submit a total of eight \"Updates\" concerning the step 2 program evaluations. b. Historical Drafting and Filing Process The basic outline for the Updates was taken from the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Ex. 2. Initial drafts of the Updates were created wholly by PRE staff. DeJarnette Tr. at 19. Mr. Wohlleb was the primary drafter of the Updates for PRE. Id. at 19-20. His initial draft was then circulated within PRE for comment. Id. at 20. PRE commonly had the Updates ready for review by the cabinet and Mr. Heller thirty days before they were to be submitted to the 60 \u0026gt; Q. P- ~ \u0026gt; Q. P-N \u0026gt; Q. Q. t.,.l .. :i. 'Jl Board. Id. After an Update was submitted to the Board and approved by the Board, Mr. Heller would file it with the Court. Id. c. Drafting of the Q8 Update A more comprehensive report titled \"Compliance Report\" 7 was scheduled to be filed on October 15, 2006. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she asked Mr. Heller in June 2006 if PRE would be responsible for writing the Compliance Report due to the Court on October 15, 2006. Id. at 23. When Mr. Heller stated that he would be drafting the Compliance Report, Dr. DeJarnette decided that the Q8 Update should be PRE's version of the Compliance Report, and it should include a detailed summary of the activities that PRE performed in the years 2004-2006. Id. d. Posting of the Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda Website The Board's agenda is prepared using the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 5. Departments within LRSD prepare their agenda items and post their attachments for Board review. Id. at 6. Initially, agenda items are available on the Novus Agenda website for internal review through the chain of command. Id. at 7-8. Once an agenda item has been reviewed through the chain of command and approved by Dr. Brooks, Ms. Griffin posts that agenda item for Board review and review by the public at large. Id. There is some uncertainty about when the draft Q8 Update was posted to on the Novus Agenda website. However, it is undisputed that the draft Q8 Update was e-mailed to 7 LRSD was obligated under Paragraph K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy to file a Compliance Report, documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Section 2.7.1 requires that \"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 achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program.\" 61 \u0026gt; Q, p. .... \u0026gt; Q, p. N  Q, p. \\,,I Ms. Griffin, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Heller by August 10, 2006. Bxs. 69, 70, 71, 72, 77, 81, 83. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection Dr. DeJarnette says that on August 8, 2006, she posted on the LRSD Novus Agenda website, which is an internal LRSD website that allows LRSD employees to post and review documents for the Board's agenda meeting, a draft of the Q8 Update. Ex. 75\nDeJarnette Tr. at 25. Dr. DeJarnette also provided copies of the draft Q8 Update to ODM and Joshua on or about the same day. Ex. 147 \u0026amp; Add. 6\nDeJarnette Tr. at 53. Dr. DeJarnette believes that Ms. Griffin removed the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website, leaving only the cover page. DeJarnette Tr. at 25. ii. Ms. Griffin's Recollection Ms. Griffin does not recall removing the draft Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Griffin Tr. at 9. However, she has in the past removed an item from the Novus Agenda website when asked to do so. Id. at 9-10. Ms. Griffin provided e-mails showing that Dr. DeJarnette sent her the draft Q8 Update on August 9, 2006. Ex. 69 \u0026amp; Add. 7. Ms. Griffin then forwarded the draft to Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh. Bxs. 70 \u0026amp; 72. Also, on August 9, 2006, Ms. Griffin e-mailed Dr. DeJarnette to inform her that the cover sheet for the Q8 Update was posted at the Novus Agenda website, giving it a place on the Board's agenda. Ex. 73. Ms. Griffin recalls that although Dr. DeJarnette stated that she had posted the draft Q8 Update on the Novus Agenda website on August 8, 2006, she told Ms. Griffin that approval by the Board of the Q8 Update by the end of the month would be acceptable. Ex. 75. 62 \u0026gt; 0, p. .... \u0026gt; 0, p. N  0, 0, w iii. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts stated that the Q8 Update was on the agenda for the Board meeting, but the draft Q8 Update was not attached on the Novus Agenda website when she first looked for it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts asked Dr. DeJarnette for a copy of the draft Q8 Update. Id. When Dr. Roberts did not receive a copy of the Q8 Update from Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Roberts obtained a copy of the draft Q8 Update from Ms. Griffin. Ex. 70. Dr. Roberts asked that the draft Q8 Update not be presented to the Board before she had a chance to review it. Roberts I Tr. at 4. Dr. Roberts stated Dr. DeJarnette seemed surprised that only the cover page of the draft Q8 Update was posted on the Novus Agenda website. Id. at 10. Normally, the full text of the Updates would be on the LRSD Novus Agenda website for the cabinet members to review. The Updates are not public until the Board reviews the agenda. Id. at 6-7. When she received and reviewed a copy of the draft Q8 Update, Dr. Roberts had questions. Id. at 4. Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh sent the draft Q8 Update to Mr. Heller for his review. Exs. 77 \u0026amp; 81. iv. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection Mr. Hattabaugh stated that he either received a draft of the Q8 Update from Mr. Heller or Dr. Roberts\nhe does not recall receiving the draft from Ms. Griffin. Hattabaugh II Tr. at 5. He does not recall going to the Novus Agenda website and pulling down a draft of the Q8 Update. Id. He has no recollection of anyone taking down or instructing someone else to take down a draft of the Q8 Update from the Novus Agenda website. Id. 63 \u0026gt; Q., p. .... \u0026gt; Q., p. N \u0026gt; Q., Q., (.,.) '.Jl e. Review of the Draft Q8 Update Before the August 22, 2006, Meeting i. Dr. Roberts' Recollection Dr. Roberts was concerned that the draft Q8 Update mentioned TetraData and addressed \"programs\" that were not required to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Roberts I Tr. at 8. Dr. Roberts stated that the \"programs\" referred to in Section F of the draft Q8 Update went beyond the \"programs\" specified by the Court for inclusion in the Updates. Id. at 8-9. Some of the \"programs\" included in the draft Q8 Update were actually interventions and strategies. Id. These interventions and strategies were not intended to be evaluated under the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. For example, the \"program\" titled CRISS is actually a compilation of reading strategies, according to Dr. Roberts. Id. at 9. Dr. Roberts noted that prior Updates did not include the type of information included in the draft Q8 Update. Id. ii. Mr. Heller's Recollection Mr. Heller received an e-mail from Mr. Hattabaugh expressing his concern that the draft Q8 Update included items about which there was an internal dispute and that inclusion of the items was unnecessary. Ex. 77\nHeller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller recalled that Dr. Roberts also suggested changes to the draft Q8 Update. Heller Tr. at 7. Mr. Heller was concerned that the draft Q8 Update did not reflect LRSD's position regarding the status of compliance, presented issues that were not required to be included in the Update, and was inaccurate in some respects. Id. at 8-9. He noted the identification of certain initiatives as \"programs\" that were not \"programs\" as that term was used by the Court as an example of an inaccuracy. Id. 64  Q. p. N  Q. C. c.., :ll f. August 22, 2006, Meeting A meeting was held in Mr. Hattabaugh's office on August 22, 2006, to address the concerns of all persons involved in the draft Q8 Update. Present at this meeting were Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Heller, and the PRE staff, consisting of Dr. DeJarnette, Dr. Williams, Mr. Wohlleb and Ms. Robinson. This meeting lasted about one or two hours. At this meeting, PRE staff, LRSD administrators, and Mr. Heller discussed the draft Q8 Update and each side expressed its position regarding the disputed topics. i. Dr. DeJarnette's Recollection of the Meeting At the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette recalls Mr. Heller stating that he wanted to remove substantial portions from the draft Q8 Update. DeJarnette Tr. at 23. Dr. DeJarnette stated this was the first time Mr. Heller ever suggested edits to any Update. 8 Id. According to Dr. DeJarnette, Mr. Heller agreed with PRE that perhaps the Board should be made aware of the disputed information contained in the draft Q8 Update, but Mr. Heller explained that the Q8 Update was not the proper vehicle to discuss those disputes. Id. However, Dr. DeJarnette stated that the Q8 Update was the only way she knew to share such information with the Board. Id. at 23-24. In addition to Mr. Heller's comments about the draft Q8 Update, Dr. DeJarnette recalls that Dr. Roberts had concerns about Section F of the draft Q8 Update. Id. at 24. Dr. Roberts stated that Section F included a discussion of \"programs\" that did not need to be assessed. Id. Other than the information in Section F, Dr. DeJarnette stated that Mr. Heller was not specific about what other information should be deleted. Id. at 27. Therefore, at the 8 Mr. Heller provided e-mails which indicate that he suggested edits to previous versions of the Updates. See Exs. 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 26. 65 \u0026gt; C. ?...-. \u0026gt; C. C. N  C. Q. (\n.I cJl conclusion of the meeting, Dr. DeJarnette was not clear about what should or should not be deleted from the draft Q8 Update. Id. She recalls Mr. Heller stating that he believed that the 2004 Compliance Remedy only required PRE to report on the eight program evaluations specifically mentioned in the 2004 Compliance Remedy. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette disagreed, stating that the Court's use of \"deeply embedded\" in the 2004 Compliance Remedy was an overarching term that included more than the eight program evaluations ordered by the Court. Id. She also recalls Mr. Heller stating that he thought the disputed information included in the draft Q8 Update was critical of LRSD. Id. at 31. Dr. DeJarnette recalls that most of the conversation regarding what should be included in the Q8 Update came from Mr. Heller. Id. at 28. Dr. DeJarnette stated that there. was no resolution on what the Q8 Update should address when the meeting ended. Id. ii. Mr. Hattabaugh's Recollection of the Meeting Mr. Hatta\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\u003eQuattlebaum, Steven W., 1959-\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eShannon, Michael N.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eMoore, Benecia B.\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_441","title":"21st Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation, 2005-2006, Final Technical Report","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":["Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"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","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["21st Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation, 2005-2006, Final Technical Report"],"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/441"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"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\nCREP V ftaearck M Educaaonai Policy Little Rock School District Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 21 ** Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT CREP * Center for Research in Educational Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Little Rock School District 21^ Century Community Learning Centers Evaluation 2005-2006 Final Technical Report November 2006 Heidi Kenaga, PhD Jerry A. Bates, EdS Fethi Inan, MS Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, PhD Old Dominion University Table of Contents: 21 CCLC Technical Report iiTable of Contents Executive Summary Technical Report Introduction 1 10 10 Evaluation Questions Evaluation Design and Measures Evaluation Instrumentation 10 12 14 Procedure 18 Results 20 Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Student Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) K-2 Students 21 28 33 34 3-5 Students 36 6-12 Students 39 Interviews 42 Site Coordinators 42 School Principals Mabelvale Case Study Classroom Observations 52 56 56 Student Focus Group Results Student Achievement Results 62 64 Conclusions 79 Evaluation Questions Compliance Remedy Questions References 79 84 90 Appendices Appendix A: Survey Instruments Appendix B: Teacher Survey Comments by School Appendix C: Parent Survey Comments by School 91 92 97 104 Table of Contents: 2 CCLC Technical Report hiTables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5: Table 6: Table 7. Table 8. Description of 2L CCLC Program Components at the Six Study Schools Demographics of the 2L' CCLC Schools in the Study Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Data Collection Summary 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results: Implementation 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results: Impact 21st CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Results 21st CCLC Student Questioimaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades K-2 11 12 13 19 22 23 30 35 Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. 21st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Implementation . 21 st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Impact . 21 st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12: Implementation . 21st CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12: Impact . Race of Students Enrolled in 21st CCLC Programs in Study Schools, 2006-07 . Gender of Students Enrolled in 21st CCLC Programs in Study Schools By Grade Level, 2006-07 37 38 40 42 66 66 Table 15: Adjusted Means and Effect Size Estimates by School, Grade, and Treatment Level, 2006 ITBS Scores Table 16. Percentage of Students (Treatment and Control) Proficient in Literacy and Mathematics on the Arkansas Benchmark Exams by School, Grade, and Treatment Level 73 76 Figures Figure 1. Proportion of Male 21st CCLC Participants, Broken Down by Grade Level 67 Figure 2. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Henderson Middle School 69 Table of Contents: 2P CCLC Technical Report ivFigure 3. Number of 21 st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Mabelvale Middle School 70 Figure 4. Number of 21 st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at McClellan High School Figure 5. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Southwest Middle School Figure 6. Number of 21st CCLC Sessions Attended by Students at Woodruff Elementary School Figure 7. Proportion of 21st CCLC Participants Substantially Served, by Grade Level Figure 8. Percentage of Students Obtaining Proficiency on the Arkansas Benchmark Exams in Literacy and Mathematics by Treatment Level Figure 9. Standardized Residuals of ITBS Total Reading NCE Scores vs. Total Days Attended Figure 10. Standardized Residuals of ITBS Total Math NCE Scores vs. Total Days Attended 70 71 71 72 75 77 78 Table of Contents: 2P CCLC Technical Report VEXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the 2005-06 Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2P Century Community Learning Centers (2L CCLC). The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the 2L CCLC on raising the academic achievement of African Americans, (2) to examine implementation of the 2L CCLC program in the study schools, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and school staff regarding the 21' CCLC program. BACKGROUND Seven schools in the Little Rock School District host 21' Century Community Learning Centers, which offer academic support\nmath/science activities\nmusic/arts/drama\nentrepreneurial programs\ndrug/violence prevention, counseling, and character education\ntutoring/mentoring\nparent involvement\ntechnology and communication\nfamily literacy/education\nrecreational programs\nextended library hours\nand services for truant, suspended or expelled students. Individual centers provide a subset of the possible activities. Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population. RESEARCH QUESTIONS Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the 21 ** Century Community Learning Center (21 CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the 2 CCLC programs? 2. What is the level of participation in 2U CCLCs by African American students? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2U CCLC Technical Report 1DESIGN Participants. LRSD identified 6 schools implementing a 21' CCLC program to participate in the evaluation: 1 elementary school, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. Collectively, the schools enrolled approximately 4,200 students and employed approximately 410 classroom teachers. Over 84% of the student enrollment was African American. Design. The evaluation design was based on both quantitative and qualitative data collected from the participating schools. Quantitative analyses examined district test scores to determine the effect of the 21' CCLC on Afncan American students learning as compared to non-21' CCLC students. In order to identify the level and quality of program implementation, the quantitative results of surveys distributed to teachers, parents, and student participants were descriptively analyzed, and qualitative analysis examined interviews conducted with 21' CCLC site coordinators and principals. One school was selected for a more focused case study, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. INSTRUMENTATION Teacher, Student, and Parent Survey  Teacher survey. This instrument was used to collect teacher knowledge of and perceptions about the 21' CCLC program as it operated at their school.  Parent survey. This instrument was designed to capture parent perceptions regarding their childs participation in the 2L' CCLC program.  Student surveys. Because the evaluation assessed students in elementary, middle, and high schools, different surveys were developed for each of three age groups: K-2, 3- st 5, and 6-12. These surveys were used to gauge student perceptions about the 21 CCLC program activities at their school. Interviews  The site coordinator and principal interviews focused on basic features, implementation, support, and strengths and weaknesses of the 2P CCLC program at the participating school. Classroom Observation Measure (case study school only)  An observation instrument (Classroom Observation Tool) was used to record student and teacher activities during a typical 2 CCLC classroom meeting at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. 2 CCLC Technical Report 2Student Focus Group (case study school only)  The student focus group protocol was used to document student impressions of the nature of 2P CCLC program activities\nthe usefulness of the program\nand student satisfaction with the range of activities offered. The focus group was conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Student Achievement  Researchers used scores from the following standardized achievement tests to examine the effect of the 2P CCLC program on African American students learning: Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) (ITBS, 2002) and Arkansas Benchmark Exams (Arkansas Benchmark Exams, 2005). PROCEDURE The evaluation involved the collection of a variety of information at the 6 schools by researchers who had no association with LRSD or the 21* CCLC program. Surveys were distributed to students who were participating in the program and their parent or guardian, and to all teachers at each school in order to obtain their perceptions of the 21* CCLC program. In addition, researchers conducted interviews with the site coordinator and principal at each school. At Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, the case study school, researchers observed 21* CCLC classrooms during prearranged sessions and also conducted a student focus group. Analyses of student achievement on the ITBS and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams were conducted to determine the impact of the 21* CCLC on the academic achievement of African American as compared to non-African American students. RESULTS Key results of the study are presented by measurement strategy. In the conclusion section, findings are synthesized across instruments in order to address each research question. Survey Results Teacher Survey. A total of 187 teachers at the participating LRSD schools completed surveys, the 21* CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ). (Results are summarized below.) Parent Survey. A total of 82 parents/guardians of primarily African American children completed surveys, the 2L CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ). (Results are summarized below.) Student Survey. A total of 270 students (50 elementary, 140 middle school, and 80 high school) completed surveys, the 21* CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ). (Results are summarized below.) 21  CCLC Technical Report 3Interview Results Site Coordinators. Nearly all the site coordinators had high praise for the 21 CCLC program and the afterschool staff and affiliates working at their schools. They consistently identified three strengths of the program: (1) that it provided a safe, secure environment for children at a time (after school) when they were most at risk, even those working at or above proficiency who found a place to further enhance their skills\n(2) that it afforded students many opportunities (the community activities, access to technology) which they otherwise may not have had\nand (3) that it constituted a psychological reward, as the students were made more acutely aware that there was a group of adults devoting their extra time and energies toward helping them achieve academic success as well as improve their classroom behaviors. st While the site coordinators never experienced problems recruiting students into the 21 CCLC program at their school, all except one (at Woodruff) identified student retention/ attendance rates as an ongoing challenge. In general, those days following the administration of standardized tests saw less frequent attendance, and as the warmer weather returned in the spring semester there were general declines in participation rates as well. Another area for improvement identified by the coordinators (except at Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School) was parental involvement, particularly in the upper grades. The high school coordinators in particular tried several strategies for eliciting parents participation, without too much success. However, the site coordinators at Woodruff and Southwest reported that any public performance or display (e.g., music, drama, art) by their child/ren in the 21 CCLC program was guaranteed to bring out the parents. Principals. Most of the principals responses to questions during interviews were similar to those provided by the site coordinators, reiterating the major themes described above. Classroom Observation Results On the basis of the three 21 CCLC sessions observed at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, both Afidcan American and non-African American students participated equally in activities and with a fairly high level of engagement. The academic relevance of the range of activities was generally clear\nthe quality of instruction and classroom environment was usually good\nand the commitment and enthusiasm of the teaching staff was much in evidence. Student Focus Group The student focus group conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, comprised 6 students. They liked having useful activities in which to engage after the close of the regular school day, and most felt that participation was having a positive impact on their schoolwork. In terms of areas for improvement, student indicated that greater variety and perhaps more creative development of 21 CCLC program activities (e.g., recreation, enrichment or arts instruction) would enhance student enjoyment of afterschool, and also contribute to higher attendance rates. In addition, although most students felt that afterschool activities were improving their academic performance, it did not cause them to like school more. 2P CCLC Technical Report 4Student Achievement Results According to Federal guidelines, students must attend a program at least 30 days to be considered substantially served. The three groups assessed in CREPs statistical analysis  control, not substantially served, and substantially served students  performed equally on ITBS Reading and Mathematics after controlling for prior achievement, free or reduced-price lunch status, special education status, and gender. There was no relationship between student attendance of the 21^ CCLC program nor numbers of days attended and student achievement scores. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of this study are presented in association with each of the major research questions in the respective sections below. Primary Evaluation Question Have the 21^ Century Community Learning Center (21^ CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Although CREP employed rigorous methods to estimate 2L CCLC effects, the small number of students who were substantially served mitigate against ascribing the observed effects to the 2L CCLC programs. The available evidence suggests that there was no relationship between student achievement on standardized tests and attendance of 2L CCLC programs. No relationship was observed between the number of sessions attended and student achievement in reading or mathematics. A significant negative relationship was observed between treatment and literacy proficiency on the Arkansas benchmark examination, but given the preponderance of students who were not substantially served, it is quite plausible that this effect is attributable to students self-selecting out of the program, rather than to the interventions themselves. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions What is the nature and level of implementation of the 21^ CCLC programs? On the basis of survey results as well as observations conducted at the case study school Mabelvale Middle, it would appear that many participants are highly engaged with 2L' CCLC activities. The academic relevance of the classes was generally clear\nthe level of instruction and quality of classroom environment was usually good\nand instructor preparation, commitment, and enthusiasm were clearly evident. Most of the teachers were very positive in their comments about the programs efficacy and impact on their students, as were the parents of 2L CCLC program participants. However, in regard to the level of implementation, the attendance rates for the majority of 2 L' CCLC participants were quite low. Only two of the six schools that received 2L CCLC funding substantially served a majority of the students who enrolled in the program. The two exceptions were Woodruff Elementary, where essentially all participants were 2P CCLC Technical Report 5substantially served, and Southwest Middle, where slightly more than half of participants were substantially served. Thus, while the quality of the observed implementation of the 2L CCLC program was good, the level of implementation (on the basis of attendance rates) fell far short of expectations, especially at the middle and high school levels. Overall, only about 20% of students in grades 6- 12 who enrolled in 2P CCLC programs attended 30 or more sessions, which is comparable to the 16.4% who attended no sessions at all. What is the level of participation in 21^ CCLCs by African American students? Since the majority of students in the study schools were African American, the level of participation by this ethnic group in 2L CCLC activities was quite high: 87% of the K-2 respondents, 85% of the middle school, and 82% of the high school identified themselves as Afncan American. Interviews with site coordinators and principals confirmed this level of participation. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Staff at the 6 study schools were generally very positive about and supportive of the program. In terms of implementation, nearly all agreed that the CCLC offered students a safe place to be after school and that it offered academic help to students who needed it. Large proportions also felt that the CCLC program appealed to a wide variety of students and that the program offered students enough choice of activities. Also, many teachers praised the afterschool staff for their commitment and dedication to helping students improve their skills. In their survey responses, teachers were somewhat more ambivalent about the programs positive impact on participants in terms of changes in academic and social domains. A little less than half agreed that almost all or many 2L CCLC participants were performing better academically, and on average approximately 40% saw improved behaviors in terms of how they related to classmates and teachers as well as in-class conduct. In terms of students facility in using technology, almost half reported that almost all or many participants showed improvements in computer literacy skills. In general, school staff identified three strengths of the 2L CCLC program. First and foremost, the provision of safe and secure environment in which to build skills was seen by most respondents as crucial. Second, participants now had multiple opportunities (such as computer access and arts enrichment), to which they otherwise may not have had access. Third, students were reaping the psychological rewards of knowing that teachers cared enough about their development and progress to work in the afterschool program. These responses by administrative persoimel, who are in the best position to observe the operation and impacts of the 2P' CCLC on students, acknowledge a salient aspect of the program: oversight of participants activities beyond the regular school day may have had positive impacts not easily captured nor sufficiently measurable by standard survey methods. The two most commonly noted areas for improvement included increasing students rates of attendance and expanding efforts to reach and engage the parents of program participants. In addition, some of the site coordinators noted that they had occasional problems finding qualified and available staff, especially in math and science. 21  CCLC Technical Report 6What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? st A majority of parents who returned the surveys responded very positively to the 21 CCLC program at their child/rens school. They felt that the center was a safe place for their children to be and that the 21 CCLC had good programs with different activities from which to choose. A large proportion would sign their child up again and would encourage other children to attend as well. More than three quarters of responding parents thought that the CCLC program was having a positive impact on their child/rens academic performance. There were some differences between the parents responses and the school staff responses. Higher percentages of parents than teachers thought that their child/ren were exhibiting improvements in other areas: feeling better about her/himself, more clearly understanding the importance of graduating from high school, and working better with other students. No parent identified the same areas for improvement - student attendance and parental engagement - as did the teachers and administrators. In fact, when asked whether they had attended any of the 2L CCLC programs for parents, almost two thirds said that they had, which did not match data gathered from school staff. These results should be viewed with caution, since (1) there were fewer parent responses (n = 82) than teacher responses (n = 187) and (2) this data set comprises less than 10% of all parents of participants. Thus, the parent responses constitute a self-selected sample and may be biased (that is, it is more likely that parents who returned surveys were more engaged with the program and had children who attended more often). In regard to student perceptions of the 2P' CCLC, the elementary school children (all at Woodruff) appear to be enjoying and benefiting from the program. For both the younger cohort (K-2) and the older cohort (3-5), the afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program\nthey also like the range and variety of activities offered, although the older children were somewhat less satisfied with some of the programs. The safety issue was broached in the surveys: approximately three quarters of both cohorts said that they felt safe at the center. These children identified participation with having a positive impact on their self-image, as a large majority said that the program made them feel better about themselves. Almost two thirds of the older cohort felt that participation had helped them behave better at school and understand the importance of graduating from high school. Like the two younger cohorts, the participant respondents in grades 6-12 identified the teachers and staff in their 21^ CCLC as a real strength. Similarly, a majority of the older students indicated that they felt safe in the afterschool program. Approximately two thirds liked the programs offered, would sign up again, and would recommend the program to other kids. Still, as perhaps might be expected of this age group, only about half said that being in the program was better than other things they could be doing after school. Although in general the responses of the older students indicate they believe the 21 St CCLC to be of much benefit, they were less sure than the younger students of its impact on their academic performance: raising their grades, doing better at school, talking to teachers more, and simply wanting to attend school. At the same time, a little less than three quarters of students said that participation in the center had helped them understand the importance of graduating from high school, a very positive impact of the program. 2P CCLC Technical Report 7COMPLIANCE REMEDY QUESTIONS Teacher and Administrator Involvement The evaluation involved 6 LRSD schools that were implementing the 2L CCLC Program. At each of these schools, the site coordinator of the program as well as the principal was interviewed. Survey instruments were also distributed to all faculty at each of the schools, those who were involved with the 2L CCLC and those who were not. Recommended Program Modifications The 2L CCLC program was generally praised by teachers, faculty, parents, and students in the study as a valuable supplement to the schools. There may be important benefits of the program beyond the overtly measurable outcomes. As discussed above, 2U CCLC program participants reap the rewards of a safe learning environment during the afterschool hours, the knowledge that teachers and administrators care enough about their progress to expend time and effort on their behalf, and the many extracurricular and enrichment activities probably not otherwise available to them. At the same time, statistical analysis of standardized test scores conducted by CREP did not show a correlation between improved achievements in math and literacy and student participation in the program. Possible program modifications that might produce better gains in achievement scores are described below: 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff and administrators consistently identified low student attendance as a key problem, and attendance records confirm that, with the exception of Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School, the average 2P CCLC participant is attending the program only sporadically. Site coordinators and school administrators should focus on effective ways of encouraging students to attend more frequently and regularly. Possible options include (1) providing incentives or rewards for good attendance and (2) the addition of more enrichment activities, such as arts or drama-oriented events, in order to gamer more student interest, as well as parental involvement. Closer attention should be paid by 2L CCLC site coordinators to the mandated attendance record-keeping, so that during the evaluation process more accurate and specific assessments can be developed regarding the impacts of the program on student achievement scores and other domains. Greater efforts should be made to identify those students who are consistently working below proficiency levels and encourage them to attend the 2P CCLC program as much as possible. Interviews with staff indicated that primarily mid-range students and those who didnt need the extra help constituted the majority of participants. Especially at the high schools, school staff felt that the 2L CCLC provided such crucial academic assistance to the many students who needed it that it should not be voluntary but in fact compulsory. At the same time, both the qualitative and quantitative data collected for this report indicate that the 2P CCLC program is most effectively implemented at the elementary and middle school levels\n85% of 21 CCLC participants 21^ CCLC Technical Report 8in grades 6-12 survey were in the 6* through 9* grades. Correspondingly, mandatory attendance might be most practical and feasible for high school freshmen only, assuming compliance measures were acceptable to relevant stakeholders. 5. Staff at the study schools had a fairly high degree of success in eliciting community involvement in their 21 CCLC program. However, they had little luck in involving the parents of participants in center activities. Site coordinators might explore innovative tactics, such as offering continuing education courses in skills or career development, to involve more parents in their 21 CCLC program. 6. Implementation of a self-evaluation by each of the schools receiving a 21 CCLC grant may be a good way for individual schools to pinpoint specific areas for improvement and develop workable solutions for addressing problem areas. CREP recommends that the LRSD consider partnerships with local universities to institute a structured evaluation component for each school in the district receiving a 21 CCLC grant. Expectations of Program Modifications The 21 CCLC holds promise for addressing the gaps in the academic achievement of African American students, even if the statistical analysis revealed no relationship between participation and attendance of the program and standardized test scores. As noted by teachers and staff at the study schools, there are social and psychological benefits of program participation which may be as equally valuable as test outcomes. CREP believes that if the recommendations outlined above are followed, 21 CCLC program staff can expect 1. Progressive gains in all participants scores on standardized literacy and mathematics tests, but particularly those students working at or below proficiency levels and who have been attending the afterschool program regularly. 2. Higher rates of attendance by participants in the middle and high schools, or at least higher proportions of those who, following Federal guidelines, would be considered substantially served. If participation by high school freshmen were rendered mandatory, school staff might see gains in math and literacy in this cohort which are extended through subsequent years of these students secondary school education, as well as (given the socialization function of the 21 CCLC program in the first year of high school) improved high school graduation rates. 3. Greater parental involvement in the 21 CCLC programs, with potentially the positive outcomes associated with such engagement. Further, the initiation of continuing education courses specifically for parents would have multiple educational and prosocial benefits, not the least of which would include additional reinforcement of the value of education for their children. 4. Improved program implementation in the study schools via the incorporation of a selfevaluation component. 21 CCLC Technical Report 9LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2C CCLC Community Learning Centers Evaluation TECHNICAL REPORT Introduction This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the 2005-06 Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2P' Century Community Learning Centers (2P' CCLC). The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: (1) to assess the effects of the 2P CCLC on raising the academic achievement of African Americans, (2) to examine implementation of the 2P CCLC program in the study schools, and (3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers. principals, and school staff regarding the 2P CCLC program. st This evaluation study examined the following 6 schools who were implementing a 21 CCLC program in LRSD\nWoodruff Elementary\n-Henderson, Southwest, and Mabelvale Magnet Middle Schools\nand Hall and McClellan High Schools. Mabelvale was selected as the case study school. More detailed descriptions of the 2P CCLC program at each study school can be found in Table 1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The 21* CCLC evaluation was structured around one overarching, primary question concerning the impact of the program on student achievement. Four supplemental questions addressed contextual factors related to the implementation of the 21* CCLC program. 21* CCLC Technical Report 10Table 1. Description of 21 CCLC Program Components at the Six Study Schools School Woodruff Elementary Henderson Middle Southwest Middle Mabelvale Middle Hall High McClellan High ______________Description of 2L CCLC Program______________  Before and afterschool, on Saturdays, and during intersessions (Woodruff is a year-round school)  Visual and performing arts enrichment  Cultural activities and educational and recreational field trips  Educational technology  Parent and family services____________________________________________  Before and afterschool\nsummer camp  Before school provides homework help, extended access to the library, and technology resources.  Tutoring Club afterschool designed to assist students academically  Enrichment opportunities are coordinated with community partners  Summer camp focuses on mathematics, literacy and science, with technology a strong component____________________________________________  Afterschool, Saturday Sojourns  Focus on improving standardized test scores in literacy and math  Homework Club  Community partnerships for cultural enrichment activities  Parent and family services____________________________________________  Before and afterschool program\nsummer camp  Homework Club before school provides homework assistance and extended library hours  Tutoring Club afterschool offers computer-based programs and personalized instruction for algebra preparation and literacy development  Enrichment Club provides extended learning opportunities relating to magnet programs of Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Technology . Summer camp focuses on mathematics and literacy, primarily through the use of technology  Parent programs and family services____________________________________  Before and afterschool\nSaturdays\nsummer camp  Drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities . Summer camp offers a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week transition program for students entering 9* grade  Arts enrichment  Parent/family sessions_______________________________________________  Before and afterschool\nSaturdays\nsummer camp  Drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities  Summer camp offers a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week transition program for students entering 9' grade  Arts enrichment  Parent/family sessions 2P CCLC Technical Report 11Primary Evaluation Question'. 1. Have the 2P Century Community Learning Center (2L' CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 2. What is the nature and level of implementation of the 2P CCLC programs? 3. What is the level of participation in 2L CCLCs by African American students? 4. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES Participants LRSD identified 6 schools with a 2L CCLC program to participate in the evaluation: 1 elementary school, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools. Collectively, the schools enrolled approximately 4,400 students and employed approximately 340 classroom teachers. Over 84% of the overall student enrollment was African American. LRSD data indicated a total of 859 students registered for the program (see Table 2). Table 2. Demographics of the 21 st CCLC Schools in the Study School Name Elementary School Woodruff Elementary Middle Schools Mabelvale Middle School Southwest Middle School Henderson Middle School High Schools Hall High School McClellan High School Grade Level Percentage of African American Students* Number of 21 * CCLC registrants K-5 6-8 6-8 6-8 9-12 9-12 89% 74% 96% 80% 73% 93% Total 55 260 167 107 6 264 859 * Common Core of Data, 2006 2L' CCLC Technical Report 12Design The evaluation was conducted during the spring of 2006. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the 6 participating schools using survey instruments and established research procedures (Ross, Smith, Alberg, \u0026amp; Lowther, 2004) (see Table 3). Table 3. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Have the 21 Century Community Learning Center (21  CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? Supplemental Questions What is the nature and level of implementation of the 21 CCLC programs? What is the level of participation in 21 CCLCs by African American students? What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Participants Data Sources  Students participating in 21 CCLC programs in 6 LRSD schools  Control group matched to participating students  21  CCLC Program/School administrators  21 CCLC Teachers  21 CCLC Students 21 CCLC Students  21 CCLC Teachers  21 CCLC Program/School Administrators Parents of 21 CCLC students 21 CCLC Students ITBS and Arkansas Benchmark Reading and Math Subtests  Principal Interviews (phone and on site)  Site Coordinator Interviews (phone and on site)  Teacher Survey (administered at faculty meetings)  Student Survey  Student Focus Group (case study)  21  CCLC Observations (case study)  School records/participation rosters  21  CCLC Observations (case study)  Teacher Survey (administered at faculty meetings)  Principal Interviews (phone and on site)  Site Coordinator Interviews (phone and on site)_______________  Parent Survey  Student Survey  Student Focus Group (case study) Quantitative analyses examined district test scores to determine the effect of the 21 CCLC on African American students academic achievement. In order to identify the level and quality of program implementation, the quantitative results of surveys distributed to teachers, parents, and 21 CCLC Technical Report 13student participants were descriptively analyzed. Qualitative analyses were conducted on information gained during staff interviews conducted at the 6 study schools. The evaluation design also included a case study of an individual school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. The case study approach was selected so that a comprehensive understanding of that instance obtained by extensive description and analysis taken as a whole and in its context (GAO, 1990) would provide richer contextual detail regarding the implementation of the community learning center concept. Researchers employed a triangulated method, which entailed multiple classroom observations and a focus group in addition to the surveys and staff interviews. The one school chosen for the case study was regarded by district personnel as having an exemplary 2P CCLC program. EVALUATION INSTRUMENTATION Five strategies were used to collect evaluation data from all 6 schools\nteacher. parent/guardian, and student surveys\nstaff interviews\nand assessment of student achievement scores. In addition, direct classroom observations and a focus group were conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale. Copies of the instruments can be found in Appendix A. Teacher, Parent/guardian, and Student Surveys Teacher survey. The 21' Century Community Learning Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) was used to collect teacher knowledge of and perceptions about the 21' CCLC program as it operated at their school. The first section of the survey asked teachers to identify whether they were part of the 21' CCLC program at their school. The second section asked them for their opinion of the program by rating their level of agreement with 5 general 21' CCLC Technical Report 14statements, using a 5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Strongly Agree/Agree/ Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree. The third section of the CCLCTQ section asked teachers to assess how many students had been impacted by the program in a variety of areas, including academic performance, classroom and school behavior, interpersonal and social development. and computer literacy, using a 5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Almost all of them/Many of them/Some of them/A few of them to Almost none of them. The final section asked teachers to list the strengths of the program and ways it might be improved. (See the example of the teacher survey in Appendix A.) Parent/guardian survey. The 2L Century Community Learning Center Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) instrument was designed to capture perceptions of parents or guardians regarding their child or childrens participation in the 2L CCLC program. The first section of the instrument asked parents or guardians to identify their child/rens ethnic group. The second section asked respondents to indicate which (if any) clubs or activities affiliated with the 2P CCLC their child/ren participated in (Yes/No/Dont Know). The list of possible programs (e.g.. Enrichment, Tutoring, Saturday program. Summer Camp) was compiled from the schools grant applications, which described the various activities implemented at the schools. The third section of the CCLCPQ asked parents opinion of the program by rating their level of agreement (5-item Likert-type scale that ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) with a list of 6 statements. The fourth section asked respondents to indicate their agreement with any of 8 general statements describing the programs potential impact on their child/rens views about school, schoolwork, and interpersonal and social behavior. The final section asked parents to list the strengths of the program and ways it might be improved. (See the example of the parent/guardian survey in Appendix A.) 21* CCLC Technical Report 15Student surveys. The 21' Century Community Learning Center Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) was used to gauge student perceptions about the 21 CCLC program activities at their school. Because the evaluation assessed students in elementary, middle, and high schools. different surveys were developed for each of three grade cohorts: K-2, 3-5, and 6-12. (See the examples of these surveys in Appendix A.) All students were asked to identify their grade. gender, and ethnic group membership\nthe wording of these questions was altered to fit the age level of the respondent. The K-2 instrument. This questioimaire contained fewer items (12) and used more simple language than the other student surveys. Students were asked to fill in the appropriate 3- st point Likert bubble (Agree/Dont Know/Disagree) regarding statements about aspects of the 21 CCLC program at their school. To aid the children in understanding the 3 options, the instrument contained small face icons, e.g., a smiley face next to Agree, a nonsmiling face next to Dont Know, and a frowning face next to Disagree. Teachers were also instructed to read the statements out loud as necessary, and they were advised that they might also explain the question about ethnicity. (See the sample survey found in Appendix A.) The 3-5 and 6-12 instruments. These two versions were the same except for the initial questions about gender and grade (see the sample surveys found in Appendix A). The first section asked students to indicate (Yes/No) whether they participated in clubs or activities affiliated with the 21* CCLC, such as Enrichment, Saturday program, or Summer Camp. The next section asked students to rate their level of agreement with 9 statements about the program. using a 5-point Likert-type scale (Strongly Agree/Agree/Neutral/Disagree/Strongly Disagree). The final section asked students to complete a set of statements assessing the programs impact 21' CCLC Technical Report 16on their views about school, schoolwork, and interpersonal and social behavior, using a 4-point Likert-type scale (A great deal/Somewhat/A little/Not at all). Interviews An interview protocol was developed for both the site coordinators and principals of all 6 schools in the study. Six of the interviews were conducted in person onsite, and six via telephone. Some of the protocol was designed to gather basic information from staff, such as questions about their role in the operation of the 2L CCLC program\nwhom the program serves\nand the types of approaches and scheduling used (e.g., meeting times. Homework or Enrichment Club, Saturday program. Summer Camp). Most of the protocol required staff to elaborate on the specific implementation of the 21' CCLC at their school: the programs primary purpose. recruiting and retention rates, typical participant, school and parental support, community partnerships, and strengths and weaknesses. At the conclusion of the interview, staff were asked to contribute any additional comments. Classroom Observation Tool The Classroom Observation Tool was custom-designed to document the processes and practices evident in the 21' CCLC classrooms in the case study school. The instrument was used to record contextual data (e.g., number of students observed participating in the afterschool program, number by ethnicity, number of teachers, number of parents) and the type of activities and materials in use. Data were also recorded regarding student involvement or engagement in the activities, how well the period observed represented a learning center. While this tool guided the observations in ensuring key data were observed, qualitative field notes were also to be used as part of the data collection process. 21' CCLC Technical Report 17Student Focus Group The student focus group protocol was used to document student impressions regarding 21 CCLC program activities\nthe usefulness and effectiveness of the program\nsatisfaction with the range of activities offered\nand strengths and areas for improvement. At the conclusion of the focus group, students were asked to contribute any additional comments. The focus group protocol was designed for use in the case study school. Student Achievement CREP used scores from the following standardized achievement tests to examine the effect of the 2L CCLC program on African American students learning\n(1) Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS, 2002), and (2) Arkansas Benchmark Exams (Arkansas Benchmark Exams, 2005). PROCEDURE The ten data collection measures are summarized in Table 4 by type of measure. instrument, number completed, and the data collection procedure. Surveys. There were three types of survey instruments: the 2L* CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ), the 2L' CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ), and 21 CCLC Student Questionnaire (subdivided into K-2, 3-5, and 6-12). In March 2006, packets containing instruments, instructions, and return envelopes were sent to the site coordinators at each study school, who administered and then collected all instruments for return via mail to the evaluator. The site coordinator distributed the teacher questionnaires at the faculty meeting\nprovided each student participating in the 2L CCLC program with a parent/guardian questionnaire (enclosed in envelopes with an instruction label)\nand administered the student questioimaires to program 2L CCLC Technical Report 18participants. In some instances, researchers picked up completed instruments at the school itself. All three surveys were received from each site, with one exception: parent surveys were not received from Southwest Middle School. Interviews. The 2P CCLC site coordinator and the principal at each study school were interviewed, either via telephone or in person on site, using a standard interview protocol. The site coordinator interviews usually took about 45 minutes and the principal interviews about 30 minutes. Each interview was audiotaped and then a detailed transcription made that incorporated both interview notes and the audiotape version. Twelve interviews were completed and transcribed by May 2006. Table 4. Data Collection Summary Type of Measure Instruments Number Completed Data Collection Procedure Surveys 1) 21st Century Community Learning Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) 187 Administered during faculty meetings at each of the 6 study schools Interviews Classroom Observations Student Focus Group Student Achievement Analysis 2) 21st Century Community Learning Center Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) 3) 21st Century Community Learning Center Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) 1) Site Coordinator Inten/iew Protocol 2) Principal Interview Protocol Site Classroom Observation Tool Student Focus Group Protocol 1) ITBS 2) Arkansas Benchmark Exams 82 270 (30 K-2,20 3- 5,220 6-12) Distributed by site coordinators at all 6 study schools. Surveys were returned to the schools by the parent/guardian and then mailed to the evaluator. Distributed to all students participating in the 2V CCLC at all 6 of the study schools. There were 3 different surveys developed for grade cohorts: K-2,3-5, and 6-12. Researchers individually interviewed site coordinators and principals at all 6 of the study schools\nthe inten/iews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes One morning and two afternoon sessions were observed at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School. Additional visits were scheduled but canceled by the site coordinator 1 focus group conducted at the case study school, Mabelvale Middle School: 6 students (3 in the 6*', 2 in the 7** grade, and 1 in the 8 grade) Analyses of student achievement on the ITBS and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams were conducted to determine the impact of the 21  CCLC on the academic achievement of African Americans 2P' CCLC Technical Report 19 6 6 3 1Classroom Observations. There were three observations (two in the afternoon and one in the morning) of 2P' CCLC classrooms in operation at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. The researcher prearranged these visits with the site coordinator. In the afternoon session, the researcher observed the activities of separate groups of 6*, 7*, and 8* graders, and in the morning session all grades were observed in one classroom. Student Focus Group. One focus group was conducted by the researcher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School using a focus group protocol\nthere were 6 students, 3 in the 6*, 2 in the 7**, and 1 in the 8* grade. The students selected for the focus group were those for whom parental consent had been received. The discussion lasted approximately 30 minutes and took place in the site coordinators office. Achievement Tests. The results of two tests taken in April by LRSD students, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) and the Arkansas Benchmark Exams, were forwarded to the evaluator for analysis. The ITBS scores arrived in July and the Benchmark scores in September. Researchers examined scores of those African Americans who participated in the 2P' CCLC program and matched them to control students within the same grade and school in order to discern the possible impact of the program on participants academic achievement. Researchers also compared the results of students who were enrolled in the program and substantially served to those who were enrolled but not substantially served. Substantially served was defined according to Federal guidance for such programs, based on program attendance of at least 30 days over the course of the year. RESULTS The results of the study are presented in the section below. In the Conclusion section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. 21  CCLC Technical Report 20Survey Results This section contains the results of the 2P Century Community Center Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ), the 2L' Century Community Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ), and the 2L Century Community Student Questioimaire (CCLCSQ). 2r CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) The CCLCTQ was completed by a total of 187 teachers working at the 6 schools implementing a 2L CCLC program, out of a possible 410 (the total number of teachers at all six schools), which represents a 46% response rate. Approximately 69% of the respondents were teachers at the school but not affiliated with aftercare program, and approximately 25% were st both teachers and involved with the program\nonly 1 respondent was employed only by the 21 CCLC program and not a faculty member at the school. Eleven did not respond to the question about their role in the program. The first section was used to gauge teacher perception of the 2P CCLC as it was implemented in their school. As shown in Table 5, two of the statements were rated very highly on the survey (as indicated by the combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree). A large majority strongly agreed or agreed that the CCLC offered students a safe place to be after school (91.4%) and that it offered academic help to students who needed it (88.2%). Two other statements were rated highly: almost three quarters (74.9%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students and more than two thirds (66.8%) with the statement that The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. This last statement about the range of program activities elicited the highest percentage (9.6%) of respondents who strongly disagreed or disagreed, although the level of disagreement was still quite low. Respondents were more clearly ambivalent about the last 2L CCLC Technical Report 21statement, The CCLC program reaches student families\na little more than half (56.1 %) agreed or strongly agreed, with about a third (34.2%) responding neutral about their agreement with this statement. Table 5. 2V CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results (all schools combined)\nImplementation Responses(%) Items The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. The CCLC program offers academic help to students who need it. The CCLC program offers students a safe place to be after school. The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students The CCLC program reaches Strongly Agree and Agree 66.8 88.2 91.4 74.9 56.1 Neutral 21.9 8.6 5.3 18.7 34.2 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 9.6 2.7 1.6 4.8 8.0 Mean (SD) 3.86(.99) 4.38(79) 4.52(.67) 4.08(88) students' families_______________________________________________________________________________ Notes. Percentages for responses may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 187 3 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree\n5 = strongly agree 3.73(.95) The concluding section of the CCLCTQ asked teachers to assess the extent of the CCLC programs effect on student participants by indicating whether Almost all of them, Many of them, Some of them, or Almost none of them exhibited positive changes in a variety of academic, social, and technological domains. As shown in Table 6, teachers responses indicate that less than half of them think that the CCLC program is having a positive impact, as indicated by the combination of the Almost all of them and Many of them categories. For example, 47.6% of respondents agreed that almost all or many students in the program exhibited improved academic performance, and 39.6% thought that at least some were exhibiting improvement. Slightly more than two fifths (41.2%) of teachers said that almost all or many participants attendance had improved, with a similar proportion (43.9%) noting better attendance during the regular school day by some of the students. In addition, several teachers 2P CCLC Technical Report 22saw improved behaviors for 2P' CCLC participants in terms of how they related to classmates (38.5%) and teachers (40.6%) and how they behaved in class (36.3%) (see Table 6). Table 6. 21st CCLC Teacher Questionnaire (CCLCTQ) Results (all schools combined): Impact How many students that you know who participate in the 2V CCLC program exhibit... Improved academic performance? Increased school attendance? Improvement in how they relate to classmates? Improvement in how they relate to teachers? Improvement in how they behave in class? Almost All of Them and Many of Them 47.6 41.2 38.5 40.6 36.3 Responses (%)\u0026gt; Some of Them 39.6 43.9 43.3 40.6 43.3 A Few of Them and Almost None of Them 9.6 11.8 13.3 15.0 16.5 Mean (SD)^ 3.50 (.90) 3.39 (.98) 3.33 (.99) 3.37(1.01) 3.25 (.98) Greater self-worth and self-esteem? Involvement in community services? Development as leaders? Greater awareness of health issues? Greater awareness of drug and violence issues? Improvement in computer skills/ 44.4 26.7 27.3 27.8 32.1 38.5 39.6 41.2 39.0 37.4 12.8 27.2 26.7 27.2 23.6 3.41 (.94) 2.93 (1.09) 2.98 (1.04) 2.98 (1.07) 3.10(1.04) 45.5 38.5 10.2 computer literacy?_______________________________________________________________ Note: Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 187 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = almost all of them, 5 = almost none of them. 3.49 (.94) Percentage response calculated after collapsing points. b In terms of students psychosocial lives, 44.4% of teachers responded that almost all or many 2L CCLC participants were exhibiting greater self-worth and self-esteem, and another 38.5% responded that some students were exhibiting improvements in this area. For other items. somewhat lower percentages and a wider distribution range were found. For example, while 41.2% of respondents observed that some students exhibited greater development as leaders. 17.6% said that only a few did so, and another 9.1 % said that none did so. Taken together. this means that more than a fourth (26.7%) of teachers thought that few or none of the program participants exhibited development as leaders. Further, while 39.0% of respondents said that 2L CCLC Technical Report 23some of the students were more aware of health issues as a result of participation, again well over a fourth (27.2%) of teachers said that few or almost none exhibited heightened awareness. In terms of students use of technology, however, almost half (45.4%) of teachers reported that almost all or many and nearly two fifths (38.5%) that some students showed improvements in computer literacy skills (see Table 6). The teachers also responded to 2 open-ended questions on the CCLCTQ which asked them to identity the strongest aspects of the 2P CCLC program as it operated at their school, as well as suggest areas for improvement. In the main, the tenor of the comments reflects the survey results shown in Tables 5 and 6, although there are some divergences. A full transcription of teacher comments to the open-ended questions can be found in Appendix B. A summary of these comments follows, presented in grade-level order (elementary school, middle school, high school). Elementary School Teacher Comments. At Woodruff Elementary School, the teachers who responded to the survey ( = 13) were quite positive about the program. One was effusive\n[The program] is a safe, vibrant place for students to grow. Two others commended the enrichment activities which form the core of Woodruffs 2P CCLC program, specifically mentioning the piano classes, chess club, and Tae Kwon Do as strengths. They also thought students extra time in the computer lab was helpful and mentioned the health and nutrition class as benefits. Another respondent liked how the program attended to the individual needs of the students, and one commended the leadership and organizational skills of the site director. Only one respondent out of the 7 from Woodruff who included comments noted an area for improvement: adding new activities each semester that will encourage and enhance thinking skills.' 55 2P CCLC Technical Report 24Middle School Teacher Comments. Faculty respondents who taught in the middle schools (Southwest [zi = 23], Henderson [n = 21], and Mabelvale [n =36]) were generally quite positive about and supportive of the program, in terms of its academic impact, student engagement, and teacher commitment. Many teachers commended the academic assistance provided to students who were benefiting from the reinforcement of skills and concepts taught during the regular school day. As one put it, the program provides valuable help for students who have potential to succeed but need additional support, and another noted that the program gives students some extra incentives to work harder in class. Several mentioned homework help and the assistance with core subjects, literacy and math, as well as test-taking skills as strengths. Two respondents observed that the program improved students grades. These responses to the open-ended questions are in accord with the surveys quantitative results about the programs provision of academic assistance and its effect on school performance (see Tables 5 and 6). Another common theme in middle school teacher responses was students enjoyment of the afterschool activities, which respondents thought enhanced participants desire to attend regularly and improve their skills. As one respondent offered anecdotally, when the announcement comes over the intercom No After School [today] there is a groan, because Kids St Love It! Some individuals commented on the level of commitment and involvement in the 21 CCLC program by the teachers at their school (e.g., very dedicated). Comments from these respondents indicate that not only were students benefiting academically from more individualized attention, they reaped the psychological rewards of knowing that teachers cared enough about their development and progress to work in the afterschool program. This is in accord with the response to the survey item concerning the programs impact on student 21 ** CCLC Technical Report 25 participants (see Table 6), which indicated that nearly 45% of faculty thought that almost all/many exhibited greater self-worth and self-esteem. As one respondent put it, the potential to positively influence students was seen as a real strength of the program. One aspect seen often in the middle-school teacher comments (also a common feature of the staff interviews) was that the 2P CCLC gives our students a safe place to stay after school, providing a secure environment in which to engage in CCLC activities and concentrate on their academic work, which may not have been available in students neighborhoods, and perhaps in their homes. One respondent phrased this more negatively: the CCLC gives the students a place to go after school instead of getting into trouble. Still, this acknowledges a very salient aspect of the CCLC program as it operated in the LRSD study schools, that greater oversight of students activities beyond the regular school day was seen as a potential benefit both academically and behaviorally. In terms of areas for improvement, two areas were by far most commonly cited by middle school respondents: expansion of the program entailing more student participation and attendance, and greater parental engagement. There were few specific suggestions for how to achieve higher attendance rates, but one suggested additional incentives or rewards for coming to afterschool' regularly. Several others opined that their schools program should include more of an enrichment component to encourage greater attendance, such as crafts, art. or PE component,' 95 44, more camp-like/social activities, or just a more educationally fun dimension. Conversely, some teachers felt there should be more homework time, a greater focus on basic skills, or use of test scores to identify and focus on problem areas. Other respondents simply observed that a greater variety of activities with more flexible scheduling would improve the 2V CCLC at their school, which reflects the quantitative survey result * Afterschool was the term commonly used by respondents to refer to the 2L' CCLC program 21^ CCLC Technical Report 26indicating less satisfaction with the choice of activities (see Table 5). No respondent had a concrete suggestion for how to improve parental involvement\nagain, the quantitative survey results confirm that the program has had only measured success in reaching students families (see Table 5). High School Teacher Comments. The comments of those high school faculty who returned the questiormaires (at Hall [n = 36] and McClellan (n = 58]) to the open-ended questions on the CCLCTQ were generally close to those expressed by the middle school teachers, although there was more frequent address of the CCLCs impact on students academic achievement. The following are sample responses: Students are provided with a place in which they can improve their skills and grades to succeed academically. Students who take advantage of this service almost always do better in class and on tests. The strengths of the tutoring program are offering help to students who are behind academically, access to computers, and individual help with assignments. I think that this program has helped many borderline students to become academically successful. Reinforces classroom teaching in an alternative setting. Addresses a need for No Student Left Behind. Helps guide our students toward proficiency. Provides a vital service to students needing help with academics. CCLC Technical Report 27The central importance of the CCLC to the performance of students at Hall and McClellan is indicated by the last comment, and these others: should be mandatory for students who are failing, and if students with low academic performance could be required to attend the tutoring program, it would greatly benefit our students and our school. Other respondents cited as strengths of the program the 2L CCLC faculty and staff\nits convenience and accessibility (on-site location)\navailability before and after school\nand, like the middle school teachers, the provision of a safe environment for students, although all of these were noted less often than the academic benefit of the program. In terms of improvement, again greater student and parental involvement was cited, and at one school (McClellan) more instructors (especially in science and foreign languages) to teach in the program. 21 CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) St The CCLCPQ was completed by 82 parents (or guardians) of participants in the 21 CCLC program. The number is especially low because (1) parent surveys were not returned by Southwest Middle School and (2) only 1 parent returned a survey to Hall High School. Thus, the parental response rate can be estimated as just under 10% (9.55%), assuming a total possible 859 responses from one parent of the 859 students who, according to district enrollment data, were registered in the program. Thirty-three were parents of elementary school students, 22 were parents of middle school students, and 27 were parents of high school students. With the low response rate (9.55%) to the parent survey, its findings are to be regarded with caution, as they may not be entirely representative of the perceptions of parents of children participating in the program. The first section of the questionnaire was primarily devoted to gathering basic information about their child/rens activities in the program, such as whether they belonged to a 21 CCLC Technical Report 28 particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp. Parents responses indicated that more students were involved in academic groups such as the Homework Club (54.9%) and the Tutoring Club (62.2%) than in the Enrichment Club (39.0%), and that the typical 2P CCLC student in the study schools attended the program after school, during the week. Participation in before-school, Saturday program, and Summer Camp was low (approximately 10%, 2%, and 7%, respectively), a result that accords with information provided by 21** CCLC staff during interviews. In the first section, respondents were also asked if they had attended any of the 21** CCLCs programs for parents. While almost two thirds (64.6%) said that they had, this does not accord with staff interviews. Site coordinators and principals frequently commented on the lack of parental engagement and involvement, which sometimes resulted in discontinuing such activities. Given the low response rate to the parent survey, the picture of parental involvement drawn from other data sources may be the more accurate. The first section concluded with a question asking parents to identify which ethnic group they belonged to. The largest proportion of respondents (86.6%) identified their ethnic group as African American\n7.3% as Caucasian American\n1.2% as Hispanic American\nand 1.2% as other. No respondent was identified as either Native American or Asian American. The second and third sections of the CCLCPQ were designed to elicit parents perceptions of the 21** CCLC as it was being implemented at their child/rens school and gamer a sense of how participation may have helped students academically and psychosocially. As shown in Table 1, the majority of parents responded very positively to the Centers programs and its impact on their children. They indicated a high level of agreement with all statements on the survey (as indicated by the combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree): that the 21** CCLC Technical Report 29Center was a safe place for their children to be (90.2%), that they would sign their child up again (90.2%), and that overall they were pleased with the CCLC at their school (89.0%). Two other statements were rated almost as highly: 85.4% strongly agreed or agreed that My childs Community Learning Center has good programs and that I would encourage other children at my childs school to join the Center. More than three quarters (80.5%) agreed with the statement that My child has enough different activities to choose from the Centers programs. The third section of the CCLCPQ asked parents to indicate the impact of the CCLC program on student participants in academic and social areas. Respondents clearly thought that the CCLC program is having a positive impact on academic performance, as more than three quarters (79.3%) responded that participation had helped their child get better grades. Table 7. 21 st CCLC Parent Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) Results Responses(%) Items My child's school Community Learning Center has good programs My child has enough different activities to choose from the Centers programs I feel my child is safe in the afterschool program I would sign my child up again for the program I would encourage other children at my childs school to join the Center Overall, I am pleased with the Strongly Agree And Agree 85.4 80.5 90.2 90.2 85.4 89.0 Neutral 9.8 13.4 4.9 7.3 12.2 8.5 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 0.0% Mean (SD) 4.58(.67) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Community Learning Center_______________________________________________________ Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 82  All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree\n5 = strongly agree 4.39(.72) 4.56(.59) 4.58(.63) 4.44(.7O) 4.55(.65) More than half of parent respondents indicated a positive impact of the program in other areas. For example, when asked to select all those ways in which they felt participation in the 2L CCLC had positively impacted their child/ren, 57.3% responded that that he/she felt better 21 CCLC Technical Report 30about her/himself\n56.1% that their child better understood the importance of graduating from high school\nand 54.9% that their child worked better with other students as a result of the program. A little less than half (48.8%) of respondents thought that participation had helped their child to talk more to their teachers, and 41.5% said it helped him or her to like school more. However, considerably fewer parents thought that participation in the program had helped their child behave better at school (32.9%) and come to school more often (23.2%). The CCLCPQ also asked parent'guardians to respond to 2 open-ended questions which asked them to identify the strongest aspects of the 2P CCLC program as it operated at their school, as well as suggest areas for improvement. A full transcription of these comments can be found in Appendix C. A summary of these comments follows, presented in grade-level order (elementary school, middle school, high school). Comments by Parents of Elementary School Children. The survey responses indicate that responding parents {n = 33) of children attending the 2L CCLC at Woodruff are generally satisfied with the program. Many identified additional help with homework as the best thing about the program. Like the teacher respondents, several parents liked its safe and secure environment, and one said that the program makes [students] do positive things that keep them out of trouble. Others mentioned the enrichment activities and field trips as the best aspect of the 2L' CCLC at Woodruff, with some commending the computer, chess, Tae Kwon Do, keyboard/piano, and exercise and nutrition classes in particular. In the program, noted one parent, students get to experience things and learn about things they wouldnt [otherwise] get a chance to do. Another parent praised the CCLC staff as very helpful and passionate about their work. They work closely with the student as well as with the parents in order to improve St the students work habits and learning abilities. Not all parents were pleased with the 21 2L CCLC Technical Report 31CCLC staff, however\nin response to the question concerning areas for improvement, one respondent cited the after school workers and another wished that the teachers/caregivers [were] more patient. One respondent asked for more positive reinforcing. In terms of the activities offered, one parent asked for more variety, another felt more math was warranted. St and two others would have preferred more field trips. Finally, one respondent hoped that the 21 CCLC would receive money to keep the program going and alive. So many programs start and stop even though it is working for kids and really makes a difference. Comments by Parents of Middle School Children. The following summary is based on parent responses from Henderson (n = 9) and Mabelvale ( = 13)\nSouthwest did not return parent surveys to the researchers. In general, the parents of middle school children attending the 2P CCLC were positive about the program, although they did not seem as familiar with its activities as did the parents of elementary school children. Several respondents focused on the academic help offered by the 2P CCLC at their childs school, citing assistance with homework and getting better grades, more exposure to math and science, and improvement of students 'overall learning skills as strengths. Some parents praised the interaction between the teachers and students and the individualized attention students received, which was facilitated by the smaller groups attending the various afterschool activities. There were few recommendations for improvement from the parents of middle school students in the 2L CCLC, other than more structure and one on one tutoring. However, one parent felt that the various components of the 2L CCLC program at their childs school were not sufficiently publicized: I didnt know anything about any clubs, summer camp, or programs for parents. Comments by Parents of High School Children. Only one parent survey was returned by Hall High School, so the following summary largely reflects the responses of parental 2CCLC Technical Report 32 responses returned by McClellan High School (n = 26). Like the elementary and middle-school survey responses, parents of high schoolers attending the 2P CCLC were quite supportive of the program. Most respondents praised the academic assistance it provided their children: responses commonly referred to the help with homework and specific subjects like algebra, the improvement of grades, and the individualized work with teachers. Several commended the teaching staff, the way the teachers stay late just to work with my children. Once more, a number of parents mentioned the safety and security issue\nfor example, one parent liked the fact that the 2L CCLC provided children [with] an environment they can work efficiently in. The social and psychological benefits of the program (a theme seen also in the teacher survey comments) were praised by these parents, who commended the staffs concern for and reaching out to help their children not just to do better in school but to affect how they view the long-term benefits of education. For example, one parent described the best thing about the 2L CCLC this way: My child realizes how important his grades are to be able to graduate and have a good life, better job and go to college. The 2L CCLC program, commented another parent, gives the children a future when they think no one cares. In terms of areas of improvement, the parents of high schoolers had few recommendations. One parent mentioned greater variety of classes (especially more science and algebra), more staff for different subjects. and longer hours, but in general these respondents were quite happy with the 2L CCLC at their childs school. 2r CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCPQ) A total of 270 surveys were completed by 2L CCLC participants in the 6 study schools: Woodruff Elementary (n = 50, with 30 K2 surveys and 20 3-5 surveys), Mabelvale 2L' CCLC Technical Report 33Magnet Middle School (n = 56), Southwest Middle School ( = 58), Henderson Middle School (n = 26), Hall High School {n = 26), and McClellan High School {n = 54). This represents an overall 31% response rate, based on district information reporting that 859 students were registered for the program. A summary of the quantitative survey results, subdivided by grade level (K-2, 3-5, and 6-12), is presented below. Kindergarten Through 2^ Grade. All 30 respondents to the K-2 survey (see Appendix A) attended the only elementary school in the study. Woodruff. Two questions were designed to collect demographic data: grade (4 were kindergarteners, 6 in the 1* grade, and 20 in the 2\"** grade)\ngender (12 were boys, 15 were girls, with 3 not responding)\nand ethnic group membership (26 were African American, 1 Asian American, 1 Caucasian American, and 1 Native American, with one not responding). One question asked if they would attend Summer Camp (19 Yes, 11 No). The majority of the survey asked respondents to mark bubbles labeled Agree/Dont Know/Disagree in regard to a set of 12 statements, simplified to match the reading comprehension level of the younger student. As indicated by a high level of agreement with all statements on the survey (see Table 8), these children appear to be enjoying and benefiting from the 21* CCLC activities. A discussion of each of the survey items follows. The afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program at the elementary school (Woodruff): a large majority of students (93.3%) Agreed with the statement I like the teachers who work with me and the statement Teachers give me help when 1 ask for it. In addition, more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed with the statement Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good. A majority of respondents liked the CCLC program (80.0%) and the range of activities offered (83.3%). More than three quarters (76.7%) 21* CCLC Technical Report 34agreed that I would sign up for the program next year and I think other kids should join the community learning program. Table 8. 2V CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades K-2 Items 1 like the CCLC programs I can choose from different activities I like the teachers who work with me Teachers give me help when I ask for it I feel safe in this program Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good I would sign up for the program next year I think other kids should join the community learning program The program has helped me to like school more The program has helped me to do better in school The program has helped me to behave better at school The program has helped me to feel better about Agree 80.0 83.3 93.3 93.3 76.7 76.7 76.7 76.7 63.3 63.3 76.7 86.7 Responses (%) Dont Know 6.7 16.7 6.7 6.7 23.3 16.7 13.3 16.7 26.7 26.7 16.7 6.7 Disagree 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 Mean (SD) 2.67(71) 2.83(.37) 2.93(.25) 2.93{.25) 2.77(.43) 2.70(.59) 6.7 3.3 10.0 10.0 6.7 6.7 myself__________________________________________________________________________ Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 30 a All items measured using a 3-point Likert scale: 1 = disagree, 2 = don't know, 3 = agree 2.72{.59) 2.76{.51) 2.53(.68) 2.70(.59) 2.80(.55) 2.70(.59) The afterschool teachers and staff are strong features of the program at the elementary school (Woodruff): a large majority of students (93.3%) Agreed with the statement 1 like the teachers who work with me and the statement Teachers give me help when I ask for it. In addition, more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed with the statement Teachers and other grownups in the program make me feel good. A majority of respondents liked the CCLC program (80.0%) and the range of activities offered (83.3%). More than three quarters (76.7%) agreed that I would sign up for the program next year and I think other kids should join the community learning program. The safety and security issue was also broached in these quantitative results: more than three quarters (76.7%) agreed that 1 feel safe in this program and The program has helped me behave better at school. And again, participation in the 2L CCLC appears to have a positive impact on students self-image, as 86.7% agreed that The program has made me feel better 21 CCLC Technical Report 35about myself. On two items, The program has helped me to like school more and The program has helped me to do better in school, the K-2 students were somewhat more ambivalent\n63.3% of respondents agreed with these statements, but 26.7% responded Dont Know, and 10% Disagreed. However, these response rates still indicate that the 2P' CCLC is having a positive impact on how many elementary student participants regard school. Third Grade Through 5^ Grade. All 20 respondents to the 3-5 survey (see Appendix A) attended the one elementary school in the study. Woodruff. The first part of the survey was designed to gather demographic data: grade (6 were in the 3^* grade, 8 in the 4* grade, and 4 in the 5* grade, with 2 not responding)\ngender (13 were boys, 7 were girls)\nand ethnic group membership (17 were Afiican American, 2 Caucasian American, and 1 other). Next, students were asked 7 questions about their activities in the program, such as whether they belonged to a particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp after school was over. Reflecting the structure of the 21* CCLC at Woodruff, all students in this age cohort reported that they belonged to the Homework Club and nearly all (89.5%) reported that they belonged to the Enrichment Club, with one half reporting that they were also in the Tutoring Club. All students attended the program after school, and as there was no before school or Saturday program, none of the Woodruff respondents reported attending either of these. The main components of the 3-5 survey were designed to elicit students perceptions of the 21* CCLC as it was being implemented at their school and to provide a sense of how participation might be benefiting them academically and psychosocially (see Table 9). Like the K-2 cohort, these older elementary students felt that the afterschool teachers and staff were a strong feature of the program. A large majority (85.0%) of the respondents Strongly Agreed or 21* CCLC Technical Report 36Agreed with the statement that Teachers in the program give me help when I need it and 70.0% Strongly Agreed or Agreed that I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program. Almost two thirds (65.0%) Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statement that Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable. Once again, the safety and security of the program is a prominent aspect of its appeal\nthree quarters of students reported that they felt safe in the program, and 70.0% liked the variety of activities from which to choose. Other responses from the 3-5 cohort suggest that these students are less satisfied with some aspects of the 2P CCLC at their school. Only a little more than half (55.0%) of respondents Strongly Agreed or Agreed with the statements 1 like the programs the community Table 9. 21 CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Implementation Responses(%) Items I like the programs the community learning center offers There are enough different activities from which to choose I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school Teachers in the program give me help when I ask for it 1 feel safe in the after-school program Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable 1 would sign up again for the program I would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities Strongly Agree And Agree 55.0 Neutral 15.0 Disagree and Strongly Disagree 30.0 Mean (SD) 3.60(1.5) 70.0 70.0 55.0 85.0 75.0 65.0 50.0 65.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 40.0 30.0 3.75(1.2) 3.70(1.3) 3.20(1.5) 4.35(.87) 3.75(1.3) 3.80(1.4) 3.10(1.4) 3.55(1.7) Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 20 a All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 2L CCLC Technical Report 37learning center offers and Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school. In addition, only half (50.0%) of students would sign up for the program again, and 30.0% of students Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed with the statement I would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities. The final section of the 3-5 survey asked students to indicate the extent to which participating in the 2P CCLC program had helped their academic performance, relationship with teachers, and other issues related to school. As shown in Table 10, three quarters of these respondents felt that it had helped improve their grades, and 70.0% said that it had contributed to greater self-esteem. Almost two thirds (65.0%) responded that participation had helped them behave better at school and understand the importance of graduating from high school. Half said that they worked better with other students. Table 10. CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 3-5: Impact Responses(%) The Center has helped me to... Like school more Come to school more often Gel better grades Behave belter at school Work belter with other students Feel better about myself Talk to my teachers more Understand the importance of A Great Deal 45.0 60.0 75.0 65.0 50.0 70.0 45.0 65.0 Somewhat 35.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 A Little 5.0 30.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 15.0 Not At All 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 Mean (SD) 3.10(1.0) 3.20 (1.0) 3.55 (.88) 3.35(1.0) 3.00(1.1) 3.40 (1.0) 3.15 (.98) 3.40 (.94) graduating from high school______________________________________________________ Note, Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 20  All items measured using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal The potentially positive impact of the 2P CCLC was less clear in two areas. When asked if they talked to teachers more, 45% responded A Great Deal and 35% Somewhat. Although there was some divergence on this issue, responses still indicate that a large proportion of the 3-5 respondents (80.0%) were interacting with teachers more than before. Survey results 21^ CCLC Technical Report 38also indicated that participation in the 2P CCLC appeared to have less impact on whether students liked school more, with 45.0% responding A Great Deal and 35% Somewhat. Despite this divergence, responses once again do indicate that a large segment of the 3-5 students (80.0%) felt that participation had helped them enjoy the learning process more than previously. Sixth Grade Through Grade. All 220 respondents to the 6-12 survey (see Appendix A) attended one of the middle or high schools in the study (Mabelvale [n = 56], Henderson [n = 26], Southwest [ = 58] Middle Schools, and Hall [n = 26] and McClellan [n = 54] High Schools). More students in the lower grades completed surveys than those in the higher grades: 85% were in the 6* through 9* grades, and the remainder in the 10* or 11* grades. No respondent was in the 12* grade. A little more than half (114) were male, 100 were female, and 6 did not specify gender. In terms of ethnic group membership, 82.3% of students identified themselves as African American, 4.1% as Native American, 1.8% as Caucasian American, 1.8% as Hispanic American, 3.2% as other, and 15 did not respond to the ethnicity question. Like the 3-5 students, the 6-12 students were asked about their activities in the program. such as whether they belonged to a particular afterschool club, attended a Saturday program, or would participate in the Summer Camp. Three quarters of students in this age cohort reported that they belonged to the Tutoring Club, and a little over a half reported that they belonged to the Homework Club (54.5%) and the Enrichment Club (52.7%). Nearly all (91.4%) students attended the program after school, with approximately a fifth (19.5%) attending the before school program (if available) at their school. Large proportions reported not attending either the Saturday program (87.7%) or the Summer Camp (78.6%). 2CCLC Technical Report 39The major part of the 6-12 survey sought to elicit student perceptions of the 21* CCLC as it was being implemented at their school and to provide a sense of how participation might be benefiting them academically and psychosocially. The highest percentage of students who Strongly Agreed or Agreed was found for the statement Teachers in the program give me help when 1 ask for it (77.7%), a result similar to that seen in the K-2 and 3-5 surveys. High percentages for the combined categories Strongly Agree and Agree were also found for the other statements about teachers and staff: 1 like the teachers who work in the community learning center program (63.6%) and Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable (61.8%). Once again, the majority of students indicated that they felt safe in the after school program (75.0%), another result quite similar to that seen in the K-2 and 3-5 surveys. Overall, a large proportion of the 6-12 respondents (72.7%) liked the programs offered by the 21* CCLC at their school (see Table 11). Approximately two thirds (67.7%) would sign Table 11. 2V\u0026lt; CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12 (middle and high school responses combined): Implementation Items I like the programs the community learning center offers There are enough different activities from which to choose I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school Teachers in the program give me help when I ask tor it I feel safe in the afterschool program Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable I would sign up again for the program Strongly Agree And Agree 72.7 61.8 63.6 47.3 77.7 75.0 61.8 67.7 Responses(%) Neutral 21.8 24.1 24.5 29.1 14.1 18.6 28.2 23.6 Disagree and Strongly Disagree Mean (SD)= 5.5 13.2 10.5 23.2 7.3 5.9 9.1 8.2 Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 220 3 All items measured using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree 3.94(.94) 3.72(1.05) 3.80(1.09) 3.39(1.29) 4.14(1.00) 4.08(.94) 3.77(1.00) 3.89(1.07) 21* CCLC Technical Report 40up again for the program while 62.3% would recommend the program to other kids. Nearly the same percentage (61.8%) Strongly Agreed or Agreed that there was enough variety in the programs offered by the 2P CCLC. Like the 3-5 cohort, students in the 6-12 group expressed less agreement with the statement that Being in this program is better than other things I could be doing after school, with less than a half (47.3%) agreeing. The last section of the 6-12 survey asked students to indicate the extent to which participating in the 21 CCLC program had improved their academic performance or relationship with teachers and students and other similar school-related areas (see Table 12). The most positive impact of the program was found in students response to whether the program had helped them understand the importance of graduating from high school: 70.0% said A great deal. In regard to other items, however, the 6-12 students were more ambivalent in their responses than the 3-5 students had been, although the results still indicate that this cohort St perceives the program to be of much benefit. When asked whether participation in the 21 CCLC had raised their grades, slightly less than half of these respondents (48.2%) responded A Great Deal and approximately a third (30.5%) responded Somewhat. Likewise, 46.4% responded A great deal and 25.5% Somewhat when asked whether the program made them want to attend school often, and 45.5% said it improved their self-esteem A great deal and 27.3% Somewhat. There was broader disagreement reported for three other items: only 39.1% felt that the program helped them A great deal to do better at school, 39.5% to work better with other students, 35.5% to talk to teachers more. And only a little more than a fourth (25.9%) of students thought that participation in the 2P CCLC made them like school more\nslightly more (37.3%) responded Somewhat to this item. 2P CCLC Technical Report 41Table 12. 2V\u0026lt; CCLC Student Questionnaire (CCLCSQ) Results, Grades 6-12 (middle and high school responses combined): Impact The Center has helped to... Like school more Come to school more often Get better grades Behave better al school Work better with other students Feel better about myself Talk to my teachers more Understand the importance of graduating from high school A Great Deal 25.9 46.4 48.2 39.1 39.5 45.5 35.5 70.0 Responses(%) Somewhat 37.3 25.5 30.5 26.4 32.3 27.3 27.7 16.4 A Little 25.0 13.6 15.5 19.5 20.0 15.0 25.5 7.3 Not At All 10.9 12.7 4.5 13.2 7.3 10.5 10.0 5.0 Mean (SD)^ 2.79(.95) 3.07(1.06) 3.24(.88) 2.93(1.06) 3.05(.94) 3.10(1.01) 2.90(1.00) 3.53(.83) Note. Percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents, n = 220  All items measured using a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = a great deal Interviews The interview results are presented in two sections: (1) interviews with the 6 site coordinators, those directly responsible for administering the implementation of the 2P CCLC program activities at their school, and (2) interview results from the 6 principals whose schools were selected for the study. The responses of both site coordinators and principals are summarized below. Site Coordinators The 6 site coordinators interviewed for this evaluation had a range of experience in directing the 2L CCLC program at their school\nin one case, the coordinator had been responsible for program oversight only since January 2006, and in another case the coordinator had been the first and only director since the inception of the program at that school 4 years ago. In general, however, the researcher found the site coordinators to be seasoned education professionals (a number of whom had had much administrative experience at their current school and elsewhere) who were also quite knowledgeable about the CCLC as it operated at their school. Some of the site coordinators were also teachers at the school or held other positions. 2L CCLC Technical Report 42such as Title I facilitator, technology or reading specialist, or dual enrollment program administrator. Responsibilities. All of the coordinators reported that they performed basic administrative tasks to ensure the smooth operation of the program: hiring and assigning teachers for appropriate subject areas\ndeciding upon a schedule of activities\nkeeping a variety of records (student attendance, instructor, payroll)\nordering and providing snacks\nand securing transportation at the end of the day. Some respondents also regularly monitor the classrooms in which activities are taking place and address complaints or discipline problems as they arise. Other respondents noted that they were responsible for promoting and publicizing the CCLC program around the school as well as in the community. Goals of the CCLC at Their School. Most of the coordinators responded that the primary goal of the program was to provide students who were struggling academically (sometimes in a number of areas) with a safe environment in which to improve their skills. Some specifically mentioned that the program targeted students who were not performing at the proficient or advanced level on standardized achievement tests. However, any student attending the school was eligible to participate, and on occasion students from other schools who lived near a study school would attend. One coordinator observed that since the CCLC was designed as a community based program, she welcomed participants from the neighborhood. Typical 2T CCLC Student. Most commonly, coordinators described the typical participant as a student working at below grade level who needed extra help, and often a child without a structured learning environment in the home. One coordinator noted that the program provided a vital diversion for those students who were getting into trouble a lot, although no respondent characterized the CCLC as a haven for those with discipline problems. At the same 2 P' CCLC Technical Report 43 time, some respondents said that proficient or advanced students, particularly those who were self-motivated, would attend the CCLC as a secure and safe place to expand their skills and have ready access to technology (e.g., computer and printer) that may not have been available at home. At one school, such students would act as peer tutors, assisting their classmates in various academic areas. None of the site coordinators reported any significant differences in participation by students of various ethnicities in any of the 2P CCLC activities. Most said that they had observed approximately the same demographic makeup in the afterschool program as was evident in the school as a whole (predominantly Afiican American\nsee Table 1). Two coordinators noted that there had been some problems recruiting and retaining Hispanic students. which they attributed to language difficulties (nonnative English speakers) and also to heightened parental concern about their child being out after dark. In terms of gender, about half of the site coordinators felt that more females than males were attending afterschool, but the other half had observed no majority of girls. Student Recruitment and Retention. The site coordinators described a variety of ways of encouraging participation in the 21 CCLC at their school. Nearly all developed some sort of flyer or application for dissemination at student orientation meetings prior to the start of school. usually August. Some coordinators continued to promote the program throughout the year at student or parent events, such as an Open House or Parent-Teacher Association meetings\nothers made the program a constantly visible part of the school by putting up notices or posters about afterschool activities at various locations on campus\nmany would routinely make announcements at faculty meetings and/or provide teachers with 2L CCLC information in preparation for conferences with parents. The high school site coordinators seemed especially 21* CCLC Technical Report 44 involved in 2P CCLC promotion and recruitment. In addition to the strategies mentioned above, Hall maintained a website detailing activities in the program, and the coordinator sent out weekly emails to the entire student/parent email list. The coordinator at McClellan used a PhoneMate system that sends automated messages about the Center to parents\narranged for the local carwash to run an LCD display message about the Center\nand will be adding an announcement about after school activities to the new school marquee on the street. Several of the site coordinators stated that they targeted students who were performing below proficiency, on the basis of standardized test scores and/or teacher recommendations. In some cases, attendance was mandatory\nat Woodruff Elementary, for example, the site coordinator noted that any student who scores below grade level in reading and math is automatically put into the afterschool program, after the parent approves. At McClellan, any student who had a GPA below 2.0 and was involved in any competitive extracurricular activity (e.g., band, choir, athletics) was required to attend 100 minutes a week in a tutoring program. Attending the schools 21' CCLC program was the most common way of satisfying this requirement. Implementation. Most of the CCLC programs offered activities afterschool, although a few included a before-school component. For example, at the case study school Mabelvale, there was an hour of activity (7:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.) prior to the start of the regular school day. Students went to the environmental lab to do homework or other independent seatwork until about 8:10 a.m., when they left to eat breakfast in the cafetorium. Others could stay until 8:30 a.m. Some of the site coordinators observed that when they offered a beforeschool program, attendance was consistently too low to justify its continuation. Others noted 21' CCLC Technical Report 45st that their school already had a before-school program funded by sources other than the 21 CCLC grant. The majority of the CCLC after school activities began about 15 minutes after the conclusion of the regular school day, usually 3:30 or 4 and running until 5:30 or 6. As expected, there was variability in terms of which activities were done at what time, since it was a basic supposition of the 21 CCLC grant that the schools would design the program in ways that best met the needs of their students. For example, at Woodruff Elementary the afterschool program began with a half-hour of outside play, followed by a snack\nthe Homework Club met for an hour\nand the day concluded with various enrichment activities, such as violin, cello, piano, or Tae Kwon Do lessons\nexercise and nutrition classes\nchess and computer work\nor Boy Scout meetings. At Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, afterschool students were subdivided into grades (6-8) and then directed to individual classrooms for academic work during the first hour and enrichment (art or music, crafts) during the remaining 45 minutes to an hour, although there was variation depending on the schedule. The basic schedule (academic work followed by enrichment activities) was similar in the high schools, although Hall was more oriented toward the three primary areas (algebra, geometry, and literacy) of the Arkansas Comprehensive, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), whereas at McClellan students were subdivided by the specific area in which they needed improvement (e.g., computers, math. English, civics/history). In regard to the relationship between the school and its 2P CCLC, it was apparent that students and staff alike made little distinction between the regular school day and afterschool program activities. Site coordinators gave several reasons for this: frequently students were engaged in homework or other seatwork that built upon those literacy and math skills that were 2P CCLC Technical Report 46the focus of exercises during the regular school day. In addition, at all of the schools except the elementary school (Woodruff), members of the 2P CCLC staff were also teachers at the school. Also, although neighborhood children who did not attend the local school offering a 2P CCLC program were permitted to attend the afterschool activities, the vast majority of program participants were students at the school. Finally, there was little or no geographic separation. since no school reported having a distinct location for program activities\nfor example, in the case of Mabelvale (the case study school), students would meet in common central areas such as the library, cafetorium, or the computer lab. All of these aspects helped cement the relationship between the 2L CCLC and the school as continuous rather than simply contiguous. In some of the schools, arts enrichment was a regular feature of the 2L CCLC program. This was especially true of Woodruff Elementary, because in 2005-06 it became a member of the Arkansas A+ Schools Network, a consortium dedicated to comprehensive school reform. A+ schools combine interdisciplinary teaching with daily arts instruction, offering children opportunities to learn through multiple pathways (Arkansas A-Plus Network, 2006). Thus, the arts focus during the regular school day is just continued into afterschool activities, incorporating ballet, musical instruction (piano and strings), art, acting and drama, and also sports, such as Tae Kwon Do, tennis, and golf. Woodruff has initiated a number of partnerships with local cultural and recreational groups\nfor example, members of the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra were recruited to conduct violin and cello classes for the 2P CCLC students\nduring the first year, the musicians were paid, but they now do it for free. The principal noted that weve found that these arts classes help the kids in all areas of academics. Woodruff also regularly hosted Parents Nights, at which the children would perform for their families and friends (and on one 21 CCLC Technical Report 47 occasion, for Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee). These events helped build students self- esteem and also resulted in improved school behavior. St At Hall High School, in 2004-05 an arts enrichment component was added to the 21 CCLC program, in which students did crafts projects such as tie-dye and jewelry, and even a larger stained-glass mural depicting the school logo (a Native American peace pipe) for placement outside Halls main office. They also did more traditional arts like painting, although here too the students were encouraged to express their creativity. For example, the site coordinator at Hall showed the researcher a still life made entirely using various concentrations of coffee as paint. 2r CCLC Involvement with the Community. Every school in the study sought community involvement in their 2P CCLC programs by initiating partnerships with local organizations, businesses, civic and cultural centers, or universities and colleges. Nearly all the site coordinators reported an ongoing affiliation between their CCLC and Let Our Violence End (LOVE), a Little Rock-based nonprofit organization that uses peer volunteers to speak with students about the causes and implications of school and neighborhood violence. Aside from LOVE, however, the schools arranged CCLC extra-program activities derived from a variety of community partnerships. Woodruff Elementary has an active association with Big Brothers and Big Sisters, who help students in the before- and afterschool program with reading, math, and social science. Other schools partnered with groups such as the Audubon Society or with local colleges and universities to conduct classes or workshops in natural or biomedical science. For example, students at Remington College (Little Rock Campus) who were enrolled in a workstudy program helped Woodruffs 2L CCLC participants in areas related to their majors (education, pre-med, computers). At Henderson Middle School, afterschool students learned 21 CCLC Technical Report 48about water ecosystems and methods of conservation while working on a water sampling project at the University of Central Arkansas. Hall High School developed a partnership with Junior Achievement, a national organization that sponsors local business leaders to speak to students about business fundamentals. Development of students physical skills was also a feature of some of the afterschool programs. A parent of a student at Mabelvale offered karate classes, not (as the principal was quick to point out) to teach students how to fight but rather to learn basic self-defense techniques as a means to enhance their confidence and self-esteem. Every Thursday afternoon was drum day at Southwest, where a local percussionist taught the students using a variety of traditional African drums. Most Successful Aspects of the 2f CCLC. Nearly all of the site coordinators reported that one of the key strengths of the program was that it provided safe, secure environment for children at a time (after school was out and before parents arrived home) when they were most at risk. This was assumed to be especially true of this study population, since many students were from lower SES backgrounds, lived in transient housing, and were being raised by a single parent or parents with multiple jobs. Often the afterschool setting was the only structured environment to which the student would have access during that time. Having a quiet place to complete homework, with individualized assistance provided as needed, was very important, if not critical to addressing childrens academic deficits. Even those 2U CCLC students who were working at or above proficiency reaped the benefits of the secure setting as a place to develop their math and literacy skills. The second positive aspect of the afterschool program often mentioned by the site coordinators was the many opportunities (the community activities, access to technology, arts enrichment) afforded the students which they otherwise may not have had. Several stressed the 2 U'CCLC Technical Report 49 academic benefit of these activities, in that the experiential, hands-on nature of such projectbased learning developed skills and abilities in ways that traditional approaches such as direct classroom instruction or seatwork perhaps could not. At the same time, some of the site coordinators noted that it was these activitiesthe arts enrichment in particularthat tended to pull the students in and help keep attendance rates high. Those children who were struggling academically, particularly in the middle and high schools, were enticed by the prospect of learning in a fun way, rather than avoiding those subjects (math and reading) which had seemed daunting in the past. A third positive aspect cited by a number of the site coordinators concerned the psychological reward of simply having a program for the students, who were made more acutely aware that there was a group of adults, other than family, who were devoting their extra time and energies toward helping them achieve academic as well as social and behavioral success. As one site coordinator put it, you cant measure the importance to kids of knowing that someone cares. In this regard, most of the site coordinators had high praise for and satisfaction with the afterschool staff and all those affiliates who coordinated activities and projects for the 2P' CCLC at their school. Areas for Improvement in the 2f CCLC Program. Nearly all the site coordinators mentioned two areasstudent retention and attendance rates and parental involvementas ongoing challenges. Of all 6 schools in the study, only Woodruff Elementary reported no problems either attracting participants to the program or maintaining steady attendance (97% or above, each day). This might be expected, given the younger age of the Woodruff students (K-5). However, all other site coordinators said that while recruitment efforts at the start of the year generally were successful, and initial enrollment figures were quite high, maintaining 2L CCLC Technical Report 50regular attendance by participants was a challenge. In general, attendance rates tended to drop most in the spring semester as warmer weather returned and the days grew longer, but even in the late fall and winter parents were anxious about their children being out after dark. Problems with irregular or infrequent attendance were more associated with the older students (9*-12* grades), because as these children matured there were more demands on their time (sports, other clubs, friends and social life, or even a job) which likely interfered with their participation in activities associated with schoolwork and academic life. This is likely why the Hall and McClellan site coordinators were so active in year-round promotion of 2P CCLC activities at their high schools, as a hedge against declining attendance rates. Except for Woodruff Elementary and Southwest Middle School, parental involvement in 21\" CCLC activities was another area for improvement reported by the site coordinators. One estimated that approximately 65% of parents in his school could be described as having low engagement with the program and their child, another 25% medium engagement, and the remainder (10%) high engagement. Several mentioned various strategies they attempted to elicit greater parental involvement, such as Parents Nights, meetings on Saturdays, partnerships with the PTA, and so on, without much success. Still, most of the coordinators noted that gamering parents interest and participation in any of their preteens and teens school activities was difficult. Woodruff staff attributed the younger student ages and the schools arts focus as likely reasons for their more frequent parent involvement, and Southwest cited the field trips in which parents accompanied their children as an important factor in this regard. In addition, both site coordinators at these schools reported that any public performance by their child/ren in the 21\" CCLC program was guaranteed to bring out the parents. 21\" CCLC Technical Report 51Some of the site coordinators mentioned occasional problems not having enough teachers (especially in math and science). In addition, one felt that not the number but the commitment of instructors in the 2P' CCLC could be better, that occasionally staff was lax in their duties. At the same time, most site coordinators believed that students in the afterschool program became closer and more responsive to their teachers, since the student-teacher ratio was lower and students and staff alike tended to be more casual than during the regular school day. Two site coordinators wished that they could offer a greater variety of activities and experiences to the students, but felt constrained by both budget and available staff. School Principals In general, the principals interviewed for the evaluation tended be somewhat less familiar with the day-to-day operation and activities of the 2P CCLC at their school than the site coordinators, and this was particularly so if the site coordinator had been administering the afterschool program for more than a year. Also, some of the principals themselves were new to the school (in one case, hired in June 2006). Still, all of the principals had valuable insights to offer. having been employed in administrative or supervisory positions in LRSD and elsewhere. Responsibilities. Most of the principals had a supervisory role in the daily operation of the 21* CCLC centers, working with the site coordinator on the basic schedule\nhiring certified teachers in the core areas (which in the elementary school meant math and literacy, and in the middle and high schools English, science, and math)\ndeveloping programming appropriate to the centers goals\nand ensuring that the necessary supplies were available. Some of the principals took on other responsibilities, such as helping to write the initial grant and making sure that students were utilizing technology in the 21* CCLC classrooms. 21* CCLC Technical Report 52Goals of the CCLC at Their School. Principals identified a number of goals specific to the needs of their student population, but the purpose most commonly noted was enrichment and extension of those subjects taught during the regular school day. Elementary school children often lacked supervision and assistance with homework in the evenings, and as there was seldom a skilled adult reader at home, many of the Woodruff children had no opportunity to practice reading. We just needed the funds and materials to address the problem, said the Woodruff principal, and thats what the 21 CCLC [grant] does. At the middle and high school levels, focus on math and literacy skills was paramount, with an eye toward improving student achievement scores. However, a number of the principals noted that their program included enrichment activities in music, art, drama, science as well. One high school principal commented that their program also had a social/behavioral component, as it primarily served incoming 9* graders who often needed assistance making the transition from a middle to a high school environment. Typical 2f CCLC Student. The principals said that their program was primarily designed for students performing at or below proficiency, although it was open to all those desiring additional assistance. However, like the site coordinators, they described the typical attendee as a child academically on the bubble, who just needed an extra push, extra time, the one-on-one work, as one put it. They also echoed the coordinators view that the 2 CCLC offered students a supervised place to study, without distractions, as well as access to technology (computer and printer) and print resources not often available to them. One middle school principal commented that probably 20-25% of their students had a computer at home. Again several of the principals mentioned that the high-performing participants (who really didnt 2L' CCLC Technical Report 53need to be there) often acted as tutors, benefiting from the added responsibility and extra challenge of learning how to explain concepts to their peers. Student Recruitment and Retention. Like the site coordinators, principals at the middle and high schools noted that while initial recruitment was seldom a problem, maintaining steady. frequent attendance across the course of the school year was an ongoing challenge. When queried about the possible reasons for this, one middle school principal responded that parents are not knowledgeable about the importance of keeping their kid in the program, were not fully committed\nothers said that social activities and athletic events took precedence. Another middle school principal said that the shift to Daylight Savings Time in the fall caused attendance to decline across the winter months, because the parents of the younger students (6* and 7'* graders) did not want their children out after dark. One high school principal speculated that the increasing number of Hispanic students, many of whom were English language learners, were reluctant to participate in the 2P CCLC program because they feared problems in communication. At the same time, he felt that this could be addressed with special outreach to this community. Overall Strengths and Weaknesses of the CCLC Program. Most of the principals echoed the observations made by the site coordinators about the best aspects of the 2L CCLC program at their school: (1) the provision of safe, supervised setting for students at a time when they were perhaps most vulnerable\n(2) access to many opportunities (especially assistance with building literacy and math skills and the arts enrichment activities)\nand (3) the psychological benefits of knowing that there are caring adults who want to help them succeed, as one principal put it. One middle school principal cited the programs success in improving math skills via their Algebra Camp, which helped prepare 7* and 8* graders for the basic, required 21  CCLC Technical Report 54 algebra course in 9* grade (the first year of high school). Another thought that one of their programs best features was its facility in helping students make a transition from the behavioral and social norms of an elementary school to those of the middle school. One of the high school principals also mentioned that since their 2P CCLC served predominantly 9* graders, the program served the same useful function: students see middle school as a social place, versus the culture of a high school, which is academic, and potentially a place from which they will continue their studies, he noted. One respondent summarized the general tenor of the high school principals responses regarding the significant contribution made by the 2L CCLC to their educational objectives: [It is an] extremely valuable part of our school\nwe need opportunities to work with kids, specifically in smaller settings, but also where we can really target assistance. whether its in literacy, or whether its in algebra or geometry, or whether its some kind of social skill, whatever it is\nwe need those opportunities. There is oftentimes so much crammed into the normal school day, that if we didnt have the extended program, before and after school, we would not be able to meet all of our needs as effectively as we can now. With regard to areas for improvement, once again achieving steady and frequent attendance and fomenting parental involvement were most commonly mentioned. Only Woodruff reported few problems with these issues\nin fact, the principal identified as one challenge trying to get enough people [staff] to accommodate all the kids, [since] the payroll was full. But this response was atypical, and probably in some measure attributable to the fact that Woodruff, the only elementary school in the study, has a younger student population. The other principals noted that, in order to increase rates of participation, they had to confront the 21* CCLC Technical Report 55multiple concerns and distractions faced by the average middle and high school student. Even those who were academically well focused had some difficulty keeping on task after being in school all day. Gamering parents commitment, to make sure that their children were coming to the 2P' CCLC every day as well as engagement with advertised center activities, was an ongoing challenge. At one school, developing connections between the Parent-Teacher Association and the 2P CCLC to promote the centers activities and benefits helped improve parental involvement, and as noted above any public performance (e.g., involving music, drama) by their child/ren was certain to bring out the parents. Several of the principals lamented the loss of their summer bridge program, which in the main had been quite successful in helping students transition into a middle or high school and addressing the potential loss of skill development that often occurs over the summer months (described by one respondent as grade recovery camp). They hoped that it would be re-funded in the future, either by the 21* CCLC grant or via other sources. Mabelvale Case Study Classroom Observations The researcher observed three 2 CCLC sessions (two afternoon sessions and one morning session) on two separate days at the case study school, Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. In each of the two afternoon sessions, the researcher watched activities in three different classrooms, because students were divided by grade (6*, 7*, and 8*). Instructors were always present (all of whom were teachers at Mabelvale), but no parent was observed at any session. Monday, April 17. The researcher observed 6*-grade students working in a computer lab doing two activities: half the children used the interactive PLATO system on Playstations 2P CCLC Technical Report 56and half were working on PCs. Three adults were present, all teachers at Mabelvale, who were directing and supervising the students. The staff described the students activity as an extension of school day skills. There were 20 students in attendance, of whom 18 were African American, one Caucasian, and one biracial, and most were clustered into small groups of 2-4 students, who appeared to be friends. A few students (2-3) were isolated from their peers and worked alone. Most of the students were involved in the PLATO activity and computer work the majority of the time, and these activities appeared to be engaging for them most of the time. The students would choose which area (e.g., math, literacy, geography) to work on. Teachers provided individual attention when asked, and interacted in a friendly way with students, often joking with them. The researcher did not observe any significant conflicts among students\nany minor difficulties were quickly and amicably resolved. There was much intergroup discussion and a generally high level of positive energy in the lab, which reflected the students level of engagement with their work, and perhaps also the lab environmental conditions - it was very cold. On April 17, the researcher also observed the 7* grade CCLC session, which took place in the schools cafeto\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\u003eCenter for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee\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":19,"next_page":20,"prev_page":18,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":216,"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}}]}}