{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_159","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-05-14"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/159"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","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  \n\nI. Call to Order MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 14, 2013 II. Reading of the Minutes of April 9, 2013 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items Schedule of Magnet Principals Annual Report 8:45 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 9:45 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:15 a.m. V. Adjournment CARVER MAGNET - Diane Barksdale BOOKER MAGNET - Dr. Cheryl Carson GIBBS MAGNET - Dr. Felicia Hobbs WILLIAMS MAGNET - Lori Brown MANN MAGNET- Patricia Boykin PARKVIEW MAGNET - Dr. Dexter Booth MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 9, 2013 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office on April 9, 2013, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. Members Present: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Members Absent: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, LRSD Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Guest: Margie Powell, ODM The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairperson Oliver Dillingham. He immediately called for a reading of the minutes of February 12, 2013. Bobby Acklin made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She noted there were no items in correspondence but several contacts were made via telephone and email. Bills in the amount of $2,559.90 were presented for payment. Ms. Creer provided a brief recap of the expenses. Danny Reed made a motion to pay the bills, and Bobby Acklin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting were given to MRC members for their information. Ms. Creer noted that most of these articles were regarding the desegregation case schedule as outlined by the judge. With regard to a recruitment update, Ms. Creer reported that the first round of early enrollment has been completed. Parents have been in contact with the MRC office regarding their placement. Our main concern is losing one class at Booker and one at Carver. Mr. Dillingham asked if it would be feasible to advertise that seats are still available. Donna Creer explained that the MRC Office already does that and informed the Committee members how it is done. The Realtors Table Top is another opportunity to advertise our magnet schools, and Ms. Creer is participating in that event. A discussion was held as to what could be done to get more students to come to magnet schools. Mr. Dillingham wants to make sure that nothing is done to discourage students from applying for magnet schools. Mr. Acklin agrees with Mr. Dillingham for promoting magnet schools, and wants everyone on the waiting list to be able to obtain a seat. Ms. Creer reminded the Committee that Roberts Elementary is not able to have pre-school anymore. She suggested that we might consider allowing students from outside the district to attend Carver and Gibbs and, possibly, initiate a Pre-K program at Williams. There are several end-of-the-school-year programs going on, and Ms. Creer has requested that the schools make an announcement at these events that applications for enrollment are available. MRC members received an invitation to Parkview's art exhibit. Ms. Creer hoped that all would be able to attend. Artistry in the Rock is coming up soon, and there will be an auction to raise funds for scholarships for art students. With regard to vacancies and new hires, there are none to report at the time. -2- Ms. Creer reported that she has been in contact with Dr. _DeJarnette and Dr. Dreyfus with regard to the final edition of the report. The MRC members were reminded that a vote was taken to add the provision for magnet school enrollment to cover sibling preference at the middle school level. This will take place for the 2014-2015 school year. With regard to a schedule for the annual principal's report, May 14, 2013 was selected as the date. All principals will be presenting that day. When no further business was brought before the committee Bobby Acklin made a motion to adjourn. Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 am. -3- From: Crawford, Andreia Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:57 PM To: Price, Deborah Subject: FW: URGENT.. .. CHANGE IN VENUE FOR MRC MEETING TOMORROW Dr. Price 1. The number of African American students assigned to Orchestra at Parkview for the 2012-13 school year (4) from the scramble 2. A total of 12 African American Students applied for Orchestra as their 1st choice, and only 4 were assigned (I only received 7 seats for school year 2012-13 school year) 3. For the 2013-14 projected enrollment for the school year is as follow  9th grade (4-African Americans) (3-Non African American Seats)  10th grade (no seats)  11th grade (no seats)  lih grade (no seats) For the 10th -lih grade shows no vacancies, because of the following reasons, 9th through 11th grade rolls up each year to the next grade level, which do not allow placement are any movement. We also have to take in consideration the students that are being retained for the upcoming school year. Thank you Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Oliver Dillingham (ADE) [Oliver.Dillingham@arkansas.gov] Thursday, May 09, 2013 4:12 PM Mitchell, Sadie (Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org)\nMagnet Review\nDonna Creer Oliver Dillingham (ADE) FW: Concern with Parkview Enrollment I have not had a chance or time to read this but wanted you to see it. Oliver Dillingham, Program Manager Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center Four Capitol Mall, Suite 405-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 phone: (501)682-4213 fax: (501)682-5177 From: Evelyn Elizabeth James [mailto:deswamee@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 3:23 PM To: evelyn james Subject: Concern with Parkview Enrollment Hello, My name is Evelyn James and I spoke with you about 2 weeks ago about my concerns with my daughter's ( Emani Archie 3183 31) assignment to Central High School, althought she requested Parkview for 3 different areas. This is the email followup you requested. I've been under the weather My concerns are as follows: 1. My child has been at Mann in the orchestra for 3 years and at King in the orchestra for 5 years and this is her second year playing in the Arkansas Youth Symphony Orchestra's Prelude orchestra. Her being assigned to central, makes her go from developing her talent and being offered more exposure to musical opportunities as well as scholarship opportunites, to taking orchestra as a zero hour class 5 days a week at 7:30 in the morning with 9-12 graders. 2. Very few if any African American Students in orchestral programs in LRSD middle school orchestra programs were assigned to orchestra at Parkview. 3. My child is tagged gifted and Central is not her least restrictive environment nor will allow her to develop her natural talent. She also is mortified of the size of Central and had a panic attack when she went to shadow. 4. Parkview is not at capacity for enrollment, nor at capacity within individual programs. 5. It is odd that the majority of students taking Algebra I in the 8th grade ( accelerated) were assigned to Central. 6. My child has excellent test scores, a high aptitude, is a double minority and gifted. It seems as though going to Central is to help boost their numbers, not what is best for my child. 7. There is no audition process, exception process for kids to get open seats. 8. Kids that were recruited for Parkview did not get in. Perhaps there may be some cherry picking going on from Central administration to get their test scores up, since Parkview's are higher than theirs? I am a single parent. I need my child to thrive in high school to get scholarships for college. I need her to be happy, comfortable and successful. Please advise Evelyn E. James o virus found in this message. Checked by A VG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 I Virus Database: 3162/6310 - Release Date: 05/09/13 2 Magnet Review From: Sent: To: Subject: Donna Creer Friday, May 10, 2013 8:43 AM Magnet Review FW: CONGRATULATIONS ON GRANT! From: Barksdale, Mary [Mary.Barksdale@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 6:39 PM To: Lorrie Barr Cc: Mitchell, Sadie\nDonna Creer\nYoung, Linda\nSmith, Pamela Subject: Re: CONGRATULATIONS G RANT! Thank you so much for this email. I am sharing it with the LR school district grant coordinator, Linda Young, and the communications director, Pamela Smith, and our associate superintendent, Sadie Mitchell, and Donna Creer, Director of the Magnet Review Committee. I am including Charlotte Cook, Gene Williams and Karen Banks who wrote the grant. Naturally, we are thrilled. Diane Barksdale Sent from my iPad On May 9, 2013, at 3:48 PM, \"Lorrie Barr\" \u0026lt;lbarr@womensfoundationarkansas.org\u0026lt;mailto:lbarr@womensfoundationarkansas.org\u0026gt;\u0026gt; wrote The Women's Foundation hosts Girls of Promise conferences each year for 8th grade girls to encourage their interest in STEM. I was so pleased to read that Carver received a 3M Ingenuity grant to encourage interest in STEM. We posted the announcement on our Girls of Promise Facebook page. I'm sure you have read the media story, but here is one version. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/3m-foundation-awards-2013-ingenuity-grants-2013-05-08 Again, congratulations! Lorrie Barr Women's Foundation of Arkansas 200 River Market Avenue, Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72201 501-244-9740 (direct) 501-324-2236 (fax) 501-831-3125 (mobile) www.womensfoundationarkansas.org\u0026lt;http://www.womensfoundationarkansas.org\u0026gt; No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3162/6312 - Release Date: 05/09/13 3M Foundation Awards 2013 Ingenuity Grants - MarketWatch Page 1 of 5 Home New Viewer Ma ets lnves ng Trading eek Perso al Finance fe tirement Ee nomy/Politics Indus! El!'fite1s ~lnor Kevwlfi\"l!ol10 Ale~ Latest News v,ewAl!I The Ret11eMentors 11 03a Bill Gross 30-yr bull marl\u0026lt;e!1 11b ond~ hke1yo ver t0.S2::tN -Jtd13P, ric'.ehnil:e1a d ierr,s h1oher 10-Wa Yen gains rai\u0026lt;::a1\u0026lt; suesf N US ccmpan1\"'5- ,1rilhh ,g Ma\n, 10. 2013 11 OE-J..ME DT J~p\n:-1\u0026lt;1e, \u0026gt;PQ~ureG oldrn.anS .Jchs -------------- 1l' P W York LOrYJon To\"Yo DOW +211 NASDAQ +1245 S\u0026amp;P500 +-18 2 Or,en LONDON MARKETS CLOSE IN: 0:22:26 Currencies Futures Metals Stocks press release May B. ~013 2 57 pin EDT 3M Foundation Awards 2013 Ingenuity Grants 31\\11 ST PAUL, Minn., May 08, 2013 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The 3M Foundation awarded grants totaling $262,000 to 34 U.S schools as part of its 3M Ingenuity Grant program. The program recognizes teacher teams working across grade levels and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math} disciplines to spark student interest and achievement. The grant, which is offered to public schools in 3M communities and targets grades 1-8, provides funds to purchase materials to bring classroom projects to life. Grant recipients were selected based on an application process that asked teachers to address how their idea aligns with goals for the school district, school and classroom\nteacher collaboration across grades and disciplines, and their ideas to spark student interest and drive achievement by building connections to the world beyond the classroom ''This year, collaboration and integration are the key drivers of the 3M Ingenuity Grants,\" said Barbara Kaufmann, 3M Manager, Education Giving. \"Al 3M. the STEM disciplines work together to drive innovation and the development of new products and technology, and we wanted to encourage teachers from various disciplines to work together to bring innovative teaching methods into their classrooms. We are pleased to help teachers create new and exciting learning opportunities \" Since 2003, 3M has awarded 1,011 Ingenuity Grants, giving more than $3.2 million dollars to schools in 3M communities The grant program is Just one component of 3M's charitable giving to educational causes. As a company built on a culture of innovation, 3M has a keen awareness of the importance of fostering the next generation of innovators, and works to help create future scientists by supporting sludents and educators in STEM fields. The 2013 Ingenuity Grant recipients are ----------------------------------------- l~.ar:ur, AL,. ec,r,:,,-.a E\\mr.Ja'1\"L:r.taIn:lt etrre-:liate ~i.:cno, Call.!. S...\"\"c:!I 1~':1'1!:ntarf E.'l.field, C'onn. Israel [\u0026gt;1.Jtna.'T5. ~,:)01 t-tiriden, C'orv-,. Wa5hl.nqt-:.n Mid::!la ti'!i.:iden, Conn. -------------------------------------------------------- C,:Jg P.r.r:\\'lrSk)Old t-'.iddlc Walling!:d, Conn. PAUL MERRIMAN Vanguard vs. Fidelity Where tS ~-our rnon.'h t,eller off In this he.1,),Y,'t'.'!191\"1 match. one c.vnte~ta,t ~lands ot.\nI  More from the Ri,tiroMcntors  httn-//www.m8rketwatch.com/storv/3m-foundation-awards-2013-ingenuitv-grants-2013-05 .. . 5/10/2013 3M Foundation Awards 2013 Ingenuity Grants - MarketWatch lfut,:h.i.n.c\non, Min.\"!, ------------------------------------------------------- C,.nT:1:ry M.id.1le ------------------------------------ 01 tm.11n t~iddlP. SP C'.JI~ M.h1..11P. rlemingtr..r., N.J. Guni t11 t'a 11!\" Hi\u0026lt;kile ---------------------------------------------------- Lyl,!! Cree\\.: Elanentary Little Miami JUnior Cirv.:.i.M.!lti, Onio tk.rthley 11.iddle\n\\ston, Pa. P.cbert . Olsh.l.on El'!m?ntary G:e'!rwille, s.c. Holqata Middle :i.be?\"do:!enS,. O. ---------------------------------------------------- -------------------- Si.~.s ftiddle ilitv.!~n, S.O. Elk'._,n Elcrrcntu.ry e,\n,J~.ings, 5.0. --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ,i \\t, r,'.l.t !:lttwnt,uy Menancnie, WJ. -- - ------------------------------ About 3M Community Giving 3M is not only a company that creates, It is a company that cares 3M Community Giving is helping to improve lives in communities around the world. Celebrating 60 years of formalized giving. 3M and the 3M Foundation have invested more than $1 2 billion in cash and products to education and charitable organizations These donations were bolstered by thousands of employee and retiree volunteers In 2012, 3M awarded $56.6 million to non-profit organizations For more information, visit www.3Mg1vingc om and follow on Twitter @3Mgiv1ng 3M is a trademark of 3M. http://cts businesswirec om/cVCT?1d=bwnews\u0026amp;sty=201305080065r51\u0026amp;7 s1d= cmtx4\u0026amp;distro=nx SOURCE: 3M \"' Copyright Business Wire 2013 COMTEX/ Page 2 of 5 Log In Portfolio Alerts Garne:s htto://www.marketwatch.com/storv/3m-foundation-awards-20l3-ingenuitv-grants-2013-05... 5/10/2013 Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJ: DATE: Dr. Cheryl Carson, Principal - Booker Magnet Diane Barksdale, Principal - Carver Magnet Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal - Gibbs Magnet Lori Brown, Principal - Williams Magnet Patricia Boykin, Principal - Mann Magnet Dr. Dexter Booth, Principal - Parkview Magnet ,BGC-- Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Dr. Sadie Mitchell, MRC Chairperson Associate Superintendent, LRSD Stipulation Magnet Schools Report to the MRC April 18, 2013 Thank you for clearing your calendar and preparing to attend the May 14th MRC meeting. As is customary, this is the meeting during which Stipulation magnet school principals report to the MRC. We look forward to your 20-minute (or less) report, with ten minutes allocated for Questions and Answers. Adhering to this timeline will allow all magnet schools to report during one meeting. For your information, we have attached a REPORT FORM delineating questions to be addressed. In the interest of clarity and brevity, the MRC members have requested that some report items be presented via PowerPoint and some be included as a part of your written report (see attached template for your PowerPoint format). The schedule for time slots will begin at 8:45 a.m. and continue at 30-minute increments. Please let the MRC Office know your preferred time to report, and we will try to fulfill your request as closely as possible. Remember, this is on a first-come/first-serve basis. Thanks again for compiling the information that gives us a glimpse of the current \"STATE OF THE MAGNETS.\" The data in your report is used by our office, MRC members, and their parties, as a quick reference for magnet school information. We appreciate you and your hard work. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. DGC:sl Enclosures: 1) Stipulation Magnet Schools Annual Report Form 2) Template for PowerPoint \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" SCHOOL: STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS ANNUAL REPORT FORM 2013 PRJNCIPAL'S NAME: e-mail: OTHER ADMINISTRATORS (Asterisk if new): NAME:  e-mail: NAME: e-mail: SCHOOL SECRETARY: direct phone: phone: phone: phone: ......................................................................... CURRENT ENROLLMENT: RACIAL COMPOSITION: LAST YEAR'S ENROLLMENT: __ % B % NB 1. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC AND LIST ANY REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES. Justify additional staff, reinstatement of staff, programmatic thrusts, etc. 2. SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU HAVE FOCUSED ON IN YOUR ACSIP. A. Please recap how the five-year and two-year improvement plans your school received from the MRC were used to improve your school. Include past, current or planned improvements. 3. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS (planned, inprogress or completed). 4. REPORT ON CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS (planned, proposed, or added). 5. DID YOUR SCHOOL MEET A YP? If not, please discuss subpopulations and interventions put in place to address student deficiencies. 6. LIST OUTSTANDING OR NEW RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES. 7. SHARE A RECAP OF HONORS AND/OR AW ARDS WON (staff, school, student). 8. RECAP PARTICIPATION AT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, OR LOCAL CONFERENCES OR INSERVICES. 9. PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HA VE WITHDRAWN OR EXITED YOUR SCHOOL'S PROGRAM AND THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. 10. SUPPLY ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WISH TO INCLUDE. Stipulation Magnet Principals ANNUAL REPORT to the MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 2012-2013 (LIST YOUR NAME HERE) (name of school) School website: F acebook/twitter: Principal's Name: E-Mail: Direct Phone Line: Asst. Principal's Name: E-Mail: Direct Phone Line: (Area of responsibility, if applicable): School Secretary: Direct Phone: Counselor: Direct Phone: PT A President: E-Mail: Phone: SCHOOL COMPOSITION Race/ Native African Hispanic/ Multi-ethnicity American Asian American Latino White Ethnic (complete (complete (complete (complete (complete (complete Number your your your your your your of numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers children here) here) here) here) here) here) (complete (complete (complete (complete (complete (complete your your your your your your Number numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers of staff here) here) here) here) here) here) SCHOOL COMPOSITION cont. Grade Configuration: (List total number of students per grade level, by race/ethnicity.) REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES Faculty /Staff: Curriculum Related Materials: Equipment/Facility: Other (please list): (NOTE: List \"none\" in each category where you are not requesting an increase.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. CURRENT ACSIP FOCUS (Please provide a copy of your current ACSIP report to each MRC member in your written report.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT SCHOOL STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS (If any occurred during 2012-13 or are proposed for 2013-14. Do not include any prior to 2012-13.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS Changes in 2012-13 or Proposed Changes for 2013-14: (NOTE: ONLY changes this year or needed changes next year, not the entire curriculum offered.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Achieved/Not Achieved: Overall: Math/Literacy Areas Individually: Subpopulation info: Provide data for the past three years showing achievement gap in math and literacy, in particular, on African-American student achievement. (Provide by grade, race and gender.) LRSD's STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS Achieved/Not Achieved: (Show evidence for Benchmark performance by grade, race and gender) INTERVENTION OR SUPPORT SERVICES Provided by your school (to students or teachers) to enhance academics, test taking skills or to raise test scores. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. RECRUITMENT Outstanding/New Recruitment Activities. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. SCHOOLHONORS~WARDS School/Staff /Student Recognitions. Participation at National/Regional/Local Conferences. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. WITHDRAWALS Provide number of students who have withdrawn or exited your school's program and the reasons for doing so (by grade, race and gender). DISCIPLINE REPORT Provide report which includes suspensions, expulsions and in-school discipline efforts (by grade, race and gender). ~ MISCELLANEOUS Information you may wish to include but not covered in previous slides) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report.\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_197","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-04-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/197"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","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  \n\n2013 Senior Art Exhibit Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas April 9-April 16 THEA Foundation Center for the Arts John Kohn Tenenbaum Gallery 401 Main Street North Little Rock, AR Gallery Hours: 9am to 12 noon, 1 pm to 5pm Monday-Friday Public Reception: Tuesday, April 16th, 6:00-7:30 pm Senior Recognition Ceremony, 6:45 pm MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA APRIL 9, 2013 I. Call to Order - Roll Call II. Reading of the Minutes of February 12, 2013 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Stipulation Magnet School Evaluation Report - Update B. MRC Policy for Sibling Preference - Discussion C. Schedule Annual Report from Magnet Principals V. Adjournment MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES February 12, 2013 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held at Mann Magnet School, 1000 East Roosevelt, Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, February 12, 2013. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, LRSD- Chairperson Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Guests: Patricia Boykin, Principal of Mann Magnet Margie Powell, ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:50 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of January 15, 2013. Danny Reed made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, and Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She called the Committee's attention to several items in correspondence. The letters and emails were thank you letters and memorandums to all personnel and associates who assisted to make Magnet Fair a success. Copies of the correspondence were given to all MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC. Bills in the amount of $8,034.67 were presented for payment. Ms. Creer provided a brief recap of the expenses and noted that most had to do with early enrollment and Magnet Fair costs. Danny Reed made a motion to pay the bills and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. A listing of all newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting was given to all MRC members for their information. Ms. Creer provided a brief recap and reminded Committee members that copies are available upon request through the MRC Office. An article from Magnet Schools of America was also given to MRC members for their perusal. Ms. Creer noted that this article provided information about magnets still being a viable school choice. With regard to a recruitment update, information received from the Little Rock School District's Student Registration Office was given to all MRC members. This report provided a listing of students who have been assigned to the Stipulation magnet schools and the vacant seats still available. Joy Springer said she has to study the report and, if she has questions, she will let the MRC know. A copy of the letters sent to rising 5th and 8th grade students from North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District students was given to MRC members for their information. The letter provided parents with the procedure for application for their student as they enter either the 6th or 9th grade. No action was required by the MRC. Magnet Fair was a success. Schools are reporting that several tours have been scheduled as a result. People applauded the larger stage at McCain Mall. All in all, the change of venue this year seems to be proving to be an asset. Dr. Mitchell described some of the activities going on at the school booths at Magnet Fair, and Oliver Dillingham observed how the schools tried to attract people to their booths. On Monday following Magnet Fair, Parkview Magnet did an \"Arts Night Out\" at their school. It was a good idea but not a lot of people participated. -2- Central is doing events for Black History Month and Chinese New Year. Ms. Creer is planning to attend the Chinese New Year activity. Patricia Boykin, Principal of Mann Magnet, will be doing the presentation for Mann Magnet before the Little Rock School District Board soon. She was not able to attend the meeting with the other Stipulation magnet principals in January, due to illness. Dr. Clowers asked if there is any information to support the fact that having the Magnet Fair at McCain Mall helped to recruit more students from PCSSDa nd NLRSD. Ms. Creer said we are looking into those numbers at present. Little Rock School District's Elementary Science Fair was held at the Metroplex. Overall, the top award went to a magnet school, and there were several winning entries from magnet schools. Dr. Mitchell informed the MRC that another activity in Little Rock School District will be taking place during March. This activity is called Artistry in the Rock and will be a two-day event. More details will follow. With regard to personnel vacancies and new hires in the Stipulation magnet schools, there are none to report at this time. When Ms. Creer made her report before the Little Rock School District Board, she reminded the School Board members that the MRC does an evaluation report for the Stipulation magnet schools. Dr. Karen DeJarnette is ready to start the next report cycle, and Ms. Creer will be working with her to provide her with our research questions for the new report. Ms. Springer asked that the MRC Office share with MRC members before the final evaluation is accepted. This data needs to be shared with MRC to see if the final report is on target. A discussion was held with regard to the MRC-generated policies. The option of adding sibling preference at the middle school level was the main topic of -3- S\" '/ discussion. Ms. Creer is doing research on this question. The trend is to continue the sibling preference in middle schools as they have in elementary schools. Many will be adding sibling preference because of declining enrollment. There are several ways of incorporating it. She has talked with the people at the Student Assignment Offices, and they all thought it would be a benefit. Danny Reed asked if it looked like it would increase the enrollment numbers. Ms. Creer said that because it is only three grades, she doesn't know. She has heard from other districts, and they say that the most important thing is to get the word out. Ms. Springer said she has no objection to it. After evaluation, we may need to go back and look at MRC policies. Danny Reed then made a motion to change the sibling preference policy by extending it to middle schools. Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Dr. Clowers asked if someone new comes into the district, and a seat is open, can they seat the child during semester. This cannot be done if someone is coming from one of the other districts in Pulaski County, but it can if they are new to the county of Pulaski. Mr. Dillingham said we need to look at a three-year period to see how many times this occurred, and then see if the other districts are being hurt by this. A listing of dates for the rest of the school year for MRC meetings was provided to all Committee members. Dr. Clowers informed the MRC that he will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for March lih. It was noted that the schedule for the annual report from magnet school principals needs to be scheduled. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Bobby Acklin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:37 a.m. -4- I MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID APRIL 9, 2013 1. CompSys (Monthly Billing to Host MRC's Website) 2. Staples Advantage (Supplies for the MRC Office) 3. Capital Business Machines (Monthly Billing for MRC's Maintenance Contract for the MRC Office Copier) 4. Central Arkansas Newspapers (Advertising during Early Enrollment and Magnet Fair) 5. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Subscription Renewal) 6. Leader Publishing (Advertising During Early Enrollment) 7. American Home Life (MRC's Office Rent) 8. American Home Life (MRC's Communications Expense) 9. Capital Business Machines (Monthly Billing for MRC's Maintenance Contract for the MRC Office Copier) 10.CompSys (Monthly Billing to Host MRC's Website) 11.Staples (Supplies for the MRC Office) 12.Central Arkansas Newspapers (Advertising) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID 48.33 5.50 77.76 632.00 60.00 170.40 825.00 182.50 77.76 48.33 81.32 351.00 $2,559.90 Desegregationh earingss et Pleaso n docketf orr eleasef roms upervisionca, shc utoff CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr., the presiding judge in the 30-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit, on Friday announced dates for a series of court hearings to take place before the end of the year. The topics of the various hearings fall into two categories: the Pulaski County Special School District's request to be released from court supervision of some of its desegregation efforts, and Arkansas' request to be released from the multimillion- dollar payments and other obligations imposed in a 1989 settlement agreement with the three districts in Pulaski County. The first of the hearings on the Pulaski County Special District's request for partial unitary status and release from court supervision will focus on the district's efforts in the areas of special education. That court hearing will be Aug. 20-22. The second hearing will be I c:\nT, L 3-5a nd will focus on the .1~trict's steps to address the use of one-race classrooms in the 18,000-student system. The third hearing will be Sept. 17-19 on whether the Pulaski County Special District has met its desegregation commitments in regard to staffing and personnel. The fourth in the series of hearings will be Oct. 1-3 and will be on the district's compliance with the secondary gifted education program and Advanced Placement program provisions in its desegregation plan. In the order, Marshall also sets dates for the parties to engage in \"discovery,\" or collecting information for their cases, and he set dates for the parties to exchange their exhibits and the lists of people they will call as witnesses. He scheduled a 1:30 p.m., pretrial conference meeting with the attorneys for Aug. 6. The Joshua intervenors, who represent the black students in all three Pulaski County districts, are opposing Pulaski County Special's request for partial unitary status. Regarding the state's motion to be relieved from the 1989 financial settlement agreement, a two-week hearing is set for Dec. 9-20. A pretrial conference is scheduled for 9:30 am. Nov. 22. As a result of the decades- old settlement, the state is now paying the three Pulaski County school districts a combined $70 million a year, with about $40 million going to the Little Rock School District for the operation of magnet schools and the majority- to-minority interdistrict student transfer program, as well as teacher health insurance and retirement costs. The Little Rock School District is leading the opposition to the state's efforts to be released from the 1989 settlement. The state has argued that it should be released in part because the Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been declared unitary and released from court supervision of their desegregation efforts. Attorneys for the district have countered that the state must prove it has remedied its constitutional violations that resulted in the state payments. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT POLICY Adopted December 21, 1988 Revised December 12, 2000 Revised February 15, 2005 1. Vacant seats at entry levels (K, 6th , and 9th) will be apportioned in accordance with percentages set forth in the Stipulation. 2. Preference will be given to PCSSD and NLRSD students for vacancies occurring in grades 1-5, 7-8, 10-11-12. If PCSSD and NLRSD are unable to fill their allocated seats, Little Rock School District students may be seated. 3. Students who apply for magnet school seats, and who have a sibling in the school for which they are applying, will be given priority on the waiting list. This will apply to the elementary level only. 4. Students will not be guaranteed placement from one organization level to the next.  Originally adopted in December, 1988, this policy governs enrolhnent. The content has been changed to include sibling preference provisions. The February 15, 2005 revision changed the grade levels to coincide with the reorganization which took place when middle schools and four-year high schools were established.\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_239","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-02-12"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education and state","Magnet schools","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/239"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","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\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_180","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2013-01-15"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts,and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/180"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","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  \n\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA January 15, 2013 I. Call to Order - Roll Call II. Reading of the Minutes of December 11, 2012 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report - Discussion of Research Questions for New Report B. MRC Policy Review Preview C. Calendar of Meetings for January-June, 2013 D. Schedule Annual Report from Principals V. Adjournment MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES December 11, 2012 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, December 11, 2012. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, LRSD - Chairperson Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Guest: Margie Powell, ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of November 16, 2012. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to accept the minutes as presented, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. Since there were no written items in correspondence, Ms. Creer directed the Committee's attention directly to the financial transactions with bills in the amount of $1,055.83. Bobby Acklin made a motion to pay the bills, and Joy Springer seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. DRAFT ORAFT Ms. Creer provided a brief recap of the newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting. She reminded the Committee if they want a copy of an article, the MRC Office is keeping an archive. Ms. Creer reminded the MRC that a copy of the Court Order approving the interdistrict magnet schools budget had been received and already forwarded to MRC members electronically. With regard to a recruitment update, Ms. Creer reported that MRC's new website is up and running. Facebook and Twitter is also available to the public now as well. Magnet Fair will be held on January 26, 2013 at McCain Mall. Early application time is January 28, 2013 through February 8, 2013. Ms. Creer is setting up a meeting with Pat Boykin, Principal at Mann, regarding Mann's individual recruitment efforts. Ongoing programs at the schools with regard to the holiday season are being used to recruit interested students. Elementary students are being invited to Mann, and middle school students have been invited to Parkview. Joy Springer asked if there were any seats open at semester. Ms. Creer said the placements were taking place at this time to fill any vacant seats. Ms. Springer said she would also like to see the results of both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District in their recruitment efforts to place students. With regard to personnel vacancies and new hires in the Stipulation magnet schools, Ms. Creer reported that there are none at this time. Ms. Creer reported on the lnterdistrict Magnet Schools Evaluation Report. She gave all Committee members a copy of Joy Springer's e-mail from the previous meeting when Ms. Springer was unable to attend but forwarded the correspondence in response to research questions. Ms. Creer has talked with Dr. -2- DRAFT Karen DeJarnette, and Dr. DeJarnette has informed Ms. Creer that LRSD will help in getting this new evaluation report finished. Ms. Springer reported that Little Rock School District (PRE Department) is doing a lot of reports regarding special education, and she suggests that they take the lead in getting the report done. PRE can answer the questions that Ms. Springer has submitted. Some of the principals and staff members can be a part of the team. It is very important since the State has indicated that they do not want to continue participation in funding for magnet schools. We need to know if they have a good basis for their beliefs. The MRC will probably will have to pay Dr. DeJarnette something for collecting the data. Dr. Robert Clowers said he had the opportunity to work with PRE recently, and was greatly impressed with their system. Ms. Springer asked that Ms. Creer pass the research questions on to Dr. DeJarnette. Dr. Clowers asked if there is a risk regarding black and non-black students getting to a tipping point. With regard to a report on the tracking of Stipulation magnet school students, Ms. Creer stated that people knew that Little Rock School District is doing research on why students leave magnet schools to go to charters, and they reported that 331 students have left LRSD. How was that number calculated? This looked to be less than nine students per year. Oliver Dillingham asked if there is a policy that a child cannot leave a magnet before the end of the semester. Ms. Creer explained the procedure and how the wording reads on the magnet school application. A conversation was then held with regard to this issue. Ms. Creer was asked to talk to Kelsey Bailey, CFO for LRSD, and see if there is a way to set up the budget differently for submission. -3- DRAFT DRAFT. A brief discussion was held regarding our second semester schedule for MRC meetings, and it was suggested that we pull straws for the schools to hold a meeting on their campus. Mr. Dillingham also suggested that the MRC visit a school in the spring, with that school providing their annual report to the MRC at that time. Dr. Mitchell asked if there was any items that should be added to our meeting agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Dillingham suggested that the enrollment figures be put in each packet. Do it in a simple way and make it a standard agenda item. It was agreed by consensus that the next MRC meeting will be held on January 15, 2013, in the MRC Office, at 8:30 a.m. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Dr. Robert Clowers seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m. -4- DRAFT Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: Dr. Jerry Guess, Superintendent - PCS SD Dr. Morris Holmes, Superintendent - LRSD Dr. Tom Kimbrell, Education Commissioner - ADE Mr. Ken Kirspel, S~~ndent - NLRSD FROM: Donna Grady Cree~tive Director SUBJ: DATE: Magnet Review Committee MAGNET SCHOOL FAIR 2013 -January 26, 2013 January 14, 2013 Thank you for your support of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program. Your involvement in the program helps ensure its continued success. The 18th Annual Magnet School Fair will be held on Saturday, January 26, 2013, at McCain Mall, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. This memorandum comes to cordially invite you to attend. We welcome you to visit any, or all, of the magnet school booths staffed by school administrators, staff, parents, students and volunteers. They are prepared to answ\\\n:r questions about their school's program. Throughout the day, magnet school student performance groups will showcase at the stage area. We invite you to attend and to speak to the Magnet Fair attendees if you so desire. If you would like to briefly (3-5 minutes) address the Magnet Fair attendees, please have someone in your office contact Sandy at 758-0156. Once again, thank you. We look forward to seeing you at the 18th Annual Magnet School Fair on Saturday, January 26, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. DGC:sl cc: Dr. Sadie Mitchell - LRSD MRC Rep Bobby Acklin - NLRSD MRC Rep Dr. Robert Clowers - PCSSD MRC Rep Oliver Dillingham - ADE MRC Rep Danny Reed - ADE MRC Rep \"Purwe the Possibilities of Maenet School Enrollment\" Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Brenda Miller-Anderson - LRSD Student Registration Office Tonya Click - LRSD Student Registration Office Andreia Crawford - LRSD Student Registration Office Deana Eggleston - LRSD Student Registration Office Maria Garcia - LRSD Student Registration Office Michelle Oliver - PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Dr. Debbie Price - LRSD Student Registration Office Yolanda Richards - PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Tameka White - N~1vtD Desegregation Office Donna Grady Cre~cutive Director Magnet Review Committee Magnet Fair Volunteers January 10, 2013 It's that time of the year again! The Magnet Fair is just around the comer and, of course, the Magnet Review Committee needs help!! The 18th Annual Magnet School Fair is scheduled for SATURDAY, JANUARY 26, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., in McCain Mall. Any volunteer time you could provide for that day to help us man the \"Magnet School Information Booth\" would REALLY be appreciated. Please let Sandy know when you might be able to share a few hours of that Saturday. We really rely on your expertise. Thank you for your help. We appreciate each and every one of you. DGC:sl cc: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Desegregation Office Dr. Brenda Bowles, PCSSD Equity and Pupil Services Office Dr. Frederick Fields, LRSDE Student Registration Office \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" FW: HOLIDAY PROGRAM INVITATION FW: HOLIDAY PROGRAM INVITATION Donna Creer Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:46 AM To: Magnet Review From: Donna Creer Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:59 PM To: Carson, Cheryl Subject: RE: HOLIDAYP ROGRAMIN VITATION Thanks so much for the invite Page 1 of 1 I will be at one or the other and I will put this up on the magnet school review committee facebook page and twitter! ( social media to get some students!) From: Carson, Cheryl [Cheryl.Carson@lrsd.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 12:58 PM To: Donna Creer Subject: HOLIDAYP ROGRAMIN VITATION Please accept this invitation for you to attend our dress rehearsal of \"When Posey Peaks\" at 8:30 A.M. and/or the family and community performance at 6:30 P.M. on December 17, 2012 in the Booker Arts Magnet School Gym. As always, thank you so much for your support of our arts magnet school program. We hope to see you soon! httos://mail.comosvscloud.com/owa/?ae=Item\u0026amp;t=IPM.Note\u0026amp;id=RgAAAABV7LPR2NU... 12/13/2012 r_vv: ntrKv1ew .n1gn .:-:,cnoo1- Lignnng ~ystem FW: Parkview High School - Lighting System Donna Creer Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 8:50 AM To: Magnet Review From: Donna Creer Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:51 PM To: Booth, Dexter\nBailey, Kelsey Cc: Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org Subject: RE: Parkview High School - Lighting System Page 1 of 3 Thank you Dr Booth.We have a new computer system and I think I have accidentially deleted the email group that delineated the request from Dr Booth for the light board which was sent to MRC shortly after their report to MRC in the spring. I forwarded that on to Mr Bailey and Dr Mitchell for their comment/thoughts on how this could be accomplished. If my memory is ANY good, the plan was for PV to pay for it and include it in NEXT YEARS budget to be reimbursed. At this point, I think we need a swift plan of action to get the light board in place and used by students and staff for our upcoming recruitment and spring concerts series. I know we all want to see the light board purchased ASAP From: Booth, Dexter [Dexter.Booth@lrsd.org) Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:20 PM To: Donna Creer\nBailey, Kelsey Subject: RE: Parkview High School - Lighting System Mr. Bailey and Mrs. Creer, I am sorry about this late reply to your e-mail, but I have been with Attorney Heller in conferences all morning. The status of the lighting control console was not detected until after my report to MRC. I reported it to Mrs. Creer approximately a week after my report to MRC. In short, I will get with by bookkeeper on Friday (she is out sick today) and check the budget to see if we can afford to rob Peter to pay Paul. Respectfully, DB -----Original Message----- From: Donna Creer [mailto:donnacreer@magnetschool.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:01 PM To: Bailey, Kelsey Cc: Booth, Dexter Subject: RE: Parkview High School - Lighting System This was an addendum to Parkview Magnets report to MRC I will look up the email path and forward it to you. Thanks for giving this your immediate attention. I appreciate you From: Bailey, Kelsey [Kelsey.Bailey@lrsd.org) Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:18 AM To: Booth, Dexter Cc: Burton, Marvin\nDonna Creer\nBoosey, Fred\nHowell, Debbie\nZink, Judy\nMitchell, https://mail.compsyscloud.com/owa/?ae=ltem\u0026amp;t=IPM.Note\u0026amp;id=RgAAAABV7LPR2NU... 12/14/2012 FW: Parkview High School - Lighting System Page 2 of 3 Sadie\nParadis, Darral Subject: Re: Parkview High School - Lighting System Dr. Booth, Was this request presented to the Magnet Review Committee as discussed for approval? If so, was it approved? This purchase will need to be made out of Parkview's budget. You will also need to check with Procurement on this purchase. Kelsey On Dec 12, 2012, at 4:53 PM, \"Booth, Dexter\" \u0026lt;Dexter.Booth@lrsd.org\u0026lt;mailto:Dexter.Booth@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\u0026gt; wrote: Mr. Bailey, Per our conversation earlier this year, the lighting control console in the Parkview Auditorium is now totally inoperable. I am officially requesting (for you to purchase) a new lighting control console for the Parkview Auditorium as soon as possible. If more information is needed before you approve this request, please do not hesitate to call and/or e-mail me. Respectfully, DB P.S. Please see the attachments for more pertinent information about this request. From: Howell, Debbie Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:10 PM To: Booth, Dexter Cc: Zink, Judy\n'John Cooke'\nBoosey, Fred\nSutterfield, Spencer Subject: FW: Parkview High School - Lighting System Hi Dr. Booth, I am forwarding you a report of the maintenance that had to be done to get our lighting equipment( lights only) functional after the electrical storm that occurred on Sunday. Although that was a relatively easy fix, unfortunately the damage to our already failing lighting control console was extensive. Repairing it will be costly, time consuming and there are no guarantees that it will be fully functional and future failures are likely. As you know our spring is full of fine arts magnet activities in the auditorium. We really need to replace the console a.s.a.p. To get through the band concert tomorrow night, StageWorks has graciously(temporarily) loaned us one of their rental boards. At present ours is completely inoperable. Sincerely, Debbie Howell From: John Cooke [mailto:JOHN@STAGEWORKS.COM] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:13 PM To: Howell, Debbie Cc: John Cooke Subject: Parkview High School - Lighting System Debbie - Our report which is being sent to Maintenance \u0026amp; Operations is attached - along with the quote for the lighting control console from the fall. Pricing is valid through the end of the calendar year. Please let me know what more we can do to help. Best Regards, j https:/ /mail.compsyscloud.com/owa/?ae=I tem\u0026amp;t=IPM.N ote\u0026amp;id= RgAAAABV7LPR2NU... 12/14/2012 l' .w : .t'arKv1ewtt 1gn :::\u0026gt;cnoo-1L 1gntmg :system John Cooke STAGEWORKS, Inc. 3721 Harold Street North Little Rock, AR 72118 voice 501.375.2243 Ext 103 fax 501.375.2650 cell 501.258.7005 john@stageworks.com\u0026lt;mailto:john@stageworks.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;ServiceReport ParkviewHS.pdf\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Q 110428.01R2.pdf\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Q 110428.03.pdf\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Q 110428.02R2.pdf\u0026gt; Page 3 of3 https:/ /mail.compsyscloud.com/owa/?ae=Item\u0026amp;t=IPM.Note\u0026amp;id=RgAAAABV7LPR2NU... 12/14/2012 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Kid's Directory MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID JANUARY 15, 2013 (Advertising in Kid's Directory two times) McCain Mall (Fee to Rent McCain Mall area for Magnet Fair 2013) Thornton Broadcast Communications (Services Rendered and Cost of Equipment for Sound System at Magnet Fair 2013) Staples (Supplies for the MRC Office) American Home Life (MRC's Office Rent for January, 2013) American Home Life (MRC's Communications Expense for December, 2012) Sam's Club (Membership Renewal for the MRC Office) Radio Disney (Contract Fee to Advertise with Radio Disney during Magnet School Application Time) Wardell Laster, Jr. (Services Rendered and Printing Charges to Print Application Forms and Brochures for Recruitment and Early Application) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID 860.00 500.00 1,100.00 106.43 825.00 182.50 70.00 800.00 1,325.00 5,768.93 12-9-12 12-11-12 12-11-12 12-14-12 12-14-12 12-15-12 12-17-12 12-21-12 12-29-12 1-7-13 1-8-13 1-9-13 1-10-13 1-10-13 1-11-13 1-11-13 1-13-13 1-14-13 NEWS ARTICLES Education Notebook 4 School Districts Shed Fiscal Distress Schools Denied Unitary Rulings 24 Seek NLR Superintendent Post LR to Launch Superintendent Search LR District Readies Anti-bullying Plan Give Hope a Chance-And this charter school a try-EDITORIAL NLR School Board OK's Pay Increases in District Judge Approves School-Case Settlement NLR Moving to End School Suit LR District Combats Bullying in School {Picture) LR Educators Approve Terms in New Contract Band's Fundraising a Little Short {Picture of Central's Band) School Recycling Program {Picture) NLR Schools Pare Field for Top Job to 5 Holmes: Increase School Guards Education Notebook Partnership Seeks Remedy to LR Truancy\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_211","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda","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":["2012-12-11"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda"],"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/211"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)"],"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\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 11, 2012 I. Call to Order - Roll Call II. Reading of the Minutes of November 16, 2012 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel- Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report- Discussion of Research Questions for New Report B. Report on Tracking of Stipulation Magnet School Students Upon Withdrawal C. MRC Policy Review Preview D. Calendar of Meetings for January-June, 2013 V. Adjournment\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_168","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2012-11-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/168"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","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  \n\nMargie Powell From: Date: To: \"Magnet Review\" \u0026lt;magnet@magnetschool.com\u0026gt; Friday, November 16, 2012 12:20 PM \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;acklinbo@nlrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rclowers@pcssd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Oliver.Dillingham@Arkansas.gov\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Danny.Reed@Arkansas.gov\u0026gt; Page 1 of 4 Cc: \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Creer\" \u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt; Subject: FW: 11/16 MRC meeting As promised in our meeting this morning, November 16th, here is the e-mail from Joy Springer regarding research questions for the Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report for your review. This item will be on our agenda for our meeting scheduled for December 11, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., in the MRC Office. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thanks, Sandy From: Donna Creer Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:14 PM To: Magnet Review Subject: FW: 11/16 MRC meeting From: Joy Springer Qspringer@gabrielmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:51 AM To: 'Mitchell, Sadie' Cc: Donna Creer Subject: RE: 11/16 MRC meeting Good morning ... Will not be able to make the committee meeting this morning are the research questions that I believe need to be addressed(the first question is a standard part of the Board approved evaluation research questions: 1) Have magnet school been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement 11/19/2012 Page 2 of 4 of African American students\n2) What is the level of implementation of the magnet school programs? 3) What are the perceptions of teachers, staff, parents students regarding the magnet school program and the implementation of the magnet school program by its staff? Also their perceptions of the program strengths and weaknesses 4) What are the perceptions of parents who have withdrawn their students from magnet schools? 5) What are the reasons for the decline of white student enrollment in magnet schools and the increase of non-white students in magnet schools? 6) What is the reason for the higher achievement of African American students who attend magnet schools as compared to African American students who attend area elementary schools? 7) What is the reason for the decline of participation by the NLRSD and PCSSD in LRSD magnet schools? Please let me know if you have questions. Please forward the agenda for today's meeting by return email. Have a good meeting. Thank you. Joy Springer, Joshua Representative -----Original Message----- From: Mitchell, Sadie [mailto:Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:36 AM To: Joy Springer Cc: Donna Creer Subject: Re: 10/2 MRC meeting Thanks Joy. We appreciate your insight and for drafting the research questions. Sadie Mitchell, Ed.D, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District Elementary Schools On Oct 3, 2012, at 8:01 AM, \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt; jspringer@gabrielmail.com \u0026lt;mailto:jspringer@gabrielmai I.com\u0026gt;\u0026gt; wrote: 11/19/2012 Page 3 of 4 Good morning .. I had a personal emergency on yesterday and apologize that I was not able to attend the meeting. Dr. Dreyfus' report indicates a decline in white student enrollment and an increase in the nonwhite enrollment in the magnet schools. For the magnet schools, the percentage is reported as % black and % nonblack. There has been a decline in white student enrollment and an increase in \"other\" minority enrollment in the magnet schools. The question is why? believe on the call you or Sadie indicated that there is form that parents can complete to give the reasons why. We need to know why? This data needs to be collected and analyzed. If the magnet schools are going to be majority minority in the days to come, I do not see that they are serving their purpose - to attract white students into the district schools. So why have them? Now that I thought about it some more. The magnet elementary schools', probably with the except of Booker and maybe Carver in one area, achievement gap is not 20 points, high double digit teens or more like in the secondary magnet schools. Why is this? What is going on in the magnet schools that can be transferred to the other elementary schools in the district to address African American student achievement? We need to know why African American students are performing better in magnet schools than they are in the regular elementary schools. If all schools are doing the same thing, there would not be a dispute about getting into a magnet school. I guess I am saying that all of the schools should be magnet schools. I guess than the achievement gap would eventually go away. Isn't that what we are striving to do? I will try to write out the research questions and bring them to our next meeting. Hopefully, these comments will help you understand my concerns. Thanks, Joy Springer, Joshua From: Donna Creer [mailto:donnacreer@magnetschool.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:55 AM To: jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026lt;mailto:jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Subject: 10/2 MRC meeting We missed you at the meeting today. We approved the stipulation magnet schools budget, the purchase of a much needed light board at Parkview and the 2010-11 stipulation magnet schools evaluation. 11/19/2012 Page 4 of 4 Sadie, Bobby and I tried to articulate most of the questions you mentioned during our conference call( with Dr Dreyfus) , however, we would prefer if you would take a moment to forward them via email and/or bring them to our November meeting, scheduled for FRIDAY, November 16th , 8:30 am at the MRC office. We asked all MRC members to contribute any research question they would like to see addressed in the next evaluation. I will bring your packet by your office later this week. Thanks for everything. 11/19/2012 MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA NOVEMBER 16, 2012 i. Call to Order- Roll Call II. Reading of the Minutes of October 2, 2012 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business and/or Action Items A. Discussion of Court Orders Related to MRC's Submission of Budget to the Court B. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report - Discussion of Research Questions for New Report C. Report on Tracking of Stipulation Magnet School Students Upon Withdrawal D. Appeal - Withdrawal of Student from Gibbs Magnet E. Set Next Meeting Date V. Adjournment MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 2012 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas, on Tuesday, October 2, 2012. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Absent: Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Guests: Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer - LRSD Margie Powell, Federal Monitor- ODM The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie Mitchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of June 7, 2012. A motion was made by Oliver Dillingham and seconded by Danny Reed to accept the minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Oliver Dillingham and seconded by Dr. Robert Clowers to change the order of the Agenda so Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer at Little Rock School District, could come forward and present the Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget information for presentation to the Court. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Bailey informed the MRC that the ADM was down by about 88 students from the previous ADM. Mr. Bailey also reported that the approved budget for the 2011-12 school year had been set at $29,449,577.00. The final expenditures for this same time period came in at $29,400,397.00 and included a one percent salary increase and additional benefits. The proposed budget for 2012-13 is up about $200,000.00 and was submitted at $29,655,558.00. This figure included calculating athletic expenses a little bit differently. This amount is in the same vicinity as it was for three years now, so Little Rock School District is looking good for this year. It is LRSD's plan to stay within their budget this year. Mr. Bailey also noted that Mann's addition is going up at a cost of about $4.3 million, and a security guard has been added to Carver Magnet and Booker Magnet. With regard to Parkview's request for a new lighting board, Mr. Bailey said that will be paid for at the end of the year. A motion was made by Danny Reed to approve the new lighting board at Parkview and Bobby Acklin seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was then made by Danny Reed to approve the proposed Stipulation Magnet Schools budget for 2012-13, and Bobby Acklin seconded it. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made to approve the actual expenditures for 2011-12 for the Stipulation Magnet Schools budget by Bobby Acklin. Danny Reed seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Bailey for his presentation to the MRC, as well as the MRC members for their votes. -2- Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She called the Committee's attention to items in correspondence. The first items were good news articles from Carver Magnet and Booker Magnet about recent awards for their schools. Copies of the e-mails were given to MRC members for their information, but no action was required. An e-mail was received from Williams Magnet Principal, Lori Brown, congratulating her staff about Williams being recognized as a 2012 NCEA Higher Performing School. Again, copies were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC. Copies of Gibbs' newsletter, Le Mundo, were given to MRC members for their perusal. The newsletter is distributed each week. Bills in the amount of $1,425.95 were presented for payment. Bobby Acklin made a motion to pay the bills, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Copies of newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting were given to MRC members for their information. Ms. Creer provided a brief overview. Due to the high number of articles that were in the packet, Oliver Dillingham asked if there was some way these articles could be e-mailed to MRC members. The MRC Office will set up some kind of system to make sure that members receive these articles by e-mail and keep a master copy in the MRC Office. Ms. Creer reported that during the Swap Meet, held on July 19, 2012, a discussion was held with regard to ways to become more cost efficient with regard to our application forms and withdrawal forms. The MRC Office is working with the three districts to determine if the number of copies for each form that is submitted could be reduced to lower the price for the cost of forms. Ms. Creer also reported that the number of vacancies for most grade levels and theme areas in the Stipulation magnet schools has been reduced to single digits. The few vacancies that are available will probably be filled at semester. -3- 1'71e' :\n' - f\u0026lt;h - With regard to New Hires and Vacancies in the Stipulation magnet schools, there are none to report at this time. On September 26, 2012, a conference call was held with Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Magnet Evaluation Report Consultant, Bobby Acklin, Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Joy Springer, and Donna Creer. They talked in terms of overall theme for the next evaluation report and what research questions might be considered for the report. Dr. Mitchell reported that one of the things the conference call participants discussed was the method of how students were selected for the programs, particularly African-American students. This really was not a research question. It was determined that the MRC needs to get the research questions done up front. Dr. Dreyfus agreed with this statement. Dr. Mitchell said that recruitment starts next month (private schools mainly) and students are beginning to make their choices. Ms. Springer wanted to know why LRSD is losing white students to charter schools. Dr. Mitchell said LRSD is training with clerical staff at magnets to learn about why students are leaving magnet schools and to determine where they are going. Ms. Springer asked who is leaving- students who are proficient, advanced, or below average? Oliver Dillingham asked if students are leaving because of discipline referral, or what. He also asked if there was a way that all three districts in Pulaski County could track students by an electronic transfer process. Dr. Mitchell said that LRSD has nothing in their system that would allow electronic transfer methods to follow students and ascertain their reason for leaving. Margie Powell, ODM Monitor, asked if there was a way to put a code on a student when they got to a new school to get the information about why they left. Dr. Mitchell said that for the six Stipulation magnet schools, LRSD is planning to tag the students in the warehouse and get the information as to why they leave. She said for Donna Creer to get with Dr. DeJarnette to get this handled - by race. -4- The big question is: What is happening to the white students who withdraw-where are they going? Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the 2010-11 Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report. Bobby Acklin seconded it, and the motion was unanimously approved. The Committee was questioned as to how Dr. Dreyfus should be paid for the upcoming report. A suggestion was made that MRC may be able to share some of the cost with LRSD, but that $10,000 should be allocated in the MRC budget. It was approved by consensus that the next MRC meeting will be held on Friday, November 16, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., in the MRC Office. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Dr. Robert Clowers seconded it. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 a.m. -5- Sandy Luehrs From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Donna Creer [donnacreer@magnetschool.com] Wednesday, October 03, 2012 4:37 PM Joy Springer 'Mitchell, Sadie' Re: 10/2 MRC meeting Thanks Joy. Thanks for the return email and stating that you will write out the research questions. We want to get started as soon as possible with the upcoming stipulation magnet school evaluation and determining all the research questions will help to that end. The WITHDRAWAL FORM is the form that collects info on students who withdraw from Magnet Schools. At our meeting yesterday we discussed 1) reviewing the form with the office personnel at magnet schools and at each districts student registration office 2) Oliver and Bobby discussed ways that information is obtained statewide from students who withdraw from ANY school and go to another ARKANSAS public school 3) Sadie said that she would talk with Dr DeJarnette as to how this info is warehoused and how we may access it . I hope that your personal emergency worked itself out in your FAVOR Thanks again. From: Joy Springer Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 8:00 AM To: 'Donna Creer' Cc: 'Mitchell. Sadie' Subject: RE: 10/2 MRC meeting Good morning .. I had a personal emergency on yesterday and apologize that I was not able to attend the meeting. Dr. Dreyfus' report indicates a decline in white student enrollment and an increase in the nonwhite enrollment in the magnet schools. For the magnet schools, the percentage is reported as% black and% nonblack. There has been a decline in white student enrollment and an increase in \"other\" minority enrollment in the magnet schools. The question is why? I believe on the call you or Sadie indicated that there is form that parents can complete to give the reasons why. We need to know why? This data needs to be collected and analyzed. If the magnet schools are going to be majority minority in the days to come, I do not see that they are serving their purpose - to attract white students into the district schools. So why have them? Now that I thought about it some more. The magnet elementary schools', probably with the except of Booker and maybe Carver in one area, achievement gap is not 20 points, high double digit teens or more like in the secondary magnet schools. Why is this? What is going on in the magnet schools that can be transferred to the other elementary schools in the district to address African American student achievement? We need to know why African American students are performing better in magnet schools than they are in the regular elementary schools. If all schools are doing the same thing, there would not be a dispute about getting into a magnet school. I guess I am saying that all of the schools should be magnet schools. I guess than the achievement gap would eventually go away. Isn't that what we are striving to do? I will try to write out the research questions and bring them to our next meeting. Hopefully, these comments will help you understand my concerns. Thanks, Joy Springer, Joshua From: Donna Creer (mailto:donnacreer@magnetschool.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:55 AM To: jspringer@gabrielmail.com Subject: 10/2 MRC meeting We missed you at the meeting today. We approved the stipulation magnet schools budget , the purchase of a much needed light board at Parkview and the 2010-11 stipulation magnet schools evaluation. Sadie, Bobby and I tried to articulate most of the questions you mentioned during our conference call( with Dr Dreyfus), however, we would prefer if you would take a moment to forward them via email and/or bring them to our November meeting , scheduled for FRIDAY, November 16th, 8:30 am at the MRC office. We asked all MRC members to contribute any research question they would like to see addressed in the next evaluation. I will bring your packet by your office later this week. Thanks for everything. 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID November 16, 2012 Mass Enthusiasm (Final Payment to Create and Host MRC's Website) Aire Ark, Inc. (Four Months Billing to Host MRC's Website and E-Mail) American Home Life (MRC's Office Rent for November, 2012) American Home Life (MRC's Communications Expense for October, 2012) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Advertising in \"Where We Live\") Capital Business Machines (Monthly Billing for MRC's Copier Maintenance Agreement) Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Subscription Renewal for Three Months) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID 866.67 131.80 825.00 172.50 495.00 70.20 60.00 $2,621.17 10/8/2012 10/16/2012 10/24/2012 10/26/2012 10/27/2012 11/1/2012 11/1/2012 11/2/2012 11/2/2012 11/2/2012 11/7/2012 11/8/2012 11/9/2012 11/9/2012 11/1-2/2012 11/14/2012 11/15/2012 NEWS ARTICLES The Dead Come to Life at Mount Holly Cemetery's Tales of the Crypt Education Notebook District Staff Union Votes No Confidence in Leaders LRSD District Pupils Fewer Again, by 454 $875,000 Payment Sought for Intervenors in Desegregation Case Judge: School Workers Can't Sue State Over Unions' Dismissal Education Notebook State Board Approves Three New Charter Schools Little Rock Debaters Ride Out Storm in New York City Little Rock School Board's Peterson Dies at 63 County District Files Court Bid for Partial Unitary Status Obituary for Michael Peterson Little Rock Schools Hire Finn to Coach Instructors Alternative Schools to Share a Campus Education Notebook Optimism Rises on New District Little Rock Schools' Pay-Raise Plan Heads to Board Several of these articles have been sent to you via e-mail. If you wish a copy of any other article, please contact our office. To: VIPS Reading Day Volunteers in Magnet Schools From: Donna Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Date: November 13, 2012 Subject: Thank You and Magnet School Recruitment Thank you for visiting Williams Magnet School to read to students. We appreciate you spending your valuable time with our spectacular boys and girls. As you may know, magnet schools recruit students from Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts so, under certain guidelines, all students who live anywhere in Pulaski County, Arkansas may apply for a magnet school seat. Please feel free to share these upcoming dates with potential magnet school parents or students: CHECK US OUT: (school day visit to the campus of your choice) November 13-15: Each Magnet School - 9:00a.m. - 1 :30 p.m. 2013 MAGNET SCHOOL FAIR: Saturday, January 26, 2013 McCain Mall - 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. EARLY ENROLLMENT PERIOD for 2013-14 School Year: January 28 - February 8, 2013 For more information on magnet schools and programs, please visit our website www.magnetschool.com. Thanks again! Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} October 3, 2012 The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 501 West Capitol Room B-149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Marshall: On October 2, 2012, Mr. Kelsey Bailey, Chief Financial Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the budget figures delineating the actual expenditures for the Stipulation original magnet school budgets for 2011-2012, as well as the proposed budget for the 2012-2013 school year. The information is contained in the attachment and was presented to MRC members for their review and vote on that same date. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of 5-0 via actual attendance at the MRC meeting on October 2, 2012, approved the final budget (actual expenditures) for the 2011-2012 school year. The proposed budget for the 2012-2013 school year also was approved with a 5-0 vote during the same meeting. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Court for approval: 1. FINAL 2011-2012 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $29,449,577, was based on a per-pupil expenditure of $8,214.00, calculated from a projected third quarter average enrollment of 3,585.10 students. Once the actual attendance (3,497.20) and expenditure ($29,400,397) numbers were determined, the final per pupil amount was calculated to be $8,407.00, which was $193.00 more than originally budgeted. A Funding By Source schedule is shown on Page 2 of the attachment representing the costs allocated to each of the four (4) parties. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable D.P. Marshall -2- October 3, 2012 2. PROPOSED 2012-2013 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2012-2013 school year is $29,655,558.00, based on a proposed third quarter Average Daily Membership of 3,497.20, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $8,480.00 and an increase of $73 .00 per pupil from the 2011-2012 actual rate. Final negotiations including revisiting the salary schedule during the 2012-13 school year are not complete at this time. Included in the Funding by Source Summary portion of the attached report are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of both the 2011-2012 finalized actual expenditures in the amount of$29,400,397.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $8,407.00, as well as the proposed 2012-2013 budget, attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sinc.er ely, , Sadi son Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachment: Final 2011-2012 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget Actual Expenditures Proposed 2012-2013 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee COURT ORDER COURT ORDER Magnet Review Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:21 AM To: Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.orga\ncklinbo@nlrsd.org\nr clowers@pcssd.org\nO liver.Dillingham@Arkansas.gov\nDanny.Reed@Arkansas.gojvs\np ringer@gabrielmail.com Cc: mqpowell@odmemail.comK\nelsey.Bailey@lrsd.org Importance: High Attachments: Court Order Approving 2011~1.pdf (16 KB) Good Morning, everyone, Page 1 of 1 Attached is the Court Order approving the Interdistrict Magnet Schools' final 2011-12 budget and proposed 2012- 13 budget in response to MRC's submission in September, 2012. As you can see, if any party has an objection, it has to be filed by October 29, 2012. We are now awaiting the final Court Order from the judge after all parties have approved. Have a great day. Sandy 1 ()/\"1'1 /0/\\1,., - Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4781 Filed 10/17/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICL etaL v. No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM PLAINTIFFS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et aL LORENE JOSHUA, et aL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS ORDER The Magnet Review Committee has asked the Court to approve the interdistrict magnet schools' final 2011-12 budget and proposed 2012-13 budget. That request is attached to this Order. Any party having an objection should file it by 29 October 2012. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge Rx Date/Time OCT-30-2012(TU0E7):1 2 OCT/30/2012/0T9U:0E0 A M FAXN o. Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4784 Filed 10/29/12 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION P.001 P. 001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. 4:82-cv-866 DPM PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. DEFEND.A.l~TS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET ORDER (DE 4781) The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, state for their Response to the Court's Magnet School Budget Order: 1. The State of Arkansas has requested release from the 1989 Settlement Agreement including the requirement to fund the six stipulation magnet schools. Docket Entry (DE) 4723, 4724. All of the parties have responded to this motion, except the Knight Intervenors. DE 4736, 4739 (NLRSD), 4737, 4738 (PCSSD), 4743, 4744 (LRSD), 4748, 4749 (Joshua)\nSee also DE 4753 (ADE Response to LRSD), 4757 (ADE Reply to Responses to Motion for Release). 2. The State's formal motion for release was filed on March 26, 2012. On June 29, 2012, the ADE asked the Court to enter a scheduling order setting the State's motion for hearing and allowing a short discovery period on the Motion. DE 4767, 4768. PCSSD (DE 4771) and LRSD (DE 4772) responded to this motion. No other party filed a response. 3. The 1989 Settlement Agreement requires the State to pay the Pulaski County school districts, on average, about $5,500,000 each month. To date, the State has paid over $1.1 Rx Date/Time OCT-30-2012(TU0E7): 12 OCT/3-0/20120/T9:U0E0A M FAXN o. P.0 02 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4784 Filed 10/29/12 Page 2 of 4 billion\none billion dollars more than this settlement agreement was anticipated to cost the State in 1989. 4. In addition to the Motion for Release, the State has filed a number of other requests that the Court take up the propriety, indeed the constitutionality, of the consent decree which forces the State to continue to pay millions of dollars to the Pulaski County school districts, including magnet school fimding. DE 4557 (ADE Response to Court's Order Requesting Briefing on the M to M Program Funding), DE 4631 (Response to Order (DE 4608) Soliciting Views on Periodic Review of 1989 S_ettlemenAt greement). 5. \"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\" Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248, .111 S.Ct. 630, 637 (1991). \"[C]ourts must remain attentive to the fact that 'federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate federal law or does not flow from such a.violation.\"' Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 450, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 2595 (2009) quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 282, 97 S.Ct. 2749 (1977). 6. The stipulation magnet schools have served desegregation purposes for many years in this case. As explained by ADE on each of the above noted occasions, the interdistrict nature of the magnet schools no longer serves to \"desegregate\" the school districts. LRSD and NLRSD are fully unitary. PCSSD is unitary in how it assigns students to schools. As such, the legal justification for a federal court mandate of continued State funding has abated. While the stipulation magnet schools may continue to provide benefits to LRSD students and to education in the County, how to support those schools should be for the State and the Districts to decide on their own now. 2 P. 002 Rx Date/Time OCT-30-2012(TU0E7): 12 0CT/}0/2012/T09U:0E0 A M P. 003 FAX No. P. 003 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4784 Filed 10/29/t2 Page 3 of 4 7. Accordingly, the State requests that decisions regarding State funding of the magnet schools be released from federal court jurisdiction. WHEREFORE, the ADE requests that the Court release the State from any and all federal obligations to fund the stipulation magnet schools, that the Court set a hearing on the State's Motion for Release, and for all other relief to which it is entitled. Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General BY: Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 Assistant Attorneys General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF ARKANSAS AND  ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that on October 29, 2012, 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 mbumette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. John W. Walker . iohnwalkeratty@aol.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Ms. Deborah Linton dlinton@jacknelsonjones.com Ms. Mika Shadid Tucker mika.tucker@jacknelsonjones.com 3 Rx Date/Time OCT-30-2012(TU0E7): 12 OCT/3{)/20120/9T:U01EA M FAXN o. Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4784 Filed 10/29/12 Page 4 of 4 Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sj.ones@mwsgw.com Mr. Jess L. Askew, III iaskew@williamsanderson.com Marie Bernarede Miller mmiller@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor Mr. Allen P. Roberts . allen@aprobertslaw.com Mr. Jamie Fugitt ifugitt@williamsanderson.com mqpowell@odmemail.com\nlfbryant@odmemail.com, paramer@odmernail.com P. 004 I, Scott P. Richardson, Assist.ant Attorney General, do hereby certify that l have served the foregoing and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on October 29, 2012, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass. 021 73 . Mr. Michael K. Wilson Attorney at Law 602 Main St. Jacksonville, AR 72076 Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 4 P. 004 Kx ua1e111me NUV-~(-2~12(WE1D4): 50 N0V/07/2012/0W4:E3D9P M FAXN o. P.0 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4794 Filed 11/06/12 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCJIOOL DISTRICT v. NO. 4:82CV00866DPM PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERIN.E.K.NIGRT,.ET..A..L  -------- ------------.IN.TERVEN.ORS PCSSD'S REPLY TO RESPONSE TO MAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET ORDER (DE 4781) The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) for its reply to response States: l. On October 2, 2012, the magnet review committee by fonnal motion and a vote of five to zero from those in attendan9e approved the final budget for the magnet schools for the 2011-2012 school year. 2. At the same meeting, the proposed magnet school budget for the 2012-2013 school year was also approved by a five to zero vote. 3. This Court after being fwnis.hed with a copy of a letter dated October 3, 2012, recounting the particulars of the budget and the votes thereon entered an Order dated October l 7, 2012 allowing objections if made by October 29, 2012. 4. The members of the magnet review committee attending and voting unanimously to approve these budgets constituted the representative from the PCSSD, the representative from the NLRSD, the representative of the LRSD, and the two representatives of the Arkansas Department of Education. P. 003 Rx Date/Time NOV-07-2012(W1E4D:5) 1 N0V/07/20!2/W04E:4D0P M FAXN o. P. 002 P. 002/002 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4794 Filed 11/06/12 Page 2 of 4 5. On October 29, 2012, the Arkansas Department of Education, by and through the attorney general's office, moved the court to \"let the court release the State from any and all federal obligations to fund the stipulation magnet schools\" and set a hearing and grant all further  - ----reli\"ef-Thptrse suttrnblyr epresentst he-A.DE's obJe-cti\\'.\u0026gt;tHob1uiideg ets\n-  --  ----.. - ----- ------- 6. In paragraph 7 of its \"response\" the State also \"requests that decisions regarding state funding of the magnet schools be released from federal court jurisdiction.\" 7. By way of reply\nthe PCSSD incorporates by reference the ''PCSSD's response to S.t~te.).m oJion_fo.rre k~~-from. 1. 9-.8.9..se!tlemenat.g reement\n~. filed .._ ApriL3 0, .201.2. (Document. 4737). 8. It is not clear exactly what the State means in paragraph 7 of its response. Perhaps some amplification is supplied in the last sentence of paragraph 6 of its response, where the State notes that: ''While the stipulation magnet schools may continue to provide benefits to LRSD students and to education in the county, how to support those schooJs should be for the State and the district to decide on their own now\n' 9. The PCSSD disagrees. Absent a settlement to sub1J1it to the court, the court should be involved in any decision as to how, if, or when the magnet schools should be modified both m terms of the rules which regulate them as well as how they are funded and, just as importantly, who would bear their expense if state funding is withdrawn. l 0. The State in its Motion for Release completely ignored the expense side of the issue, as the PCSSD pointed out in Document 4737 at Paragraph 22, which it likewise incorporates by reference. 2 I\n1- l Rx Date/Time NOV-07-2012(W1E4D:5) 1 NOY/07/20120/W4:4E0DP M FAXN o. Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4794 Filed 11/06/12 Page 3 of 4 P. 001 P. 001/002 11. The PCSSD once again states that it is fiscally irresponsible to propose withdrawal of revenue without addressing how the concomitant expenses would be eliminated, abated, or somehow responsibly shifted to other funding sburces. funding issues by settlement rather than fiat. However, responsible resolution cannot be accomplished by simply withdrawing funding\nthe expense side of the equation has to be acknowledged and addressed. The State should propose a responsible resolution of the expense issue. _Tq__g_.iatt he as not,.d9.nes o, ... ------.. . __ ---- ------ ----....... ------- ..: .............................. . 13. Accordingly, the-PCSSD opposes the State's \"Response\" to magnet school budget order. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court denying the ADE's response dated October 29, 2012 and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 688.-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 E-mail: s1ones@mwI:iiw.com Isl M Samuel Jones, III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Allen P. Roberts 325 Jefferson Street, Southwest Camden, AR 71701 (870) 836-5310 FAX: (870) 836-9662 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4797 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 3 TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLATNTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERTNE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS TNTERVENORS INTER VENO RS LRSD'S REPLY TO ADE'S RESPONSE TO MAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET ORDER For its Reply, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. On October 2, 2012, the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) unanimously approved the final magnet school budget for the 2011-2012 school year and the proposed magnet school budget for the 2012-2013 school year. The two MRC members appointed by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) voted in favor of both budgets. 2. On October 17, 2012, the Court submitted the budgets approved by the M RC to the parties and established a period of time within which objections to those budgets could be filed. The time period has expired and no party has made any objection to any of the specific components of the proposed magnet school budgets. 3. On October 29, 2012, the Arkansas Department of Education filed a \"Response\" to the Court's October 17, 2012 Order, not an \"Objection\" to the magnet school budgets. ADE's \"Response\" simply reiterates the State's general objections, which have been made and answered elsewhere, to continued enforcement of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. ADE did not present 1999191 1-BRENDAK Page I of3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4797 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 3 any specific objections to the magnet school budgets. Since the State continues to be obligated to fund its share of the interdistrict magnet schools, and since it has made no specific objections to the budgets proposed by the Magnet Review Committee, the Court should approve the budgets as submitted. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an Order approving the interdistrict magnet schools' final 2011-2012 and proposed 2012-2013 budget, and for all other relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 370-1506 heller@fridayfirm.com Isl Christopher Heller Clay Fendley (#92182) John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. Attorney at Law 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 clayfendley@comcast.net CERTrFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November I 3, 2012, 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 the parties of record. Isl Christopher Heller 1999191 1-BRENDAK Page2of3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-DPM Document 4797 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 3 1999191 1-BRE DAK Page 3 of3\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_167","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","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":["2012-10-01"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","School integration","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"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/167"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1001-CENTRAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 18 23 219 184 10 19 2 0 0 103 76 3 5 663 10 27 26 172 t\\ 160 15 13 3 0 0 117 99 4 5 ~ 642 11 24 24 178 il} 156 7 18 0 0 0 0 124 ~ 101 3 () 636 ~ 91 ~ ~ 12 15 15 154 114 9 12 2 0 0 0 82 2 497 9?7z\u0026gt; CENTRAL TOTAL: 84 88 723 614 41 62 7 2 0 0 435 358 10 14 2438.....--- 1002-HALL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 09 2 130 130 31 32 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 0 347 10 2 109 ~ 115 21 25 0 0 0 0 5 ~ 10 0 0 288 '\\ 11 2 4 90 '{) 86 24 19 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 I 235 12 2 108 89 11 23 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 ~ 246 1?~ HALL TOTAL: 7 8 437 420 87 99 0 1 0 0 27 28 0 2 1116  1003-MANN M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 9 0 75 69 9 11 0 0 32 ~ 40 2 2 251 07 2 79 ~ 68 11 15 0 3 0 0 32 2 2 ~ 250 'f 64 35 Q1 ~ 08 4 4 83 13 9 3 0 0 0 56 !')f 37 3 1 277 MANN M/S TOTAL: 15 5 237 201 33 35 4 4 0 0 123 109 7 5 775/ 5t)\" )' \\ 10/1212012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 1 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1005-PARKVIEW I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 5 4 73 80 29 12 2 0 0 25 28 2 2 263 10 5 4 81 ~ 64 20 8 3 0 0 0 31 30 3 2 251 11 7 5 71 71 13 4 0 0 0 49 \u0026amp;1i o 34 3 3 ) 261 78 1\u0026lt;{) ~ 'o 12 60 9 10 0 0 45 26 2 2 236 18 14 303 275 71 34 7 2 0 0 150 118 10 9 1011 ...--- 911~ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 2 23 23 3 0 0 0 12 11 2 79 02 0 0 22 30 5 6 0 0 9 17 93 03 32 30 0 4 0 0 0 0 17 14 3 103 04 0 0 29 0 26 8 5 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 10 0 ~ 87 :-,_ 0 0 32 'ffi 23 3 5 0 0 0 0 12 \"' 12 2 2 \\\\. \u0026lt;: 05 91 K 0 20 20 3 3 0 0 0 6 9 4 4 71 6,i BOOKER TOTAL: 1 4 158 152 22 24 1 0 2 1 64 73 11 11 524  1007-DUNBAR M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 0 99 93 6 13 0 0 0 0 7 11 0 230 07 0 97 ~ 90 12 7 2 0 0 6~ 6 0 \\J.. 223 08 2 128 108 8 8 0 0 0 0 13 11 2 282 iJr. DUNBAR M/S TOTAL: 2 2 324 291 26 28 1 2 0 0 26 28 1 4 735  10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 2 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1013-HENDERSN M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 06 2 4 129 108 10 14 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 3 284 07 0 3 95 ' 101 6 9 0 0 0 3 t 8 0 2 ~ 228 e 08 0 92 \\} 76 9 8 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 196 HENDERSN M/S TOTAL: 2 8 316 285 25 31 1 0 0 0 12 22 1 5 708  ef\n?o 1015-CLOVR M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF I BM I HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 95 100 21 32 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 261 07 0 0 79 o-._1,1 5 25 21 0 0 0 2 a 2 0 0 ~ 245 08 0 1 75 ~ 75 19 22 0 0 0 0 3 f6 3 0 0 ~ 198 CLOVR M/S TOTAL: 0 2 249 290 65 75 1 0 0 0 8 14 0 0 104  1?l 1016-MABEL M/S I GRADEi AF AM BF I BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 0 75 ),,. 88 8 19 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 0 206 N 6~ \u0026amp;\\, 07 0 106 0 19 11 14 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 229 08 0 2 89 ~ 90 9 14 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 0 217 MABEL M/S TOTAL: 1 2 270 257 28 47 0 0 0 0 17 26 0 4 652.,,,- yl 7. 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 4 of20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1008-FAIR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 09 0 111 124 8 11 0 0 0 0 10 11 2 279 10 0 101 96 11 12 0 0 0 12 6 0 0 240 11 0 2 70 cil 62 4 7 0 0 0 0 1 r 8 0 0 f 154 70 \\9 ft '- 12 0 0 61 4 5 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 147 i~1 .. FAIR TOTAL: 0 4 352 343 27 35 1 0 0 0 28 27 2 1 820  1009-FORST HTS MIS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 0 0 74 85 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 6 2 181 07 0 72 t68 2 6 0 0 0 0 4~ 9 0 :::::..1 63 08 2 0 76 6 3 0 0 0 5 i'- 72 13 0 mi 179 \u0026lt;g6'f? FORST HTS MIS TOTAL: 3 0 222 225 8 14 1 0 0 0 17 28 1 4 523  1010-PUL HTS MIS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 06 3 2 72 59 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 59 4 0 255 3 3 73 t'-. 55 3 0 0 0 0 49 1 07 66 2 ~ 256 ~ 68 \\() 08 4 60 6 0 0 0 55 ~ 71 ~ 269 PUL HTS MIS TOTAL: 7 9 205 182 9 4 0 1 0 0 158 196 7 2 780  O 1012-MCCLELLAN I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL I 09 2 0 117 153 10 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 296 10 0 102 116 11 9 0 0 0 0 5 ~ 4 0 !:h 249 :-:.... .. 11 0 105 t)o 79 8 4 0 0 0 0 2 \u0026lt;l 3 0 0 \\j 202 12 0 0 82 57 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 156 qol1 MCCLELLAN TOTAL: 4 0 406 405 34 28 0 0 0 0 11 12 1 2 903  10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 3 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1017-BALE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 20 18 3 0 0 0 0 3 4 51 02 2 18 20 7 5 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 2 61 03 2 14 33 5 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 63 04 2 16 ~ 22 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 49 05 0 0 17 27 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 '-3- 56 K 15 17 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 9 2 0 54 p 2 4 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 1010 BALE TOTAL: 8 6 104 144 17 23 1 1 0 0 17 25 4 4 354 v\"' 1018-BRADY I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 25 28 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 64 02 0 0 23 14 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 47 03 0 26 t\\_ 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 50 04 0 22 '~ 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 \\\\_5 0 0 \\)_ 55 05 0 17 12 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 4 0 0 ~K 42 K 25 25 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 69 p 2 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 20 1 (1,v BRADY TOTAL: 4 4 140 124 20 23 0 0 0 0 8 19 4 1 347/ 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 5 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1020-MCDERMOT I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 15 20 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 47 02 0 0 21 25 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 7 0 0 62 03 0 23 24 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 60 04 0 19 27 2 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 59 05 0 21 3 4 0 0 0 0 3 ~5 0 2 73 K 35 3 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 74 p 0 12 14 4 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 40 1i1o MCDERMOT TOTAL: 2 4 146 168 15 22 1 0 0 0 20 32 2 3 415  1021-CARVER I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 15 17 2 3 0 0 0 0 8 2 2 52 02 0 0 15 17 3 6 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 48 03 2 3 21 '-25 2 0 0 0 0 0 16 I~ 9 0 79 04 0 0 19 f~~ 24 3 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 15 0 0 ~, 70 ~ i't 05 2 0 20 21 4 0 0 0 6 11 0 67 K 2 15 17 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 7 2 53 p 0 0 6 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 20 I 1o CARVER TOTAL: 7 5 111 128 11 20 0 1 0 0 40 55 6 5 389  Lt 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Se,vices Page 6 of20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1022-BASELINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 8 10 18 14 0 0 0 0 0 53 02 0 0 9 13 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 03 0 0 10 12 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 17 ~ 11 12 4 0 0 0 0 I\\_ 0 0 0 ~ 45 05 0 0 14 ~ 16 9 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 t-- 51 K 0 0 20 14 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 p 0 0 4 4 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 BASELINE TOTAL: 0 0 82 80 73 72 0 2 0 0 2 5 1 0 317 /\nf!1~ 1023-FAIR PRK I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I p 4 2 37 \\.)._ 29 4 2 0 0 0 47 Cx:) 41 6 5 J--... 178 37 '-}- 29 f1t (X) a 178 FAIR PRK TOTAL: 4 2 4 2 1 0 0 0 47 41 6 5 1024-FORST PK I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM I TOTAL I 01 0 2 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 19 68 02 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 27 0 0 71 03 0 0 6 3 3 2 0 0 0 33 26 0 75 04 0 0 7 f(t 4 0 0 0 0 28 29 2 0 ~ 72 05 5 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 17 37 0 0 71 K 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 19 30 0 60 p 2 4 2 0 3 0 0 0 13 13 0 40 FORST PK TOTAL: 3 7 37 26 7 8 3 1 0 0 177 181 6 1 457/ (no 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 7 of20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1025-FRANKLIN !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 29 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 61 02 0 0 22 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 03 0 0 19 23 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 49 04 0 0 24~ 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 a 3 0 ~ 0 47 05 0 0 26 \"t 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 47 K 0 0 29 25 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 60 p 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 9}1~ FRANKLIN TOTAL: 0 0 157 141 7 6 0 0 0 0 9 13 0 0 333/ 1027-GIBBS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 14 11 2 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 0 47 02 0 14 11 2 0 0 0 0 9 8 0 47 03 2 0 15 ~ 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 11 ci1 6 0 \"\" 50 04 9 ~' 15 1 2 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 :\\ 48 \u0026lt; \u0026gt; \u0026lt;:: 05 2 0 13 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 10 43 K 0 0 10 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 37 p 0 1 12 16 1 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 40 ,jli 1, GIBBS TOTAL: 6 2 87 80 9 8 0 1 1 0 60 52 4 2 312 10/1212012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 8of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1028-CHICOT I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 71 66 26 33 0 0 0 0 5 6 3 211 02 0 68 ~ 68 27 31 0 0 0 0 3 ~\\. 0 0 0 198 K 0 1 62 ~ 78 42 26 0 0 0 2 7 2 2 \\i 223 ~ ~ p 0 0 64 77 33 32 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 ti 215 CHICOT TOTAL: 1 1 265 289 128 122 1 0 0 0 13 14 5 8 847  t/\u0026gt;1\" 1029-WEST HIL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 12 14 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 39 02 0 0 12 14 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 0 0 17 \u0026amp; 16 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 ~ 50 04 0 0 17 ~ 17 6 0 0 0 0 1 iill 3 0 0 45 05 0 0 21 20 3 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 51 K 0 0 13 11 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 36 p 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 20 WEST HIL TOTAL: 0 0 101 99 22 21 0 0 0 0 9 21 3 3 279 1l~ 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 9 of 20 1030.JEFFRSN JEFFRSN TOTAL: 1032-DODD DODD TOTAL: 10/12/2012 I GRADEi AF AM 01 0 0 02 0 03 0 0 04 05 0 K 0 2 p 3 5 I GRADEi AF AM 01 02 03 04 05 K p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL BF 7 7 5 5 2 33 BF 8 13 BM 8 8 7 10 5 50 BM 9 12 6~ 10 9 10 16 14 16 82 23 17 15 96 HF 0 0 0 4 HF 8 6 9 10 9 10 6 58 HM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HM 14 9 5 7 7 9 16 67 NF 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 NF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PF 0 0 0 0 0 2 PF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Department of Computer Information Services PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WF WM TF TM TOTAL 19 25 0 0 61 21 18 0 0 55 26 26 0 0 66 21 ~ 27 0 0 Q\\. 61 (\\ 19 ~ 8 0 30 15 151 WF 0 3 21 0 13 2 0 138 3 1 WM TF TM 2 2 0 0 0 38 70 40 391  J_ 1~ TOTAL I 44 43 0 2 ~ 1 ~ 35 0 ~ 3 3 2 2 10 0 4 2 13 0 ~ 41 0 59 58 4 7 Page 10of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1033-MEADCLIF I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 19 22 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 02 0 0 16 23 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 49 03 0 0 16 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 04 0 0 24 ~:: 7 7 0 0 0 0 3 0 ~ 65 0 0 \\~ 05 21 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 \" 0 0 0 46 K 0 0 31 19 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 60 p 0 0 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 20 MEADCLIF TOTAL: 0 0 134 118 23 27 0 0 0 0 9 7 2 1 321./ ~(P 1035-M L KING I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 46 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 88 02 0 0 40 37 0 0 0 0 0 82 03 0 34 ~ :: 0 .0 0 0 0 1 ~ 4 0 ~\" 91 04 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 '-.. 86 05 0 0 36 36 0 0 0 0 2 0 78 K 0 0 36 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 78 p 0 0 23 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 M L KING TOTAL: 1 1 249 277 2 2 0 2 0 0 9 11 5 4 563 tj?l 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 11 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1036-ROCKFELR I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 25 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 50 02 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 44 03 0 0 23 17 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 46 04 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 38 05 0 21 m 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 l) K 0 0 18 33 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 59 p 0 44 46 0 0 0 0 13 14 2 2 124 f:1~ ROCKFELR TOTAL: 1 1 165 177 7 2 0 1 0 0 18 23 5 4 404  1J? 1037-GEYER SP I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 16 14 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 02 0 0 23 14 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 0 0 17-m_ 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \\J_ 39 in,\n04 0 10 0K. 9 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 \"'- 0 0 ~ 26 05 0 0 21 19 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 48 K 0 0 27 20 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 57 p 0 0 18 16 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 ~1) GEYER SP TOTAL: 1 1 132 111 17 16 0 0 0 0 5 8 1 0 292  10/12/2012 Depa,tment of Computer Information Services Page 12 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1038-PUL HT E I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 0 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 0 49 02 0 2 11 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 11 16 0 0 48 03 0 0 16 ~ 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 ~ 14 2 68 8~ \\ 04 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 16  19 0 ' ~ 64 ..... 05 0 0 22 13 2 0 0 0 0 16 \" 20 3 2 79 K 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 13 5 2 60 1Ji PUL HT E TOTAL: 2 3 78 77 3 4 0 0 0 0 94 90 10 7 36sv' 1040-ROMINE I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 19 25 5 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 55 02 0 0 25 19 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 03 0 0 24~ 26 3 7 0 0 0 0 ' 3 0 0 ::::,, 64 4'- ' 04 0 23 4i 15 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 :::::. 0 0 ~ 51 05 0 0 20 22 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 52 K 0 0 21 22 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 52 p 0 0 18 14 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 cf)1o ROMINE TOTAL: 0 1 150 143 23 35 0 0 0 0 4 10 1 1 368  10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 13of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1041-STEPHENS !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 31 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 02 0 31 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 66 03 0 0 30 30 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ij 68 04 0 0 41 \"]: 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 I.Ff) 0 0 0 76 05 0 0 24 ~ 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 54 K 0 0 35 38 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 p 0 0 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 STEPHENS TOTAL: 1 0 213 213 10 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 453/ r!~ 1042-WASHNGTN !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 0 26 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 0 0 28 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 03 0 0 37 ~) 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 \"' 72 04 0 28 ~ 25 0 0 0 0 1 cs 0 0 0 ' 57 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; 05 0 0 29 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 K 0 44 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 81 p 0 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 WASHNGTN TOTAL: 1 1 211 214 3 7 0 1 0 0 4 6 3 3 454  cH1 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 14 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1043-WILLIAMS I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 2 2 17 17 2 0 0 0 0 12 10 2 2 67 02 4 2 12 21 0 4 0 0 0 12 10 0 0 66 03 4 6 14 ~' 22 0 0 0 0 0 6 ~ 14 0 0 67 'lo '\\. 04 2 7 17 ' 23 0 0 0 0 12 8 0 ~J 72 05 3 5 23 ~~ 11 4 0 0 0 0 11 \" 9 69 K 4 0 12 28 0 0 0 0 19 7 0 73 WILLIAMS TOTAL: 19 22 95 122 4 12 0 2 0 0 72 58 3 5 414/ 044-WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 19 20 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 53 02 0 0 9 10 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 31 03 0 0 14 18 2 7 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 \")\" 46 04 0 0 13 ~ 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 (l.. 2 0 \\j. 40 05 0 0 9 9 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 '-... 0 0 0 28 K 0 20 23 6 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 59 p 0 0 17 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 J71 WILSON TOTAL: 1 0 101 112 29 32 0 0 0 0 8 11 2 0 296 045-WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL p 0 73 \\l 47 2 0 0 0 0 0 d 2 3 3 ~ 132 C\\ l) WOODRUFF TOTAL: 0 1 73 1327 q\n1 ......_ 47 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 15 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1046-MABEL EL !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 23 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 02 0 0 26 23 5 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 66 03 0 0 26 23 6 3 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 ~ 67 04 0 ::~ 29 12 8 0 0 0 0 3 lfii 3 0 0 86 05 0 0 30 8 7 0 1 0 0 5 ~ 0 0 \"\" 82 K 0 0 22 33 7 7 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 2 81 p 0 0 6 5 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 MABEL EL TOTAL: 0 1 162 166 51 47 0 1 0 0 16 19 1 3 457/ 101 1047-TERRY I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 01 0 21 27 4 12 0 0 0 1 4 6 0 77 02 0 15 24 6 7 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 62 03 0 2 22~ 20 4 1 0 0 3 6 2 1 63 1 qj \\,.) 04 2 2 17 ~ 22 4 3 0 0 0 ~J 4 0 2 '-.. 58 05 0 17 10 2 7 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 50 K 30 28 7 0 0 0 0 7 10 2 3 90 p 2 3 19 21 6 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 60 v/1 TERRY TOTAL: 7 9 141 152 30 36 1 2 0 1 29 36 5 11 4607 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 16 of 20 1048-FULBRIGH Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF 01 4 3 16 17 4 0 0 0 0 21 29 02 6 3 13 19 3 0 0 0 0 19 26 03 2 04 2 3 23 17 2 4 0 0 0 0 33 ~ 28 0 2 11 'fJ 11 0 2 0 0 20 Ds1\n2 0 05 0 4 22 ~ 26 0 0 13 \u0026lt;t 18 0 TM TOTAL 97 0 91 113 1 ~ 63 88 K 4 3 19 17 0 2 0 0 0 0 27 22 0  2 96 P 4 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 0 40 FULBRIGHT OTAL: 22 22 110 115 11 11 1 3 0 0 140 144 2 7 588( '}51,, ~104-9--R-O_B_E-RT-S--~l~G-RA-_AD-F_~E-~AI -M~-B-F~-B-M~-H-F~-H-M-~N-F-~N-M~-P-F~-P-M~-W-F~-W-M~-T-F~-T-M-~-T-O_t_A_L~I 01 5 20 20 3 3 0 0 0 31 55 0 140 02 6 8 1 3 19 3 0 0 0 0 36 4 7 135 03 8 4 2 3 0 0 0 ~ 151 04 6 5 11 ~ 21 17 Co 12 0 2 0 0 38 ~ 61 0 127 05 0 3 15 13 2 0 0 0 42: 40 Cb 36 37 0 109 K 13 6 16 14 5 3 0 0 0 0 49 48 2 157 p 3 5 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 25 30 80 / ROBERTS TOTAL: 41 32 95 110 15 13 3 3 0 257 318 6 5 8997 10/1212012 Department of Computer Information SeNices Page 17 of 20 Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL !oso-OTTER CR !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 32 38 11 9 0 0 0 0 8 12 112 02 0 0 34 31 9 4 0 0 0 0 8 8 2 97 03 0 26 Ch, 23 10 10 0 0 0 9 ~ 5 0 86 04 2 0 26 ~ 33 2 7 0 0 0 0 4 8 0 ~ 83 r'\\ ::::,. 05 2 30 36 7 5 0 0 0 0 12 9 0 0 \"' 102 K 0 0 33 37 18 9 0 0 0 0 7 8 3 0 115 \u0026amp;~1~ OTTER CR TOTAL: 4 2 181 198 57 44 0 1 0 0 48 50 7 3 595/ 1051-WAKEFIEL !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 01 0 0 39 29 16 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 02 0 0 32 18 11 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 79 03 0 0 30 ~ 26 12 11 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 81 0 17 ~ 31 6\u0026lt;5 04 0 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~):: 76 I \" \"'-- 05 0 0 37 22 8 14 0 0 0 2 0 0 85 K 0 0 15 33 11 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 p 0 0 12 13 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 40 1}7- WAKEFIEL TOTAL: 0 0 182 172 84 80 0 1 0 0 6 6 3 0 534/ 1052-WATSON !GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL 03 0 0 46 49 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 145 04 0 0 43 ~ 48 19 17 0 0 0 0 2 ~ 1 0 0 ~ 130 05 0 0 51 ')\n53 22 16 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 145 420 if ( WATSON TOTAL: 0 0 140 150 65 57 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 18of 20 ' ~ Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 703-FELDER MS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL ~ ~ ,f./C. 06 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 ~ , I {? (.) if 07 0 0 2 ~ 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 q 17 t7 / 11.,\"'ol ~\n1.::,v.. ::fP~ 08 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19\niJ 1\n1\u0026gt;l 40/ I FELDER MS TOTAL: 0 0 10 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1711-HAMILTON ALC I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL I 09 0 0 52 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 125 10 0 0 17 ~ 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 48 ). )J 11 0 0 11 \" 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"'3 0 0 0 28 J 12 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 HAMILTON ALC TOTAL: 0 0 84 115 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 208 1t/r 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 19 of 20 . - Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Enrollment Report With Agency Students FINAL 1725-ALT AGCY I GRADEi AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF WM TF TM TOTAL ,_~-v\nbY\n\u0026gt;J\" !~7A 02 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 )- /'i) C'p ,/,-7 ~/ 03 0 0 0 \\3: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 \\j 3 ft!. f /r\u0026gt;f (.)' n,,_ I'-\" P ) 04 0 0 0 '\\. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 f f/?'V J )l~  05 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 .L.Z.. q,1i J-.~!, ff}, \u0026amp; =  i,\n?fl 06 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 J- 07 0 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ......... 0 0 0 G 1t:.1o ::iJ,,7 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .\nc_......- = ~ ~ctf_7P 09 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 ?~ 10 0 0 2 ' 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"}... 0 0 0 C) 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 9 ,ftlp K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALT AGCY TOTAL: 0 0 5 J1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 6 0 0 Q 43 ,/ 1767-ACC LP I GRADEi AF AM BF I BM HF HM NF NM PF PM WF I WM TF TM TOTAL 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 10 '25 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1 0 0 0- 38 \u0026lt;. 12 0 0 54 54 6 2 0 0 0 0 2 g 0 128 9j,1- ACC LP TOTAL: 0 0 66 81 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 1 170 GRANDT OTAL: 283 282 8,361 8,321 1,295 1,351 37 35 5 3 2,370 2,475 159 163 25,140....,... - ,F\n/oeL /t,,t.f\n:2._ / .f-Y5 ~~/3 -~5 -3 -\n:J - )le, - /[II A0cy - ~1 - c\n.. -ro --Yi3 /~\u0026amp;/0 \"'/ 8 ::3c,... :\n:J~// .\n:\u0026gt;=?io51} 10/12/2012 Department of Computer Information Services Page 20 of 20 ~ ~ 0 A,c\nt,?k_ ~~5.f 7Yy i/i \\' -\n/~ ~g\u0026lt;sc.. 8 -'S , ., 'lS. 'J) (\n, (v ~i7\n,i (1,97 (\n1,~i~) l-111..) 1-1\n1~ -r'~~/ /4 ~ /\n).-, 0 ), - J- F3e1 ?, C.? \u0026lt;:. \u0026amp;\u0026lt;7J /c\n,./C/o .,Y:'t~~ ~,c,_1/ :5\u0026lt;Sc, 0S 7 C,.l 7o ~- 1 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2012/13 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 41. 00 41. 00 41.00 DISTRICT: 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 0.00 0.00 6611. 00 N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTQUARTER NO. 3 4 5 6 DAYS PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10099.50 163.50 161.25 407.57 1 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 ' 0.00 0.00 411. 57 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 161.25 407.5 411.57 - STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR ESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 M-to-M - Sent Sending_Receiving_LEA District Description 6001000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6002000 N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6003000 PULASKI CO. SPEC. SCHOOL DIST. Summary Dec 14, 2012 ADM_Ql 797.97674419 240.94593023 683.86097561 1,722.78365003 Avg_ADM_Ql 797.97674419 240.94593023 683.86097561 1,722.78365003 q\n, (.-v-,) 3.\nr3 (aj ~7~.3-(~ -3/1151( 4-a.) M-to-M - Received ttendance_District_L District Description 6001000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6002000 N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6003000 PULASKI CO. SPEC. SCHOOL DIST. Summary Dec 14, 2012 J / ADM_Ql Avg_ADM_Ql 275.525 275.525 411.56097561 411.56097561 1,035.69767442 1,035.69767442 1,722.78365003 1,722.78365003 l ,v Jo,,()\n,,-,,, -r~~ ~(5 t ~ I \\ I 0 797 I ---- { I 7.?o Oct 1 2012 HIGH SCHOOLS B w CENTRAL 1337 793 FAIR 695 55 HALL 857 55 MCCLELLAN 811 23 PARKVIEW 578 268 ACC 147 12 HAMITL ON/SWLA 199 6 -~. -- --- 15 4 SUB TOTAL 4639 1216 !%.\nl,'3/' /~/\nJ. MIDDLES CHOOLS CLOVERDALE 539 22 DUNBAR 615 54 FORESTH EIGHTS 447 45 HENDERSON 601 34 MABEVLA LE 527 43  MANN 438 232 PULASKHI EIGHTS 387 354 FELDER 35 3 - -Atr.AGENCitS --- ----s ~ 1 SUBTOTAL 3595 788 L'.3-\u0026lt;\"\"w' -?'HI ELEMENTARY BALE 248 42 BASELINE 162 7 BOOKER 310 137 BRADY 264 27 CARVER 239 95 CHICOT 554 27 DODD 178 23 FAIR PARK 66 88 FORESTP ARK 63 358 FRANKLIN 298 22 FULBRIGHT 225 284 GEYERS PRINGS 243 13 GIBBS 167 112 JEFFERSON 83 289 KING 526 20 MABEVL ALE 328 35 MCDERMOTT 314 52 MEADOWCLIFF 252 16 OTTERCREEK 379 98 PULASKHI EIGHTS 155 184 ROBERTS 205 575 ROCKEFELLER 342 41 ROMINE 293 14 STEPHENS 426 5 TERRY 293 65 WAKEFIELD 354 12 WASHINGTON 425 10 WATSON 290 8 WESTERNH ILLS 200 30 WILLIAMS 217 130 WILSON 213 19 WOODRUFF 120 2 ALT. AGENelES 16 1 SUB TOTAL 8448 2841 ~la~ ~~D GRANDT OTAL 16682 4845 LRSDO FFICIAEL NROLLMENT 2012-13vs2. 011-12 Octobe1r , 2012v s.O ctobe3r , 2011 Oct 3 2011 0 TOTAL BLK B 308 2438 54.8% 1305 70 820 84.8% 763 204 1116 76.8% 925 69 903 89.8% 808 165 1011 57.2% 574 11 170 86.5% 120 3 208 95.7% 278 0 19 78.9% 16 830 6685 69.4% 4789 51\"-=in~ ../... t,'17. 143 704 76.6% 514 66 735 83.7% 679 31 523 85.5% 494 73 708 84.9% 571 82 652 80.8% 572 108 778 56.3% 444 39 780 49.6% 384 2 40 87.5% 57  7 85.7% - 11 544 4927 73.0% 3726 ~~ ..15\u0026amp;0 -\nj:j J. 64 354 70.1% 287 148 317 51.1% 162 77 524 59.2% 324 56 347 76.1% 274 55 389 61.4% 246 266 847 65.4% 525 139 340 52.4% 183 24 178 37.1% 80 36 457 13.8% 56 13 333 89.5% 321 79 588 38.3% 229 36 292 83.2% 199 33 312 53.5% 169 19 391 21.2% 80 17 563 93.4% 552 104 467 70.2% 304 49 415 75.7% 292 53 321 78.5% 251 118 595 63.7% 377 29 368 42.1% 133 119 899 22.8% 193 21 404 84.7% 355 61 368 79.6% 316 22 453 94.0% 398 102 460 63.7% 322 168 534 66.3% 398 19 454 93.6% 446 122 420 69.0% 306 49 279 71.7% 207 67 414 52.4% 226 64 296 72.0% 218 10 132 90.9% 113 0 17 94:-1% 17 2239 13528 62.4% 8559 .:r:).\"511 315// t,. ?Jr 3613 25140 66.4% 17074 w 0 TOTAL % BLK 829 285 2419 53.9% 45 64 872 87.5% 65 206 1196 77.3% 40 73 921 87.7% 341 150 1065 53.9% 11 13 144 83.3% 10 4 292 95.2% 5 0 21 76.2% 1346 795 6930 69.1% 21 113 648 79.3% 65 70 814 83.4% 45 53 592 83.4% 39 66 676 84.5% 51 90 713 80.2% 258 98 800 55.5% 397 49 830 46.3% 7 1 59 96:6% - 4 o- 75 ~n3% 881 540 5147 . 72.4% 37 52 376 76.3% 20 142 324 50.0% 146 81 551 58.8% 27 48 349 78.5% 119 52 417 59.0% 30 241 796 66.0% 33 142 358 51.1% 83 15 178 44.9% 357 30 443 12.6% 14 10 345 93.0% 306 72 607 37.7% 12 17 228 87.3% 110 32 311 54.3% 324 14 418 19.1% 30 19 601 91.8% 28 89 421 72.2% 42 57 391 74.7% 19 54 324 77.5% 95 93 565 66.7% 173 22 328 40.5% 578 90 861 22.4% 39 21 415 85.5% 15 61 392 80.6% 12 20 430 92.6% 65 102 489 65.8% 13 152 563 70.7% 10 21 477 93.5% 6 97 409 74.8% 32 46 285 72.6% 132 64 422 53.6% 18 57 293 74.4% 9 10 132 85.6% 1 0 18 94.4% 2935 2023 13517 63.3% 5162 3358 25594 66.7% LEA: 6002000 White Black I~ 'OP M F M F l[flr\\ ~ 33 18 190 229 ~ ' 119 110 256 220 wt I 122 100 209 185 m ( 134 109 188 193 if!, ( 115 113 198 189 :00 ( 124 124 209 174 l~_,,~'1 ~ 106 M 185 ,'l,(,~ ' 11'/ll l::l 6\" I I :ffil b \" ,\n~ 94 ?'/ 96 196 r7~ Im @:] 85 84 200 204 loo @!l 114 104 184 182 vx'?I .$~:? l/:3rJ l:il:J ~ 112 132 269 225 IIDJ ~ 107 100 179 157 lwJ. (\nff.l 143 ,,11 3 143 .,. 1,7.9 IM ~ 91 :~ 108 135 I 190 'I?\ni.~X: \\ I' Cj,[)(b 11 lilm-illiv r-~ ) 1499 1404 2741 2685 \"1/l.D[::ra ~ 1466 1386 2551 2456 31.74% 59.32% North Little Rock School District October 1, 2012 Count Hispanic Asian M F M F 24 34 3 1 37 36 7 5 18 25 5 5 21 23 8 9 20 22 1 9 28 26 0 7 24 18 8 3 -J's 20 16 5 3 25 27 3 7 16 15 5 2 /.:5:) 29 18 6 3 23 21 5 4 18 16 5 4 ' 12 _ 20 11 1 V1 ~I DO 315 317 72 63 291 283 69 62 6.91% 1.48% Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 14 2 2 15 8 9 14 2 2 12 7 0.26% 0.04% 0.25% LEA: 6002050 North Little Rock School District Amboy Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 5 2 4 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 27 25 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 2 24 19 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 2 19 21 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 20 26 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 23 20 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 18 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 22 139 133 22 28 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 38 20 135 129 22 23 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 16.62% 69.57% 12.79% 0.26% 0.51% 0.00% 0.26% 101r) LEA: 6002054 North Little Rock School District Boone Park Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F F M F M F M F M F 2 16 29 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 31 24 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 27 30 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 24 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 25 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 25 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 184 185 8 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 7 168 156 6 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 % 88.92% 3.37% 0.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% - Y\u0026gt;t? . LEA: 6002055 North Little Rock School District Crestwood Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 26 26 13 8 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 27 23 11 11 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 37 22 11 9 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 29 7 6 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 31 10 11 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 20 7 5 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 59 so 7 4 6 11 0 4 0 0 2 0 69.11% 23.54% 2.38% 3.67% 0.86% 0.00% 0.43% ~11. LEA: 6002056 North Little Rock School District Glenview Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F F 4 0 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 21 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 10 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 13 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 78 74 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 71 68 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14.74% 80.00% 4.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.00% \u0026lt;50? LEA: 6002057 North Little Rock School District Indian Hills Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 32 26 15 12 1 4 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 46 29 8 13 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 37 6 13 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 37 17 11 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 37 44 14 9 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 13 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 \"\"\" 204 75 71 4 7 10 9 2 1 1 1 1 1 70.10% 23.86% 1.80% 3.10% 0.49% 0.33% 0.33%\nYlf. LEA: 6002058 North Little Rock School District Lakewood Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 27 26 9 10 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 11 10 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 28 9 9 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 14 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 22 22 9 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 9 12 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 139 73 51 7 9 4 7 1 0 0 0 1 1 64.76% 28.38% 3.66% 2.52% 0.23% 0.00% 0.46%\n\u0026gt;9 )- LEA: 6002060 North Little Rock School District Lynch Drive Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black His anic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 1 1 17 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 21 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 16 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 23 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 126 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11 109 101 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.99% 87.59% 1.42% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% cf!,? LEA: 6002061 North Little Rock School District Meadow Park Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 14 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 19 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 19 15 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 \\.J 5 4 106 76 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 5 3 98 67 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4.43% 89.66% 3.94% 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 1.48% qo1\" LEA: 6002063 North Little Rock School District North Heights Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 0 5 9 8 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 22 20 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 18 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 19 14 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 18 19 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 24 18 9 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 25 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 139 123 55 78 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 134 114 47 64 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.20% 58.09% 29.49% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ~1, LEA: 6002064 North Little Rock School District Park Hill Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 1 2 4 7 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 25 24 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 10 15 8 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4 13 13 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 12 15 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 14 8 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 9 10 15 4 rn 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 46 93 90 30 15 0 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 48 44 89 83 27 13 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 28.70% 55.29% 13.60% 1.21% 0.60% 0.00% 0.60% ?1 LEA: 6002065 North Little Rock School District Pike View Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 6 2 13 12 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~- -~~r----2+---4+--2~sf--26-+---9-+---s+---2+---1+---o+---o+---of--o-+---o-+-----10 2 5 16 19 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II~ T~ 5 6 21 14 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 .c. ~=t-,- -3-t-----11 r--2-o+---30-+---1+---4-+---ot---1+---ot---o-t---o-+---o+---o-+-----\no 4 5 3 [H s 16 ,.. 23 C\\.\\ 20 l'f\\ 22 4 1 f'o. 1 \\f 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  \n\u0026lt; C \u0026lt;  13.84% 72.32% 10.70% 2.87% 0.26% 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 LEA: 6002069 North Little Rock School District Seventh Street Elementary October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1' 0 2 5 2 4 2.38% 22 18 17 30 18 21 16 11 h. 11 C--.12 ~ 132 116 94.22% 145 123 0 1 0 0 3 3 1.70% 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0.68% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 1.02% 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 LEA: 6002067 North Little Rock School District Redwood Preschool October 1, 2012 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more F M F M F M F M F M F M F 7 100 111 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 100 111 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87.55% 3.73% 0.41% 0.00% 0.00% 1.66% 7\n01o LEA: 6002070 North Little Rock School District Lakewood Middle October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 82 76 96 84 4 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 103 10 6 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 93 93 7 4 5 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 1 4 0 1 I 2 0.44% 0.09% 0.18% 9/10 LEA: 6002081 North Little Rock School District Ridgeroad Middle October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 12 21 91 83 16 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 15 21 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 ' 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ~ 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0.43% 0.14% 0.00% 0.14% 19?, LEA: 6002082 North Little Rock School District NLRHS October 1, 2012 Count Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more ?4\n1) F M F M F M F M F M F M F 130 226 201 18 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1'tj11\" 98 158 150 22 21 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 112 137 176 17 16 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 /,( /~ 108 129 189 12 20 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 ,5\u0026gt;/1. 448 650 716 77 75 27 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 36.44% 55.62% 6.19% 1.59% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00% ft.-1., LEA: 6002080 North Little Rock School District NLR Academy October 1, 2012 Count White Black Hispanic Asian Nat Am/ Ala Nat Hawaiian/Pac Isl Two or more M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~ 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 5 2 43 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 517\" 5 / 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.68% 3.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10% 1/)- ,\n11 j\n!18 /~S3 ~73 IIJj/ /C,,3/ -- .I, ?I Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation North Little Rock School District BUILDING CAPACITY 2012-2013 Elementa!Y Kindergarten thru 5th Grade # General # S12ecialt~ Student 11-12 Classrooms Rooms Net Caoacitv Enrollement Amboy Z4 tl lo 4UU 371 Boone Park 32 16 16 400 359 vrestwood 31 1Z 19 475 463 1.:\u0026gt;1env1ew 1/ 1U f 1/b 17U Indian HIiis 34 8 26 h!\"\u0026gt;IJ 612 Lakewood l::lem\na 4 18 450 4J/ Lvncn unve Ztl 11 1/ 4Lb Z4Z Meadow Park 16 8 8 LUU 183 North He1qnts 3Z 14 18 4!:\u0026gt;0 411 t-'arl\u0026lt; HIii Z3 9 14 300 311 t-'tKe View 25 10 15 375 343 Seventh Street Lf 12 15 J/0 L!\"l4 1:Iementary I otaI\ns11 122 11:ll:I 4/,-\nJ 41:\u0026gt;ti Seconda!Y 6th Grade thru 12th Grade # General Student 11-12 Classrooms # of Students Caoacitv Enrollment Caoacitv West Campus 64 30 1632 \\ 1173 72% Sophomore Campus 35 30 893, ~1 565 63% Freshman Camous 31 30 791 ,~ 718 91% Ridqeroad Middle 30 30 765 693 91% Lakewood Middle 61 30 1556 1141 73% NLRAcademv 16 30 408 164 40% C,o- /fJ Secondary Total 237 ~-5 4454 74% District Totals 10~.5 8610 80% % Caoacitv tlJ7o ~Uu/o ~/u/o tll7o ~4u/o ~/u/o 0170 ~L\"/o 91% Ot17o 91% t\u0026gt;tlu/o tltlu/o ' October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade Black Black Black White White White Other Other Other Total Total Total Total Grade Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total Black White Other School SCHOOL Level Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled \" Enrolled % Enrolled % Enrolled ADKINS PRE-K CENTER PK 38 36 74 25 28 53 25 16 41 74 44% 53 32% 41 24% 168 ARNOLD DRIVE ELEMENTARY l 10 5 15 7 10 17 4 10 14 15 33% 17 37% 14 30% 46 2 6 8 14 7 16 23 9 4 13 14 28% 23 46% 13 26% 50 3 2 5 7 18 8 26 6 6 12 7 16% 26 58% 12 27% 45 4 4 6 10 9 10 19 6 2 8 10 27% 19 51% 8 22% 37 5 3 3 6 3 6 9 3 4 7 6 27% 9 41% 7 32% 22 K 10 5 15 15 15 30 7 8 15 15 25% 30 50% 15 25% 60 Totals 35 32 67 59 65 124 35 34 69 67 26% 124 48% 69 27% 260 PK 2 3 5 8 9 17 6 10 16 5 13% 17 45% 16 42% 38 Total with PK 37 35 72 67 74 141 41 44 85 721 ~% 11 141 47% 85 29% 298 ~ BAKERE LEMENTARY l 17 9 26 12 23 35 11 13 24 26 31% 35 41% 24 28% 85 2 10 12 22 17 10 27 13 10 23 22 31% 27 38% 23 32% 72 3 15 13 28 18 19 37 16 14 30 28 29% 37 39% 30 32% 95 4 19 19 38 20 22 42 12 12 24 38 37% 42 40% 24 23% 104 5 13 9 22 16 18 34 13 6 19 22 29% 34 45% 19 25% 75 K 8 18 26 15 18 33 8 13 21 26 33% 33 41% 21 26% 80 Totals 82 80 162 98 110 208 73 68 141 162 Ir 32%\u0026gt; 208 41% 141 27% 511 - - - BATESE LEMENTARY 1 15 15 30 13 18 31 12 9 21 30 37% 31 38% 21 26% 82 2 12 16 28 14 18 32 7 4 11 28 39% 32 45% 11 15% 71 3 12 19 31 13 18 31 10 7 17 31 39% 31 39% 17 22% 79 4 13 9 22 s 15 20 10 11 21 22 35% 20 32% 21 33% 63 s 21 16 37 12 15 27 9 4 13 37 48% 27 35% 13 17% 77 K 6 11 17 14 18 32 10 8 18 17 25% 32 48% 18 27% 67 Totals 79 86 165 71 102 173 58 43 101 165 38% 173 39% 101 23% 439 PK 4 10 14 s 8 13 3 9 12 14 36% 13 33% 12 31% 39 Total with PK 83 96 179 76 110 186 61 52 113 179 37%} 186 39% 113 24% 478 BAYOU METO ELEMENTARY l 0 l l 26 25 51 1 1 2 l 2% 51 94% 2 4% 54 2 l 2 3 25 15 40 l 0 l 3 7% 40 91% l 2% 44 3 3 2 s 26 24 so 1 2 3 s 9% so 86% 3 5% 58 4 0 3 3 21 20 41 l l 2 3 7% 41 89% 2 4% 46 s 1 1 2 23 18 41 3 0 3 2 4% 41 89% 3 7% 46 K 3 0 3 24 24 48 3 0 3 3 6% 48 89% 3 6% 54 Totals 8 9 17 145 126 271 10 4 14 17 6% 271 90% 14 5% 302 PK 0 0 0 11 8 19 l 0 1 0 0% 19 95% 1 5% 20 Total with PK 8 9 17 156 134 290 11 4 15 11lc 5%1~ 290 90% 15 5% 322 CATO ELEMENTARY 1 8 6 14 17 21 38 0 2 2 14 26% 38 70% 2 4% 54 2 7 7 14 17 17 34 3 1 4 14 27% 34 65% 4 8% 52 3 9 9 18 17 15 32 2 1 3 18 34% 32 60% 3 6% 53 4 s 6 11 16 20 36 4 0 4 11 22% 36 71% 4 8% 51 s 13 9 22 12 14 26 l l 2 22 44% 26 52% 2 4% 50 K 10 9 19 25 10 35 2 5 7 19 31% 35 57% 7 11% 61 Totals 52 46 98 104 97 201 12 10 22 98 31% 201 63% 22 7% 321 PK 2 0 2 7 9 16 1 l 2 2 10% 16 80% 2 10% 20 Total with PK 54 46 100 111 106 217 13 11 24 100 ---- 29% J 217 64% 24 7% 341 - RECEIVED Euqity and Pupil Services NOV 14 2012 November 6, 2012 l,tlJ SCHOOL CHENAL ELEMENTARY Totals CLINTON ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK COLLEGE STATION ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK CRYSTAL HILL ELEM Totals Total with PK WARREN DUPREE ELEMENTARY Euqity and Pupil Services November 6, 2012 Totals Grade Level 1 2 3 4 5 K 1 2 3 4 5 K PK 1 2 3 4 5 K PK 1 2 3 4 5 K PK 1 2 3 4 5 K Black Black Black Female Male Total Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 14 12 26 12 10 22 9 13 22 16 16 32 11 13 24 19 8 27 81 72 153 19 24 43 35 23 58 27 25 52 25 24 49 27 25 52 27 27 54 160 148 308 8 17 25 168 165 333 12 15 27 13 9 22 15 17 32 11 13 24 12 17 29 7 15 22 70 86 156 8 10 18 78 96 174 18 20 38 24 26 50 27 22 49 26 30 56 26 31 57 29 26 55 150 155 305 12 10 22 162 165 327 13 25 38 17 23 40 19 19 38 19 17 36 16 17 33 23 29 52 107 130 237 October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade White White White Other Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Total Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 23 26 49 3 7 10 35 29 64 4 1 5 32 35 67 11 7 18 24 36 60 2 6 8 37 21 58 6 7 13 27 30 57 5 7 12 178 177 355 31 35 66 17 33 50 3 5 8 18 20 38 8 7 15 27 12 39 9 5 14 15 19 34 7 4 11 21 24 45 4 2 6 16 25 41 9 7 16 114 133 247 40 30 70 12 10 22 7 6 13 126 143 269 47 36 83 0 6 6 1 1 2 0 4 4 0 2 2 6 7 13 3 1 4 4 10 14 3 3 6 2 7 9 1 1 2 5 1 6 2 1 3 17 35 52 10 9 19 1 1 2 0 0 0 18 36 54 10 9 19 33 34 67 5 10 15 33 33 66 3 6 9 38 34 72 6 4 10 34 29 63 4 6 10 32 40 72 3 9 12 33 34 67 8 8 16 203 204 407 29 43 72 6 5 11 3 4 7 209 209 418 32 47 79 8 15 23 5 7 12 9 12 21 4 4 8 7 10 17 3 8 11 6 15 21 6 1 7 4 6 10 3 3 6 12 19 31 7 11 18 46 77 123 28 34 62 Total Total Total Total Black White Other School Enrolled \" Enrolled \" Enrolled \" Enrolled 26 31% 49 58% 10 12% 85 22 24% 64 70% 5 5% 91 22 21% 67 63% 18 17% 107 32 32% 60 60% 8 8% 100 24 25% 58 61% 13 14% 95 27 28 57 59% 12 13% 96 153 r 27% 355 62% 66 11% 574 43 43% 50 50% 8 8% 101 58 52% 38 34% 15 14% 111 52 50% 39 37% 14 13% 105 49 52% 34 36% 11 12% 94 52 50% 45 44% 6 6% 103 54 49% 41 37% 16 14% 111 308 49% 247 40% 70 11% 625 25 47\"' 22 37% 13 22% 60 333 V 49%1.) 269 39% 83 12% 685 27 77% 6 17% 2 6% 35 22 79% 4 14% 2 7% 28 32 65% 13 27% 4 8% 49 24 55% 14 32% 6 14% 44 29 73% 9 23% 2 5% 40 22 71% 6 19% 3 10% 31 156 69% 52 23% 19 8% 227 18 90% 2 10% 0 0% 20 174 V70% ,.... 54 22% 19 8% 247 - 38 32% 67 56% 15 13% 120 50 40% 66 53% 9 7% 125 49 37% 72 55% 10 8% 131 56 43% 63 49% 10 8% 129 57 40% 72 51% 12 9% 141 55 40% 67 49% 16 12% 138 305 39% 407 52% 72 9% 784 22 55% 11 28% 7 18% 40 321 r 40% ~ 418 51% 79 9% 824 - 38 52% 23 32% 12 16% 73 40 58% 21 30% 8 12% 69 38 58% 17 26% 11 17% 66 36 56% 21 33% 7 11% 64 33 67% 10 20% 6 12% 49 52 51% 31 31% 18 18% 101 237 le 56% J 123 29% 62 15% 422 SCHOOL HARRIS ELEMENTARY Totals LANDMARK ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK LAWSON ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK OAK GROVE ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK OAKBROOKEE LEMENTARY Euqity and Pupil Services November 6, 2012 Totals Total with PK Black Grade Female Level Enrolled 1 12 2 15 3 7 4 12 5 11 K 8 65 1 11 2 3 3 7 4 6 5 13 K 11 51 PK 4 55 1 6 2 8 3 3 4 7 5 3 K 3 30 PK 1 31 1 3 2 5 3 7 4 0 5 4 K 6 25 PK 8 33 1 15 2 19 3 18 4 16 5 10 K 16 94 PK 7 101 Black Black Male Total Enrolled Enrolled 15 27 12 27 12 19 13 25 18 29 15 23 85 150 7 18 5 8 5 12 5 11 12 25 5 16 39 90 5 9 44 99 6 12 6 14 7 10 4 11 5 8 9 12 37 67 1 2 38 69 2 5 7 12 4 11 2 2 5 9 4 10 24 49 13 21 37 70 17 32 22 41 13 31 16 32 14 24 17 33 99 193 9 16 108 209 October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade White White White Other Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Total Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 2 2 4 2 4 6 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 4 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 1 5 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 0 1 1 1 2 6 9 15 9 9 18 13 8 21 7 9 16 9 9 18 1 6 7 7 7 14 5 4 9 6 8 14 3 4 7 9 7 16 2 4 6 11 14 25 9 8 17 55 53 108 27 35 62 12 7 19 3 4 7 67 60 127 30 39 69 9 12 21 4 5 9 5 12 17 1 4 5 12 8 20 0 1 1 11 15 26 3 1 4 16 10 26 4 4 8 13 15 28 5 7 12 66 72 138 17 22 39 6 6 12 4 2 6 72 78 150 21 24 45 16 14 30 4 5 9 11 13 24 4 3 7 12 14 26 2 3 5 4 10 14 4 5 9 7 11 18 5 2 7 17 11 28 3 4 7 67 73 140 22 22 44 15 14 29 5 3 8 82 87 169 27 25 52 30 31 61 3 7 10 26 27 53 4 1 5 22 21 43 6 3 9 16 26 42 3 5 8 18 34 52 1 1 2 35 21 56 6 12 18 147 160 307 25 29 54 7 7 14 2 8 10 154 167 321 27 37 64 Total \" Total % Total % Total Black White Other School Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 27 73% 4 11% 6 16% 37 27 93% 2 7% 0 0% 29 19 79\" 4 17% 1 4% 24 25 81% 1 3% 5 16% 31 29 81% 3 8% 4 11% 36 23 88% 1 4% 2 8% 26 1501r 82% 1 15 8% 18 10% 183 --- 18 33% 21 38% 16 29\" 55 8 24% 18 55% 7 21% 33 12 34% 14 40% 9 26% 35 11 34% 14 44% 7 22% 32 25 53% 16 34% 6 13% 47 16 28% 25 43% 17 29% 58 90 35% 108 42% 62 24% 260 9 26% 19 54% 7 20% 35 99lr 34%, 127 43% 69 23% 295 12 29\" 21 50% 9 21% 42 14 39\" 17 47% 5 14% 36 10 32% 20 65% 1 3% 31 11 27% 26 63% 4 10% 41 8 19\" 26 62% 8 19\" 42 12 23% 28 54% 12 23% 52 67 27% 138 57% 39 16% 244 2 10% 12 60% 6 30% 20 69 r 26%11 150 57% 45 17% 264 - 5 11% 30 68% 9 20% 44 12 28% 24 56% 7 16% 43 11 26% 26 62% 5 12% 42 2 8% 14 56% 9 36% 25 9 26% 18 53% 7 21% 34 10 22% 28 62% 7 16% 45 49 21% 140 60% 44 19\" 233 21 36% 29 50% 8 14% 58 10 r24\") 169 58% 52 18% 291 -=-- 32 31% 61 59% 10 10% 103 41 41% 53 54% 5 5% 99 31 37% 43 52% 9 11% 83 32 39\" 42 51% 8 10% 82 24 31% 52 67% 2 3% 78 33 31% 56 52% 18 17% 107 193 35% 307 55% 54 10% 554 16 40% 14 35% 10 25% 40 209lr 35% ~ 321 54% 64 11% 594 - SCHOOL PINEF ORESTE LEMENTARY Totals PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY Totals RDBINSDN ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK SCOTT ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY Euqity and Pupil Services November 6, 2012 Totals Total with PK Black Grade Female Level Enrolled 1 13 2 14 3 12 4 17 5 17 K 14 87 1 17 2 22 3 22 4 14 5 23 K 18 116 1 3 2 4 3 0 4 7 5 7 K 5 26 PK 10 36 l 4 2 9 3 1 4 4 5 6 K 5 29 PK 3 32 l 9 2 4 3 5 4 14 5 9 K 11 52 PK 4 56 Black Black Male Total Enrolled Enrolled 11 24 16 30 20 32 12 29 14 31 11 25 84 171 15 32 22 44 22 44 29 43 17 40 12 30 117 233 1 4 5 9 3 3 4 11 2 9 2 7 17 43 l 11 18 54 4 8 5 14 5 6 5 9 6 12 4 9 29 58 5 8 34 66 10 19 11 15 10 15 7 21 12 21 3 14 53 105 3 7 56 112 October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade White White White Other Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Total Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 22 24 46 5 5 10 22 27 49 6 3 9 38 38 76 3 4 7 20 28 48 2 2 4 35 31 66 2 3 5 30 28 58 3 4 7 167 176 343 21 21 42 8 15 23 4 9 13 19 17 36 5 2 7 19 11 30 3 3 6 18 7 25 3 6 9 11 6 17 2 1 3 16 19 35 7 5 12 91 75 166 24 26 so 10 6 16 2 4 6 11 8 19 4 3 7 6 8 14 2 4 6 8 13 21 0 3 3 10 8 18 1 0 1 7 12 19 1 1 2 52 55 107 10 15 25 8 7 15 3 3 6 60 62 122 13 18 31 11 9 20 0 2 2 6 9 15 0 0 0 3 3 6 3 0 3 4 6 10 0 1 1 8 4 12 0 1 1 4 4 8 3 1 4 36 35 71 6 5 11 5 6 11 1 0 l 41 41 82 7 5 12 13 20 33 3 5 8 17 17 34 5 5 10 16 13 29 5 8 13 16 15 31 7 2 9 15 16 31 l 3 4 15 23 38 6 6 12 92 104 196 27 29 56 7 4 11 1 1 2 99 108 207 28 30 58 Total \" Total % Total % Total Black White Other School Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 24 30% 46 58% 10 13% 80 30 34% 49 56% 9 10% 88 32 28% 76 66% 7 6% 115 29 36% 48 59% 4 5% 81 31 30% 66 65% 5 5% 102 25 28% 58 64% 7 8% 90 171 31%) 343 62% 42 8% 556 - 32 47% 23 34% 13 19% 68 44 51% 36 41% 7 8% 87 44 55% 30 38% 6 8% 80 43 56% 25 32% 9 12% 77 40 67% 17 28% 3 5% 60 30 39% 35 45% 12 16% 77 2331 r 52%) 166 37% so 11% 449 4 15% 16 62% 6 23% 26 9 26% 19 54% 7 20% 35 3 13% 14 61% 6 26% 23 11 31% 21 60% 3 9% 35 9 32% 18 64% 1 4% 28 7 25% 19 68% 2 7% 28 43 25% 107 61% 25 14% 175 11 34% 15 47% 6 19% 32 54 (26%1 122 59% 31 15% 207 8 27% 20 67% 2 7% 30 14 48% 15 52% 0 0% 29 6 40% 6 40% 3 20% 15 9 45% 10 50% 1 5% 20 12 48% 12 48% l 4% 25 9 43% 8 38% 4 19% 21 58 41% 71 51% 11 8% 140 8 40% 11 55% l 5% 20 66 41%1 82 51% 12 8% 160 19 32% 33 55% 8 13% 60 15 25% 34 58% 10 17% 59 15 26% 29 51% 13 23% 57 21 34% 31 51% 9 15% 61 21 38% 31 55% 4 7% 56 14 22% 38 59% 12 19% 64 105 29% 196 55% 56 16% 357 7 35% 11 55% 2 10% 20 112 C30%:) 207 55% 58 15% 377 - SCHOOL SYLVAN HILLS ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK MURRELL TAYLOR ELEMENTARY Totals TOLLESON ELEMENTARY Totals Total with PK Elementarv District Total Elementary District Total w/Pre-K Euqity and Pupil Services November 6, 2012 Black Grad, Female Level Enrolled 1 17 2 14 3 12 4 15 5 17 K 13 88 PK 7 95 1 24 2 23 3 23 4 22 5 21 K 17 130 1 5 2 15 3 7 4 8 5 16 K 17 68 PK 1 69 1685 1804 Black Black Male Total Enrolled Enrolled 15 32 20 34 12 24 11 26 15 32 24 37 97 185 6 13 103 198 22 46 24 47 18 41 28 so 18 39 39 56 149 279 12 17 14 29 10 17 6 14 6 22 8 25 56 124 2 3 58 127 1730 3415 1861 3665 October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade White White White Other Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Total Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 17 15 32 3 0 3 12 10 22 2 0 2 17 13 30 1 2 3 11 18 29 2 3 5 8 17 25 1 1 2 14 23 37 3 4 7 79 96 175 12 10 22 15 7 22 3 2 5 94 103 197 15 12 27 17 13 30 2 8 10 7 21 28 1 7 8 9 9 18 2 1 3 4 9 13 1 2 3 12 7 19 3 5 8 9 13 22 5 6 11 58 72 130 14 29 43 24 20 44 9 6 15 17 19 36 3 2 5 6 15 21 7 4 11 11 16 27 3 2 5 10 12 22 1 1 2 25 25 so 7 5 12 93 107 200 30 20 so 6 8 14 1 2 3 99 115 214 31 22 53 2044 2213 4257 570 582 1152 2200 2357 4557 639 653 1292 Total \" Total \" Total \" Total Black White Other School Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 32 48% 32 48% 3 4% 67 34 59% 22 38% 2 3% 58 24 42% 30 53% 3 5% 57 26 43% 29 48% 5 B% 60 32 54% 25 42% 2 3% 59 37 46% 37 46% 7 9% 81 185 48% 175 46% 22 6% 382 13 33% 22 55% 5 13% 40 198 r 47% 197 47% 27 6% 422 46 53% 30 35% 10 12% 86 47 57% 28 34% 8 10% 83 41 66% 18 29% 3 5% 62 so 76% 13 20% 3 5% 66 39 59% 19 29% 8 12% 66 56 63% 22 25% 11 12% 89 279 r 6\"' 1 130 29% 43 10% 452 17 22% 44 SB% 15 20% 76 29 41% 36 51% 5 7% 70 17 35% 21 43% 11 22% 49 14 30% 27 59% 5 11% 46 22 48% 22 48% 2 4% 46 25 29% so 57% 12 14% 87 124 33% 200 S3% 50 13% 374 3 15% 14 70% 3 15% 20 127 c 32\" / 214 54% 53 14% 394 3415 39% 4257 48% 1152 13% 8824 3665 C39%} 4557 48% 1292 13% 9514 SCHOOL FULLER MIDDLE JACKSONVILLEM IDDLE MAUMELLE MIDDLE NORTHWOOD MIDDLE ROBINSON MIDDLE SYLVAN HILLS MIDDLE Euq1tya nd PupilS ervices November 6, 2012 Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Black Black Grad Female Male Level Enrolled Enrolled 6 43 49 7 47 45 8 54 61 144 155 6 69 60 7 48 72 8 64 72 181 204 6 46 72 7 51 61 8 61 67 158 200 6 27 28 7 25 28 8 28 26 80 82 6 22 25 7 31 28 8 29 29 82 82 6 66 58 7 78 73 8 66 60 210 191 Black Total Enrolled 92 92 115 299 129 120 136 385 118 112 128 358 55 53 54 162 47 59 58 164 124 151 126 401 October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade White Female Enrolled 25 38 20 83 25 26 31 82 77 74 71 222 37 28 40 105 41 34 32 107 65 74 60 199 White Male Enrolled 36 28 33 97 30 20 30 80 88 87 62 237 45 45 40 130 43 32 34 109 67 76 61 204 White Total Enrolled 61 66 53 180 55 46 61 162 165 161 133 459 82 73 80 235 84 66 66 216 132 150 121 403 Other Female Enrolled 6 9 4 19 14 7 10 31 9 10 10 29 9 7 8 24 10 8 13 31 15 12 17 44 Other Male Enrolled 10 9 11 30 12 13 9 34 9 16 13 38 8 5 14 27 8 11 8 27 15 18 9 42 Other Total Enrolled 16 18 15 49 26 20 19 65 18 26 23 67 17 12 22 51 18 19 21 58 30 30 26 86 Total \" Black Enrolled 92 92 115 54% 52% 63% Total % White Enrolled 61 66 53 299 (,7%~ 180 - 129 61% 55 120 65% 46 136 63% 61 385 r63%~ 162 118 39% 165 112 37% 161 128 45% 133 358 ('40%) 459 55 36% 82 53 38% 73 54 35% 80 162 , 36% 235 47 32% 84 59 41% 66 58 40% 66 164 (37%) 216 124 43% 132 151 46% 150 126 4\" 121 401 ( 45% l 403 36% 38% 29% 34% 26% 25% 28% 26% 55% 54% 47% 52% 53% 53% 51% 52% 56% 46% 46% 49% 46% 45% 44% 45% Total % Other Enrolled 16 18 15 49 26 20 19 65 18 26 23 67 17 12 22 51 18 19 21 58 30 30 26 86 9% 10% 8% 9% 12% 11% 9% 11% 6% 9% 8% 8% 11% 9% 14% 11% 12% 13% 14% 13% 10% 9% 10% 10% Total School Enrolled 169 176 183 528 210 186 216 612 301 299 284 884 154 138 156 448 149 144 145 438 286 331 273 890 SCHOOL JACKSONVILLE HIGH MAUMELLE HIGH WILBUR D. MILLS HIGH NORTH PULASKI HIGH JOE T. ROBINSON HIGH SYLVAN HILLS HIGH Seconda District Total Grand Total Grand Total w/Pre-K Euqity and Pupil Services November 6, 2012 Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals Black Grad\u0026lt; Female Level Enrolled 9 72 10 56 11 57 12 56 241 9 70 10 71 11 44 12 30 215 9 58 10 52 11 51 12 58 219 9 38 10 36 11 30 12 36 140 9 22 10 20 11 24 12 22 88 9 67 10 62 11 34 12 41 204 1962 3647 3766 Black Black Male Total Enrolled Enrolled 88 160 65 121 58 115 42 98 2S3 494 78 148 72 143 48 92 42 72 240 455 65 123 61 113 56 107 52 110 234 453 47 85 34 70 38 68 21 57 140 280 43 65 30 50 22 46 13 35 108 196 62 129 49 111 47 81 34 75 192 396 4043 3811 7458 3942 7708 October 1, 2012 Enrollment Count by Grade White White White Other Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Total Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 34 33 67 6 13 19 23 48 71 14 10 24 26 17 43 7 3 10 42 29 71 7 4 11 125 127 252 34 30 64 59 85 144 13 12 25 58 66 124 14 8 22 52 65 117 8 10 18 35 28 63 2 8 10 204 244 448 37 38 75 28 34 62 10 8 18 26 30 56 5 10 15 29 35 64 5 9 14 27 23 50 7 8 15 110 122 232 27 35 62 54 48 102 16 12 28 50 41 91 15 11 26 47 51 98 10 12 22 49 68 117 8 4 12 200 208 408 49 39 88 30 47 77 7 6 13 21 31 52 3 8 11 28 28 56 3 8 11 26 30 56 5 4 9 105 136 241 18 26 44 42 59 101 11 8 19 46 47 93 13 14 27 46 35 81 14 10 24 38 35 73 9 6 15 172 176 348 47 38 85 1870 3584 390 794 3758 4083 7841 960 986 1946 3914 4227 8141 1029 1057 2086 Total Total Total Total Black White Other School Enrolled \" Enrolled % Enrolled % Enrolled 160 65% 67 27\" 19 8% 246 121 56% 71 33% 24 11% 216 115 68% 43 26% 10 6% 168 98 54% 71 39\" 11 6% 180 494, 61%:\n\u0026gt; 252 31% 64 8% 810 148 47\" 144 45% 25 8% 317 143 49\" 124 43% 22 8% 289 92 41% 117 52% 18 8% 227 72 50% 63 43% 10 7% 145 455 ( 47\" 448 46% 7S 8% 978 123 61\" 62 31% 18 9% 203 113 61\" 56 30% 15 8% 184 107 58% 64 35% 14 8% 185 110 63\" 50 29\" 15 9% 175 453, 61%) 232 31% 62 8% 747 85 40% 102 47\" 28 13% 215 70 37\" 91 49\" 26 14% 187 68 36% 98 52% 22 12% 188 57 31% 117 63% 12 6% 186 280 r 36%) 408 53% 88 11% 776 65 42% 77 50% 13 8% 155 50 44% 52 46% 11 10% 113 46 41% 56 50% 11 10% 113 35 3S% 56 56% 9 9% 100 196 ( 41% 241 50% 44 9\" 481 129 52% 101 41% 19 8% 249 111 48% 93 40% 27 12% 231 81 44% 81 44% 24 13% 186 75 4S\" 73 45% 15 9\" 163 396 ( 48%) 348 42% 85 10% 829 4043 3584 43% 794 9% 8421 7458 7841 46% 1946 11% 17245 7708 8141 45% 2086 12% 17935 ( ( \\ ~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 8th Dav of School ENROLLMENT Auaust 29 2012. PRINCIPALS REPORTED Clau PRE-K KIND FIRST I SECOND THIRD FOURTH I FIFTH SIXTH I TOTAL ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY Capooly SCHOOLS (R- Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % Non-Black ,dkins 526 94 66 160 94 58.8% 66 Arnold Dr 453 8 32 40 17 43 60 19 30 49 19 33 52 8 36 44 10 28 38 9 15 24 90 29.3% 217 Baker 428 e 0 0 27 53 80 28 59 85 24 49 73 28 66 94 41 64 105 22 53 75 168 32.8% 344 Bates 553 19 21 40 22 45 67 36 45 81 29 43 72 32 45 77 23 36 59 39 41 80 200 42.0% 276 R\u0026lt;\u0026gt;uno Melo 697 0 20 20 2 55 SI 10 44 54 3 40 43 4 53 57 3 44 47 3 44 47 25 7.7% 300 Cato 800 2 18 20 16 43 59 13 42 55 12 39 51 18 35 53 13 40 53 23 27 50 97 28.4% 244 Chenal 550 0 0 0 28 71 99 23 59 82 23 66 89 24 64 10.8 34 68 100 24 70 94 156 27.3% 416 Clinton 640 27 32 59 57 47 104 46 53 99 56 51 107 55 46 101 57 45 102 54 43 97 352 52.6% 317 Colt Sta 439 17 1 18 24 7 31 31 5 36 21 7 28 36 17 53 25 21 46 30 12 42 184 72.4% 70 Crystal Hill 870 16 23 39 57 86 143 42 78 120 53 74 127 51 80 131 60 69 129 61 80 141 340 41.0% 490 DuDrN 498 0 0 0 59 47 106 39 34 73 41 28 69 36 28 64 32 27 59 34 19 53 241 56.8% 183 Hanis 906 0 0 0 22 3 25 31 7 38 26 2 28 19 7 26 23 6 29 26 9 35 147 81.2% 34 0 #DIVKI! 0 #I Landmark 711 11 22 33 17 43 60 18 38 56 10 25 35 14 24 38 11 22 33 25 22 47 106 35.1% 196 .awson 372 4 18 20 12 41 53 15 27 42 19 18 37 11 23 34 12 30 42 14 30 44 87 32.0% 185 Oak Grove 626 19 38 57 13 32 45 5 38 43 14 27 41 10 31 41 5 22 27 10 23 33 76 26.5% 211 Oakbrooi\u0026lt;e 553 17 19 36 39 66 105 38 61 99 45 51 96 34 49 83 31 44 75 25 50 75 229 40.2% 340 Pine Forest 554 0 0 0 27 62 89 26 55 81 30 58 88 34 83 117 29 53 82 32 72 104 178 31.7% 383 Pinewood 677 0 0 0 32 40 n 38 26 64 46 39 85 45 33 78 47 33 80 40 20 60 248 56.5% 191 Robinson 544 11 22 33 7 22 29 3 22 25 8 24 32 4 17 21 11 22 33 9 17 26 53 26.6% 146 Sa:ltt 294 9 11 20 11 11 22 7 22 29 13 15 28 7 8 15 9 11 20 10 16 26 66 41.3% 94 Sherwood 561 7 13 20 18 47 65 23 37 60 16 44 60 15 41 56 22 38 60 21 33 54 122 32.5% 253 Sylvan HiAs 606 19 21 40 40 42 82 30 34 64 36 22 58 23 31 54 29 32 61 33 27 60 210 50.1% 209 avlor 566 0 0 0 56 34 90 50 37 87 55 30 85 40 23 63 49 18 67 39 28 67 289 63.0% 170 Tolleson 561 2 18 20 27 59 86 28 48 74 43 31 74 21 27 48 12 31 43 24 25 49 157 39.8% 237 !Total Elem: ~ 2 2 93 675 830 99 1 29 597 8 1 2 816 458 569 7 5 13 607 776 1 0 0 1.ltll .. _,..,. - /,Y.-J/75 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 8th Day of School, ENROLLMENT August 29, 2012. PRINCIPALS REPORTED SECONDARY a. .. SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH lWELFTH TOTAL SECONDARY SCHOOLS ~ Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk (Rwised) NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % Non-Black  TOTAL LearninAgc aderm.T BA 2 3 5 8 5 13 6 1 7 8 1 9 5 1 6 3 0 3 4 1 5 36 75.0% 12 25.0% ~ Star Academv TBA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIVKII 0 #DIV/01 ( Fuller Middle 1360 105 91 196 86 85 171 107 61 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 55.7% 237 44.3% 53! Jax Middte 990 133 67 200 123 62 185 128 64 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 66.6% 193 33.4% sn Jax High 1360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 105 258 126 100 226 113 68 181 97 79 176 489 58.1% 352 41.9% 841 Maumelle Middle 640 130 174 304 116 184 300 126 163 289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372 41.7% 521 58.3% 89, Mills High 1130 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 107 71 178 106 63 169 117 76 193 102 58 160 432 61.7% 268 38.3% 70( North Pulaski High 1050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 137 222 79 114 193 73 118 191 62 133 195 299 37.3% 502 62.7% 801 NMhwoodMld 1030 55 92 147 51 85 136 59 103 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 37.1% 280 62.9% 44! Maumelle High 1130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 183 331 153 145 298 100 159 259 73 72 145 474 45.9% 559 54.1% 103, Robinson Mid 650 59 98 157 67 78 145 60 64 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 41.7% 260 58.3% 44f Robinson High 770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 85 149 52 68 120 47 67 114 36 70 106 199 40.7% 290 59.3% 48! Sylvan Hlff1 Mid 1080 133 154 287 154 176 330 136 134 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 423 47.7% 464 52.3% 881 Svlvan Hills High 1120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 109 239 121 109 230 86 102 188 81 75 156 418 51.4% 395 48.6% 81, rro1a1S econdary: 12,510 617 679 1296 605 675 1280 622 610 1232 695 691 1386 642 600 1242 539 590 1129 455 -488 943 4,175 49.1% 4-ml. rM .... TOTAL ENROLLMt:N 1 a,1111111 41,.,.,., ~ ...... , u.- } c::-c7::J/ q- / 3 ~ --725 ~c ~,,,J~,,c---~ ~J-i,. t--:i 7\n3,,LE-/ 3..i/-~oe:,o e-~J ~153 {:CJ11)\n),\u0026lt;!!:- A/ror. D. c:\n,y~-~1,3 \u0026lt;iPIJ 7:t\u0026gt; ~ . Al ro ~ t t K, .,:\n:)\nJ (2,~j-  01f' l~ 1'\",l/-~ ~,,,00, :S::K:' r ~ ~go -5--Y'?-G\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_190","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Project Management Tool, part one","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":["2012-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Project Management Tool, part one"],"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/190"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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\nDr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado A Toyce Newton W' Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019 .:_01) 682-4475  kansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION July 31, 2012 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol 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 DPMIHDY Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of July, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY 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 July, 2012. BY: ~C-o~ J yC. Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeremy Lasiter, certify that on July 31, 2012, 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 c..~~ J~. Lasiter IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION l.:ITTLE 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 July 31, 2012 Based on ,the imforrnatfun available al Juljle 30,. 2012, the ADE calculated the State FoundatiorfFunding forFY\" 11/12' sub]ect to\" perioafo adjustments. 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. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 Based on the-information available at June 30,~2012, the ADE calculated for. FY '1.1112s, ubjecttci\"r:\u0026gt;er1odiacd justment~. -  -~ C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 pn June 30,: 4012, cl1ifributions gf State Fo!_!nda_tioFnu ndiQgf or FY 11/ 12 were ~sfollgwl5: LRSD - $61,362,928 Nt.:RsD\"'\nJa4)74,220 PCS$D - $42,845\n370 ifne allotments of St~te Foundation Funding~c alculated fQr-FY,c.1/112 at ~une 3d, 2of2\nsubj~qt9 p~riodic adjustments, were.as follows: LRSD - $61,907,286,. 'NL:RSb--'$34,983\n681 PCSSD -.$43,'018\n-176 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 July 31, 2012 Based on the.j!'lfor:rn.atio.n.a vailable, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2012, for FY11112,sub}ecfto periodic adjustments. 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 July 31, 2012 Based on the.inforrnatr'on av.a]lable, the ADE calculated at June 30, 20:12, for FY11/12, subject to geriodi~ adjustments. 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 July 31, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. Basep .pn. the ,hformation available\nthee ADE calculated at June 30, 2012, for FYt.1/12, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 Distributions for FY 11112a t June 30, 2012, total\"ed$ 14,363,041. Allotment calculated .for FY '11/1 2 w,as$ 14,363, Q:41s ubject tp periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011, for FY10/11, 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. ~ctual as of July31, io12 Distributio!'ls tor FY 11/12 at J~ne 30, 2012, were: LRSP - $4,499,601 NLRSD ~ $4,240'.722 PCSSD -$10,49~,Mq The allotments.~~lclated for FY 11/12 atJune 30,.2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,4q8Af?3 NLRSD\n..:_$5,5o4,8A6 PC-SSD\n$-9,761,8:76 ~ 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 July 31, 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 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 July 31, 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 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 July 31, 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1,471,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $1,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1,020,436.26 PCSSD - $1,810,218.30 In December 2011, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $1,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11 /12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD - $1,778,000.70 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 July 31, 2012 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 July 31, 2012 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. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 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. 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. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June-2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 In July. 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,036,115. In March 2008, 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 $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,079,700. In March 2009, 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 $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71,210 per unit and two 47 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1,135,960. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 Bids were released in July 2011, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-47 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities \u0026amp; Transportation submitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen (16) buses for the three Districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSD Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 Passenger buses On April 3, 2012, The Office of State Procurement sent out the request for bids for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses being purchased. The bid opening will take place on April 19, 2012. The breakdown of the buses was submitted previously. On May 9, 2012, The Office of State Procurement was awarded the bid for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses from Diamond States Bus Sales in Conway, AR. Three (3) 47 passenger buses@ $67,054.00 each Thirteen (13) 65 passenger buses@ $68,575.00 each Total bid awarded is for $1,092,637.00 Buses should be delivered sometime in August. On May 17, 201i tile sixteen (1-6) Magnet~-~dM to:~_buses.from Diamond States Bus SaleS' in Conway, AR were ordered and are scheduled for delivery ~rou.nd AUQ!JS1t , 2~f A re,qi.Jesht as beensent to ~het hree '(3) districts-to submit their documentation for reimb!,Jrsernent of expenditures for the 2011-12 yeiarand the estlniated expenditures for the 2012-13 school year. 11 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 July 31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 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. 12 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 July 31, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. Actual as of July 31, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending Jl:liy 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 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. 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. 13 I. - - FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 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. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11. Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11 /12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11/12. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 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. 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1 . Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11. Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11 /12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11 /12. 15 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 July 31, 2012 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 percent 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. Then it was 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. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. 16 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 July 31, 2012 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts were held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and School Improvement visits. 17 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 18 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 and 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. 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. 19 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) Staff Development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5 and 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 from 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. On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 20 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 21 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 from 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. 22 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. 23 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 feasibility 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 from 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. 24 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase Activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., declared the LRSD unitary and released the District from Federal Court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County Districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper Federal Court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County Districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County Districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The Court ruled that the District could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary School assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the Districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenoiS filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave-the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that School Desegregation Monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the District, or on the District's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County Districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Act 2 was passed in the Special Legislative Session that started March 31, 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31. Also discussed in the Implementation Phase Meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the District. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an Independent District. He said that taking Jacksonville out of tl'le PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the Court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in Federal District Court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201\"=-Aat the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-2009 Budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the Districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that Legislators, Attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and Representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the District Court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in -the meeting included the School Choice Law and the Charter School Law. The LRSD has said that Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County School Desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 29 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney, General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule Court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first Court hearing with U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller on -the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an Attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District, Stephen Jones, an Attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an Attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three Districts to continue even if the Districts are all unitary. John Walker, an Attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 30 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since State Funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a Federal Court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the District. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure, provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for Districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School Applications will appear in the next State Board Meeting Agenda. 31 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also-stated -that the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 32 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County ~Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General Assembly passed an act to provtde oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski County School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011, that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for District Staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE Legal Department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the District starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The State has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case relates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to heip PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 35 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, 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 Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, stated that on March 19, 2012, they were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release the State from the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The settlement schedules had not been discussed in the last two years. Mr. Richardson also stated that on March 29, 2012, the two main things that were submitted to the Courts were Charter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gap. Mr. Morris stated the big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary areas in the last Court Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part of the County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the PCSSD facilities plan. Due to bad weather conditions during Spring Break, Mr. Morris was unable to visit any facilities. Next week, if the weather permits, he will visit facilities that are not testing. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. Transportation and facility funding are to continue being provided until being released from the Court. There has been no feedback on tRSD from Mr. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negative impact on their litigation. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no response to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 36 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On July 12, 2012. tti~f..,QE lmplementation_Phas~-WorkiGrirgo up met to review the lmplenientati_oJnil fasea. c\ntivitiefs~ OIJtlh e_p reviousq. arter. Mr. Willi~ Morris, ~DE Le~ :.  \"'-  egregati91U\n1P, ,pate4theg rpupor:a,l l relevant desegreg  ancfN orthl ittle Roel\u0026lt;S choolD istrictsh ave gairiectm untyjpeciafS~~g~l\nDi~trJct ~emains partially UQitary..  . G~11eraq)k,o. yJicil.for L~gal ~ erv[ces\np royifled tlie Pul as gregafion,,Cas:eS ettlemenAt g~eement (revised a handautsand-'slideHse:: p resentectthe na'rne~s0 mi fted\\ b theo ti'!lg~fionas, :i.d\n3skfeo'dr1.\n1ny additions stafCH'e adivised\"tbosset affmembersf o h0avettfe, tie-su  th\u0026amp;~Cotrl\"t~Fle.statecithatht e Project Manage111en . 00 ' is~pro~i month~t6 the Court and tbe Jo, - !I..: ~. - -~ . J 't ,. ~ -\n....,..  _, Executive Summijr)(f~ Rrovided each mo . State Board of. Educatron. r,Ar.M or~i~w ill-~~~1t)e,}~Qj~ls that ha,vebeen~ ~gl~cted to\"see if ~l:!eu pgra~1ng process has began and .wnat, progress has been made towards the completion. The ADE will conti e lniplementation'Phase Meetrngs until the clesegregatio.n cas _ ,finish~c!. Litt!~ 8cick~School District-filed a cornpfaint on ,the nlJ.IT~1r of Char1~r cl:,'091~th at'liave been a'How~dto open in the Pi\nilaskf C?uriti-Spe.ci~l\"'~chool Dist~ict.:~1 :\nf~ie~x t lmplement?tion P~a~e. _ ~or,ki.rig-Group ~eeting i~ scheduled for October 4, 2012 at-1 :30 p.m. ,n room 201-A at the\nADE. 37 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 July 31, 2012 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 38 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 July 31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 39 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATION_S 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 July 31, 2012 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 impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and Worker's Compensation was 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 81st 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. 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. 40 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. -T-hey 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. 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. 41 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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 and regl,Jlations 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. 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. 42 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 43 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 July 31, 2012 (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 regulattons, and district policies. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011, 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 44 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 July 31, 2012 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 July-31, 2012 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 July 31, 2012 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 45 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 July 31, 2012 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. 46 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 July 31, 2012 (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 Repert, and copies of the report and its Executive Summary were distributed to all Board Members. The Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education Meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and Executive Summary at the July Board Meeting. 47 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 48 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 49 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 July 31, 2012 (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 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. 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 progre-ss, 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. 50 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 July 31, 2012 (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 and 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 and 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 met 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. 51 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 52 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 53 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 54 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 55 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 July 31, 2012 (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. 56 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 July 31, 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Boar\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_232","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Project Management Tool, part two","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":["2012-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Project Management Tool, part two"],"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/232"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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\nX. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and throagh a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, -arid recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 177 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. E. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 Teacher Scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of Science, Math, and Foreign Language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 School Year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 School Year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996, to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 School Year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 178 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer Minority Teacher Scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996, to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 School Year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on Minority Teacher Scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997, to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97 /98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997, to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 School Year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship Program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars Program. The Minority Masters Fellows Program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow Hispanics and Asians to participate in the Minority Scholarship Programs. It was stated that the average GPA for Minority Teacher Scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 179 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next Quarterly Meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The Quarterly Meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was cancelled since only the NLRSD and an ADE Representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP)-,-and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESELP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the districts no later than April since the districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on Minority Teacher Graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next Committee Meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998, at the NLRSD Offices. 180 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough Minority Teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in Minority Scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students 181 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998, in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, and (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next Quarterly Meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next Quarterly Meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next Quarterly Meeting was rescheduled for February 21, 1999, to accommodate all participants. The Quarterly Meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21, 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three Districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 School Year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31, \"an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for Foreign Languages and Special Education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 182 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) SB261 \"to encourage teachers to participate in and complete NBPTS Certification by authorizing the Department of Education to pay full tuition and incentive bonuses.\" SB 113 \"to amend A. C.A.  6-17 -410 to clarify that the Department of Education will pay criminal record check fees for certain public education employees.\" The Quarterly Meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on May 13, 1999 at the ADHE. Representatives from all three Districts in Pulaski County, ADHE, and ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship application deadline for the 1999 School Year were provided. Information regarding the new rules and regulations for professional development that are to go out for public comment were distributed. The committee discussed the status and impact of the following Acts related to teacher recruitment: Act 905 (formerly HB1466)\nAct 391 (formerly SB237)\nAct 58 (formerly SB261)\nAct 226 (formally SB113). On August 23, 1999, Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1999-2000 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 300 ESEL 81,717 101,250 6* Minority Teacher 450,000 425,000 94 Scholars Minority Masters 80,000 65,000 17 Fellows * These are all minority students. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee gathered on November 9, 1999, at the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. Representatives from the ADHE, ADE, and the three Districts were present. The committee discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pool and reviewed the current rules and regulations for professional development. Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education made a correction to the 1999 - 2000 scholarship report that was presented in the August PMT. The total number of awarded scholarships for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program was 97 rather than 94, also the amount of money awarded for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program was $466,104 rather than $425,000. 183 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education stated that the total number of awarded scholarships for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program for the academic year 2000 - 2001, would be available after the June 1 deadline. Here are TENTATIVE 2000-2001 scholarship numbers for the following scholarships: PROGRAM NAME AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250 ESEL 100,000 50 Minority Teacher Scholars 450,000 100 Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 Z2 Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education stated that she would have more firm number amounts after July 1, 2000. Here are 2000-2001 scholarship numbers for the following scholarships: PROGRAM NAME AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 300* ESEL 96,250 41 Minority Teacher Scholars 412,500 91 Minority Masters Fellows 78,750 19 * The ADHE can only estimate on this program as the institutions select the students. There are always drops and adds during the year. The institutions reports are due June 15, 2001. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on October 12, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Higher Education. The committee discussed the new guidelines which will take place on January 1, 2002. The committee talked about how the guidelines will negatively affect Arkansas. The teacher shortage will continue to grow. There were 150 applications for the Minority Teacher Scholarship, and the ADHE was able to fund 91. There was $80,000 available for the Minority Masters program, but only $63,750 was used. 184 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 on July 26, 2001. These included the Emergency Secondary Education Loan (ESEL) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. The scholarship awards for ESEL are as follows: ESEL Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 9 18,750 34 78,750 43 97,500 Black 2 5,000 2 5,000 Asian 1 1,250 1 1,250 Native 1 2,500 1 2,500 American Totals 10 21,250 37 85,000 47 106,250 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 10 42,500 67 287,500 77 330,000 Hispanic 1 5,000 4 20,000 5 25,000 Asian 3 10,000 3 10,000 Native 2 7,500 2 7,500 American Totals 11 47,500 76 325,000 87 372,500 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 6 25,000 28 140,000 34 165,000 Native 1 7,500 1 7,500 American Totals 7 32,500 28 140,000 35 172,500 185 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 on July 22, 2002. These included the Emergency Secondary Education Loan (ESEL) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows MMF) Proqram. The scholarship awards for ESEL are as follows: ESEL Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 4 8,750 37 91,250 41 100,000 Black 3 6,250 3 6,250 Hispanic 1 2,500 1 2,500 Totals 5 11,250 40 97,500 45 108,750 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 6 25,000 52 237,500 58 262,500 Hispanic 3 12,500 3 12,500 Asian 2 10,000 2 10,000 Native 1 5,000 1 5,000 American Totals 6 25,000 58 265,000 64 290,000 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 1 2,500 32 96,250 33 98,750 Hispanic 2 15,000 2 15,000 Native 1 3,750 1 3,750 American Totals 2 6,250 34 111,250 36 117,500 186 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 on August 27, 2003. These included the Emergency Secondary Education Loan (ESEL) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows MMF) ProQram. The scholarship awards for ESEL are as follows: ESEL Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 7 17,500 42 101,250 49 118,750 Black 1 2,500 1 2,500 Hispanic 2 5,000 1 2,500 3 7,500 Asian 1 2,500 1 2,500 Totals 9 22,500 45 108,750 54 131,250 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 4 17,500 32 140,000 36 157,500 Hispanic 1 5,000 2 5,000 3 10,000 Asian 3 15,000 3 15,000 Native 2 10,000 2 10,000 American Totals 5 22,500 39 170,000 44 192,500 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 2 10,000 40 172,500 42 182,500 Hispanic 1 1,250 1 1,250 Native 1 7,500 1 7,500 American Totals 2 10,000 42 181,250 44 191,250 187 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Lillian Williams of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported . Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 on September 15, 2004. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows MMF) Proi:\niram. The scholarship awards for STAR are as follows: STAR Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 37 168,000 162 626,000 199 794,000 Black 8 28,500 20 64,500 28 93,000 Hispanic 1 3,000 1 3,000 Asian 3 15,000 3 15,000 Totals 45 196,500 186 708,500 231 905,000 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: MTS Male Female Tot~! Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 3 12,500 43 190,000 46 202,500 Hispanic 1 5,000 1 5,000 2 10,000 Asian 1 5,000 1 2,500 2 7,500 Native 1 5,000 1 5,000 2 10,000 American Totals 6 27,500 46 202,500 52 230,000 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 2 15,000 32 126,250 34 141,250 Hispanic Native American Totals 2 15,000 32 126,250 34 141,250 188 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Tara Parker of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 on October 14, 2005. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. The scholarship awards for STAR are as follows: STAR Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 274 1,195,500 45 240,000 319 1,435,500 Black 8 39,000 24 114,000 32 153,000 Hispanic 4 18,000 4 18,000 Native Amer 2 9,000 3 15,000 5 24,000 Totals 284 1,243,500 76 387,000 360 1,630,500 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: -MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 2 10,000 42 210,000 44 220,000 Hispanic 2 10,000 2 10,000 Asian 1 5,000 1 5,000 2 10,000 Native Amer 2 10,000 2 10,000 Totals 3 15,000 47 235,000 50 250,000 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 2 7,500 24 122,500 26 130,000 Hispanic 2 10,000 2 10,000 Native Amer Totals 2 7,500 26 132,500 28 140,000 189 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Tara Smith of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 on October 17, 2006. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. The scholarship awards for STAR are as follows: STAR Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 62 270,514 337 1,466,952 399 1,737,466 Black 9 51,000 44 190,500 53 241,500 Hispanic 1 6,000 4 21,000 5 27,000 Native Amer 1 6,000 2 9,000 3 15,000 Other 2 7,500 2 9,000 4 16,500 Totals 75 341,014 389 1,696,452... 464 2,037,466 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 6 27,500 42 188,430 48 215,930 Hispanic 1 5,000 1 5,000 Asian Native Amer 5 25,000 5 25,000 Totals 6 27,500 48 218,430 54 245,930 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 2 6,250 26 93,750 28 100,000 Hispanic 3 13,750 3 13,750 Native Amer Totals 2 6,250 29 107,500 31 113,750 190 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Collin Callaway of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 on October 15, 2007. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Proqram. The scholarship awards for STAR are as follows: STAR Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 58 264,000 328 1,402,500 386 1,666,500 Black 10 51,000 29 136,500 39 187,500 Hispanic 0 0 4 18,000 4 18,000 Native Amer 1 3,000 1 6,000 2 9,000 Other 4 21,000 11  42,000 15 63,000 Totals 73 339,000 373 1.,605,000 446 1,944,000 The scholarship awards for MTS are as follows: MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 7 35,000 28 137,500 35 172,500 Hispanic 6 30,000 6 30,000 Asian 2 10,000 2 10,000 Native Amer 4 20,000 4 20,000 Totals 7 35,000 40 197,500 47 232,500 The scholarship awards for MMF are as follows: MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 2 8,750 27 125,000 29 133,750 Asian 2 11,250 2 11,250 Totals 2 8,750 29 136,250 31 145,000 191 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Tara Smith of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 on February 26, 2009. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. The scholarship awards are as follows: STAR Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 47 171,000 258 1,018,627 305 1,189,627 Black 3 6,000 28 121,500 31 127,500 Hispanic 0 0 2 12,000 2 12,000 Asian 1 6,000 2 9,000 3 15,000 Other 2 6,000 4 15,000 6 21,000 Totals 53 189,000 294 1,176,127 347 1,365,127 MTS Maie- Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 9 27,500 37 132,710 46 160,210 Hispanic 10 27,500 10 27,500 Asian 1 5,000 2 7,500 3 12,500 Native Amer 1 5,000 1 5,000 Totals 10 32,500 50 172,710 60 205,210 MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 4 15,000 59 213,750 63 228,750 Hispanic 1 3,750 1 1,250 2 5,000 Asian 3 13,750 3 13,750 Native Amer 3 5,000 3 5,000 Other 1 6,250 1 6,250 Totals 5 18,750 67 240,000 72 258,750 192 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Tara Smith of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 on February 24, 2010. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. The scholarship awards are as follows: STAR Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award White 38 156,000 175 716,000 213 872,000 Black 2 6,000 19 78,000 21 84,000 Hispanic 3 15,000 3 15,000 Other 2 12,000 2 12,000 Totals 40 162,000 199 821,000 239 983,000 MTS Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 5 22,500 30 129,544 35 152,044 Hispanic 1 2,500 1 2,500 Asian 1 5,000 1 5,000 Native Amer Totals 5 22,500 32 137,044 37 159,544 MMF Male Female Total Total Race Count Award Count Award Count Award Black 8 38,750 33 142,500 41 181,250 Hispanic 2 7,500 2 7,500 Asian 2 2,500 2 2,500 Native Amer 1 1,250 1 1,250 Other Totals 8 38,750 38 153,750 46 192,500 193 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Ms. Lisa Smith of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 on April 11, 2011. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. The scholarship awards are as follows: STAR Male Male Female Female Total Race Count Award Count Award Count White 13 60,000 61 232,500 74 Black 1 3,000 9 28,500 10 Hispanic 1 3,000 1 Other 2 9,000 2 Totals 14 63,000 73 273,000 87 MTS Male Race Count Black 3 Asian Native Amer Totals 3 MMF Race Black Totals Male Count 1 1 Male Female Award Count 12,500 7 1 1 12,500 9 Male Female Award Count 3,750 8 3,750 8 Female Total Award Count 27,500 10 5,000 1 ~QO 1 37,500 12 Female Total Award Count 21,250 9 21,250 9 Total Award 292,500 31,500 3,000 9,000 336,000 Total Award 40,000 5,000 5,000 50,000 Total Award 25,000 25,000 On April 12, 2012, Ms. Lisa Smith of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education reported Minority Scholarships for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 have been phased out and no awards were given. These included the State Teacher Assistance Resource (STAR) Program, the Minority Teacher Scholars (MTS) Program, and the Minority Masters Fellows (MMF) Program. 194 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE Staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific objectives and time lines). 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 14, 1995. New committee members were assigned tasks and goals to increase the effectiveness of the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the Minority Recruitment Committee Meeting on May 18, 1995, the committee was divided into four working sub-teams to update the Annual Plan. Each team focused on one of the four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan and monitored specific task completions. From June to October 1995, subcommittees met and worked on monitoring the progress of the ADE in accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Minority Recruitment Plan. In September 1995, the ADE reached an agreement with the Arkansas Statewide Systemic Initiative (ASSI) for conducting an audit of the Minority Recruitment Plan. -The committee reviewed the recommendations and comments for updating the plan -at the November 1995 meeting and reviewed the final draft at the December meeting. The ASSl's Audit findings were presented to the committee on January 16, 1996. It was determined during the initial review that the files were incomplete to the extent that an accurate audit was not possible. The auditor met with the committee in March 1996, to review the additional documentation in the files. The auditor prepared the final report in April 1996, indicating that of the 89 actions contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan, 74 of the items had been completed, nine were in progress, and six had not been started. The audit stated that of the 22 items in Goal 1, 15 were completed, one was in progress, and six had not been started. Goal 2 contained 14 items, 13 of which were completed and one in progress. Goal 3 consisted of 30 items with 29 items completed and one in progress. Goal 4 consisted of 23 items with 17 items completed and six in progress. 195 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE Staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 6, 1996, to discuss updates and revisions addressed in the audit and the new racial/gender report on Grades 21 and above. Since the completion of the audit, Goals 2.3.4 and 3.3.8 were completed, and a list of recommendations for retention activities was written. Also, a random sample of ADE employees was asked to fill out questionnaires, but only a limited number were returned. In August 1996, the Minority Recruitment Committee met and discussed the actions necessary to complete Goals 1 and 4 contained in the Minority Recruitment Plan. At the September 1996 meeting, the committee was updated on the progress of all four goals in the Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee heard an analysis of application and hiring practices and discussed the relevance of the data. Suggestions made by the State Board of Education regarding the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet were discussed at the February 1996 meeting of the Minority Recruitment Committee. Goal 1 of the Minority Recruitment Plan will be completed when the employee tracking sheet is finalized. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on March 14 and 27, 1997, to discuss the draft revised Minority Recruitment Plan and progress toward completing Goal 4. The committee passed a motion to omit Section 1.1 from Goal 1 of the draft revised plan. Additionally, the committee suggested that communication be made an integral part of each goal of the revised plan. The committee discussed the need for professional training programs, incentives for educational opportunities, and upward mobility for all staff within the ADE. In an effort to complete Goal 4, a representative from the ADE Communication Section presented development costs for media materials to the committee. Additionally, a representative from the ADE MIS section discussed the possibility of using the network to disseminate information to employees. It was suggested that the committee continue to receive assistance from MIS on the orientation video. 196 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) A. Administer the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan developed by the ADE Staff and Board of Education and officially adopted by the Board of Education (see Exhibit B for the ADE's Minority Recruitment Plan with specific goals, objectives and time lines). (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) In an effort to represent all sections within the ADE, the committee recommended that representatives from the ADE Communication and MIS Sections be added as members to the committee. Currently, neither section is represented on the committee. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on April 18, 1997, to discuss the need to revise the action steps for each of the committee's four goals. The committee decided to schedule a two-day retreat in an effort to review all goals and actions. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on May 19, 1997, to discuss the agenda for the annual retreat and revisions to the action plan emphasizing recruitment and retention at all grade levels. A two-day annual retreat was held on June 18-19, 1997, at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat facilitated the revision of the Minority Recruitment Committee's Action Plan for their four goals. Dr. Gary Chamberlain, UALR faculty member, served as the facilitator. The revised plan was distributed to the Minority Recruitment Committee at their July 18, 1997 meeting for final approval before it is submitted to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The Minority Recruitment Committee Meeting scheduled for September 12, 1997 was rescheduled for September 30, 1997, due to members scheduling conflicts. The meeting will be reported in the November PMT. The Minority Recruitment Committee met with the ADE Deputy Director in November 1997, to provide him with a copy of the revised plan and receive his input on the plan. The revised Minority Recruitment Committee (MRC) Plan was approved at the December 1997 State Board of Education Meeting. The MRC met in January 1998, to discuss the implementation of the revised MRC Plan. Reports and documentation of progress in completing the components of each goal will be reported at the next meeting. 197 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 As of August 1995, the ADE had hired or transferred 38 employees in Grades 21 and above in the General Education Division. This group was composed of 11 black females, 5 black males, 16 white females, 4 white males, 1 other female, and 1 other male. The racial composition of these employees was 52.6 percent non-minority and 47.4 percent minority. As of October 1995, there were 161 filled positions in the GED in Grades 21 and above. There were 27 minorities or 22.9 percent in Grades 21 and above. An analysis on Goal 1 regarding application and hiring practices was presented at the September 1996 meeting. Samples of graphs and tables for presenting the data were distributed at the meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on December 13, 1996, to discuss the latest draft of the ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee recommended various format changes including the addition of a table-of-contents and an Executive Summary. The committee met on January 17, 1997, to continue the discussion on the draft ADE Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum agreed with all but three of the committee's recommendations for the employee tracking sheet. He requested that the committee continue discussions on this matter. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on February 14, 1997, to discuss the status of the Employee Tracking Data Check Sheet. The committee also discussed the lack of minority employees in some areas and the loss of several minority employees and the possibility of revising the new Minority Recruitment Plan. The committee received information on Arkansas Pupil Enrollment by race at their March 14, 1997 meeting. Arkansas enrollment figures for October 1, 1996 revealed that 73.7% of all students are White, 23.4% are Black, 1.8% are Hispanic, 0.7% are Asian, and 0.4% are Native American. To assess the effectiveness of the action steps for each goal, agenda items were developed for the committee's June retreat. The committee recommended that invitations be sent to Senator Beebe, Julie Cullen, Gene Wilhoit, and all State Board Members. 198 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) At the May 1997 Minority Recruitment Committee Meeting, the committee discussed reviewing the most recent quarterly hiring and retention report and revisions to the action plan at the Annual Retreat. Discussions during the July retreat focused on the current plan, the original purpose of the plan, and necessary changes with input provided by committee members and speakers from the Arkansas Department of Higher Education, Employment Securities, and the ADE. At the January 1998 MRC Meeting, it was decided that the chair and secretary would prepare a report on minority representation within each unit and section and present it to the committee at the next meeting. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on June 11, 1998, to discuss new membership for the committee and plans for a retreat. The committee recommended a new design and composition of the committee to represent each of the seven sections of the Arkansas Department of Education and included Grade 20's and below. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on July, 16, 1998, to discuss implementation of new membership for the committee for FY98/99, and to update plans for the September retreat. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on August 11, 1998, with Dr. Dave Westmoreland, Acting Chairperson. Members were notified that the dates for the September Retreat are September 10-11, 1998 at the Teacher Retirement Building, Little Rock Arkansas. New members were introduced and background materials regarding the purpose and progress of the MRC were distributed to new members. The selection of new Officers will be conducted at the retreat. The two-day Annual Retreat was held on September 10-11, 1998, at the Teacher Retirement Building. The retreat focused on the current ADE Minority Recruitment Revised Plan (approved by the State Board of Education in December 1997). Since several of the members had recently joined the committee, issues concerning the implementation of the Revised Plan were examined. Acting Chairperson, Dr. Dave Westmoreland, was elected Chairperson, and Mr. Jimmy Burks was elected Vice-Chairperson. Mrs. Michelle Griffin consented to continue in her role as Secretary for the committee. 199 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The Minority Recruitment Committee met on October 15, 1998, and discussed the progress on the 1997 Minority Recruitment Plan. Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.3 were discussed, respectively. It appears that funding is available for the committee to engage an independent auditor. In addition, the committee reaffirmed the importance of the \"minority graduate student internship program\" as a resource for possible minority recruits. The Minority Recruitment Committee met on November 12, 1998, and discussed the following progress on the 1997 Minority Recruitment Plan: 1. Objectives 1.1 through 4.4 were discussed 2. The committee had extensive discussion on where to gather information for a study on the availability of minority workforce. Suggestions were Employment Security Division, UALR's Arkansas Statistical Review, and current data on the World Wide Web 3. The minutes of the November 10, 1998 Employee Focus Group discussion was distributed to members. The Focus Group participants recommended incentives for staff members to grow in work skills and evaluation of various employees be as objective-as possible 4. The committee discussed the ADE Newsletter on the Intranet as an avenue for employees to communicate concerns, and accomplishments. The next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 1998. The Minority Recruitment Committee Meeting scheduled for December 17 was rescheduled for December 16, 1998. Dr. Dave Westmoreland disseminated a Memorandum summarizing the December 14, 1998, Employee Focus Group discussion on Perceptions of the ADE. The group noted that the ADE is not structured in a manner that allows employees to voice concerns. Members felt salary adjustment would be desirable. Specifically, those employees who remain with the ADE after several years have observed that some less experienced employees are paid more. Perception of opportunities for advancement may not be uniform across the agency. Dr. Westmoreland noted that the focus group however, commented that the ADE was a good place to work. The committee will invite Mr. Artee Williams, Director of Office of Personnel Management, to the next regularly scheduled meeting to address employee salary concerns. The committee will forward comments on the perception of ADE to Senior Management. 200 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The committee met on January 14, 1999. Dr. Charity Smith reported the progress of the ADE Minority Graduate Student Internship Program. She explained that the program provides for students enrolled in advanced education degree programs, in Arkansas Institutions of Higher Learning, to be interns at the ADE. The Higher Education program advisor dictates the particular activities of the interns. Typically, the intern works with various ADE personnel for approximately six weeks. Three students have engaged in the program since 1994. The committee also discussed the possibility of a speaker tour bureau for the ADE, with this information being housed on the ADE web site. Mr. Artee Williams from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or a representative will be invited in the future to talk about the Career Ladder Incentive Program (CLIP) and training as it relates to the ADE's minority recruitment efforts. Dr. Andre Guerrero recommended that the committee stress to our Licensure Section the importance of keeping a strong mentoring system available for minority teachers. Mr. Reginald Wilson reported that he has contacted three persons that the committee might use as an independent auditor for the Minority Recruitment -Plan, and is waiting on a response from them. Mr. Wilson is also working on areport on the racial make-up of the ADE, Grade 21 and above. Dr. Westmoreland updated the committee that the 1997 revised Minority Recruitment Plan is near completion and a draft documentation is available for the audit. The next meeting is scheduled for February 11 , 1999. On February 11, 1999, A follow-up was made prior to the meeting about the invitation of Mr. Artee Williams. Mr. Williams invited the committee to write specific questions regarding personnel issues. He stated that he could not answer specific questions as they related to the ADE, but could answer broad questions based through state government. He stated that questions should be in writing from the Director, and the Director would have to extend an initiation before he could speak to the agency. Mr. Williams also mentioned proposed legislation that could result in the implementation of a meriUperformance based program called the Career Ladder Incentive Program (CLIP). If passed, this program will be implemented beginning July 1, 1999. He said this program might address the agencies salary concerns. The committee agreed to monitor this legislation. Dr. Westmoreland reported the Revised Minority Recruitment Plan is ready for the auditor to review. Mr. Wilson reported Ms. Denese Fletcher, Attorney at Law, Fletcher Law Firm has agreed to perform the audit. 201 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) Mr. Wilson disseminated a draft of the ADE Grade 21 and above Employee Status Report dated February 11, 1999. The MRC met on March 11, 1999. The committee was informed that the Minority Recruitment Plan was forwarded to the auditor, Denese Fletcher, Attorney, Fletcher Law Firm. When the auditor is finished with the Plan, it will be forwarded to the State Board of Education for their review and approval. After some discussion on possible objectives for the Minority Recruitment Plan, the committee agreed to forward information to the ADE Director recommending that he share the importance of the MRC with all hiring officials. The MRC met on April 15, 1999. Dr. Westmoreland reported that the auditor's report on the revised Minority Recruitment Plan has not been received. He explained that the committee would wait for the auditor's report followed by the State Board of Education approval before beginning work on a new revised report. On May 13, 1999, the MRC discussed the results of the auditor's report of the assessment and compliance with the revised Minority-Recruitment Plan. Eachof the items were looked at and persons responsible for following up on uncompleted items were to report the information to Dr. Westmoreland. The next meeting was scheduled for June 18, 1999. On June 18, 1999, the MRC met in the ADE Auditorium. Dr. Westmoreland said he would send the data requested by the auditor and share the results after he received the final report. The MRC met on July 15, 1999. Dr. Westmoreland reported that the response to the request for more information had been forwarded to the Auditor. He stated that once the Auditor had approved the plan, the committee would present it to the State Board. The committee planned a retreat to be held September 16, 1999, at the Arkansas Activities Association Meeting Room in North Little Rock. The MRC held a retreat at the Arkansas Activities Association Meeting Room on September 16, 1999. Dr. Westmoreland reported that the revised Minority Recruitment Plan has been approved by the independent auditor, Attorney Denese Fletcher. The committee looked at revising and updating objectives in the plan in small group sessions. The State Board accepted the report of the MRC regarding the plan on the Consent Agenda. This occurred on October 11, 1999. 202 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on November 18, 1999. The Committee discussed the future of the Minority Recruitment Plan. It was suggested the Committee survey all ADE employees regarding interest in minority recruitment. The next meeting of the MRC was scheduled for January 14, 2000, at the ADE. The MRC met on January 13, 2000 and the subcommittee met on January 14, 2000. The meeting held on January 13, the committee decided to hold meetings bimonthly with the next meeting scheduled for March 16, 2000. Mr. Jimmy Burks was voted in as Chairman of the committee. The subcommittee met on January 14, regarding the employee survey to be conducted. On March 16, 2000, the MRC met at the ADE. Mr. Burks led the discussion regarding the MRC employee survey to be conducted. It was agreed that a survey would be distributed within the ADE. The committee also wanted to look at the hiring statistics within the ADE at the next meeting, to monitor how the ADE is complying with the provision of the Minority Recruitment Plan. The next meeting was scheduled for May 11, 2000, at the ADE. On May 11, 2000, the MRC met at the ADE. A report on the number of ADE grade 21 and above employees by section, grade, gender and race was submitted to the MRC. A second report is also being worked on that will provide information about the agencies interview process. Mr. Burks led the discussion on the focus of the committee. He asked if the committee focus should be on sections with low percentages of minorities in Grade 21 and above positions or on all sections with recruitment/retention efforts. The committee suggestions are as follows: The interview process report will be a resource for information to address the situation regarding the focus of the committee. The focus of the committee should be to present the data to the Administration Team on how the agency is doing regarding numbers by section and units. A summary of the results will be submitted to the Deputy Director. Ms. Gayle Morris reported that she placed the survey regarding the Minority Recruitment Committee on the ADE Intranet. Ms. Morris agreed to e-mail each ADE employee in hopes of receiving more feedback. Mr. Burks reported that he has received one response. 203 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on July 13, 2000, at the ADE. The committee received feedback on the information posted on the Intranet. The responses were primarily from personnel concerned about promotion issues. The committee also discussed ways to report the number of minority applicants applying for positions and the number of minorities hired and promoted. Also, with the retirement of Martha Shirrell, a new committee member must be assigned. The MRC met on October 12, 2000, at the ADE. Three new committee members were recognized by Mr. Burks. The committee also was also asked for suggestions on preparing a quarterly report to the Director. The next meeting will be held on December 14, 2000, at the ADE. The MRC did not meet on December 14, due to inclement weather. The next meeting will be held on January 11, 2001, at the ADE. The MRC met on January 11, 2001, in the ADE Auditorium. Mr. Jimmie Burks began the meeting by giving the members an update on previous issues. Mr. Ernie Huff reported that he worked along with Mr. Reginald Wilson to draft the quarterly report to the Director. Mr. Wilson presented the draft report which included current information on the number of African Americans, Grade 21 and above employed at the ADE. Mr. Burks asked the committee for further suggestions onJhe format of the quarterly report to the Director. He asked the committee to bring suggestions in writing to the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on February 15, 2001, in room 201-A at the ADE. The MRC met on February 16, 2001, in room 201-A at the ADE. The members of the committee discussed the draft of the quarterly report which shows the number of African American and White ADE employees, Grade 21 and above. The final version of the report will go to the Director. There was discussion about whether or not the new report should be quarterly. Ms. Clemetta Hood gives reports on staffing to the Arkansas State Board of Education once a year and monthly. Her monthly report has promotions, new hires, demotions and terminations. There was discussion about what should be included in the new report. The report will be produced using October through December data and sent out to MRC members before the next meeting. MRC members will bring suggestions in writing to the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on April 12, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The MRC Meeting scheduled for April 12, 2001 was postponed until April 19. Information about the meeting will be included in the May PMT. 204 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on April 19, 2001, at the ADE. The members of the committee discussed the draft quarterly report and made suggestions for typographical and format changes. It was suggested that a source statement and a legend be added. It was suggested that information should be gathered regarding minority population of students in Arkansas and added to the report. Changes will be made to the report and presented at the next meeting which will be held on June 14, 2001, in room 201-A at the ADE. The MRC Meeting which was scheduled for June 14, 2001 was rescheduled for June 21, 2001. It will be held in room 201-A at the ADE. The MRC met on June 21, 2001, at the ADE. The members of the committee discussed the draft quarterly report. It was agreed that a column should be added for other races. This will include the number of Hispanic, Native American and Asian population of the ADE. The final document should be ready for approval by the MRC at the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on August 16, 2001, in the ADE Auditorium. The MRC Meeting which was scheduled for August 16, 2001 has been postponed while data for the quarterly report is being compiled. The next MRC Meeting will be held on October 11, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The MRC met on October 11, 2001, in 201-A at the ADE. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Jimmy Burks, handed out the four draft quarterly reports with information from October 2000 through September 2001. The members of the committee discussed the memorandum that will be given to the ADE Director along with the quarterly report. Some typographical changes were recommended. It was recommended that the percentages of minority staffing should be added to the memorandum for departments with less than 23 percent minority. It was suggested that the memorandum should stress the committee will continue to monitor the percentage of minority staffing at the ADE. Mr. Burks will make revisions to the memorandum and e-mail it to all MRC members before the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on December 13, 2001, at the ADE. 205 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on December 13, 2001, in 201-A at the ADE. The Chairman of the committee, Mr. Jimmy Burks, handed out the final version of the ADE workforce numbers report with information from October 2000 through September 2001. The report was given to the ADE Director on December 12. The report shows the percentages of minority staffing at the ADE. Members of the committee talked about active recruiting of minorities. The problem of higher salaries outside the ADE and retention of minority employees was mentioned. The effect on minority hiring of advertising for open positions internally and externally was discussed. It was stated that the advantages of ADE employment should be presented to current or prospective minority employees. Some advantages of ADE employment mentioned were retirement benefits and a stable work environment. Mr. Burks will present copies of the Minority Recruitment Plan to all MRC members at the next meeting. The committee will review the plan for possible revisions. The next meeting will be held on February 14, 2002, at the ADE. The MRC Meeting which was scheduled for February 14, 2002 has been rescheduled for March 7, 2002. It will be held in the ADE Auditorium. The MRC did not meet in March. The next meeting will be held on April 11, 2002, at the ADE. The MRC met on April 11, 2002, in 201-A at the ADE. A Workforce Data Report from the ADE Personnel Office was handed out. The report contained information from AASIS on February 21, 2002. It showed the percent of ADE employees in Grades 21 and above who are Black, White or Other. The MRC has been using information from the ADE Human Resources database. The MRC will compare the figures from the two sources of information to see if there are any differences. It was stated that the MRC should produce a report showing the increases in minority staffing over the years. There should be a report showing the ADE as a whole, and a report showing the sections where minority staffing is below 23 percent. It was recommended that the MRC recruitment web site should show vacant positions for Grades 21 and above. People need a college education for Grades 21 and above. It might improve minority representation in these grades if tuition reimbursement was provided for state employees. This has been done in the past. The next meeting will be held on June 13, 2002, at the ADE. The next meeting of the MRC has been rescheduled for July 11, 2002, at the ADE. 206 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on July 11, 2002, in the ADE Auditorium. Mr. Jimmy Burks stated that he will send a letter to Mr. Raymond Simon, asking him to assign more people to replace the four who have left the committee. A new report showing the increases in minority staffing over the years should go back five years. Each year should start on July 1 and end on June 30. The report should put only African American in the minority category. Other minorities should be on the report also, but listed separately. One thing that makes it difficult to attract minority teachers to the ADE, is that they only work ten months out of twelve when they teach. It is difficult to pay enough at the ADE to make up for working two more months. The next meeting will be held on September 12, 2002, at the ADE. The MRC met on September 12, 2002, in the ADE Auditorium. Mr. Jimmy Burks stated that he sent a letter to Mr. Raymond Simon, asking him to assign more people to replace the four who have left the committee. A report was presented by Mr. Burks which showed ADE Employees by Grade, Gender, and Race, by Section, in Grades 21 through 26. The report contained information for January through June of 2002. It was suggested that the reports should include graphs. A report should be made showing how minority hiring has increased over the years. Mr. Burks will get the information for the multrple year report and give it to Mr. Louis Ferren. Mr. FeFFeRw ill produce graphs of the information. The MRC Committee plans to send out a survey about the ADE work environment to grade 21 and above employees. The committee intends to use results of the survey to look for possible ways to improve minority recruitment and retention. The committee may be able to gather useful information from looking at reasons for leaving ADE employment given by past employees. This information is gathered at exit interviews. The next meeting will be held on October 17, 2002, at the ADE. The next MRC Meeting has been rescheduled to October 25, 2002, at the ADE. The MRC met on October 25, 2002, at the ADE. A report was presented by Mr. Burks using information from APSCN, showing ADE Employees by Race and Section for the first and second quarters of 2002. The total line of the report will be changed. A new report will be presented at the next meeting which will include information for the next quarter. Copies of the Minority Recruitment Plan were handed out. There was discussion about the plan. The next MRC Meeting will be held on January 9, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. in ADE Meeting Room 201-A. 207 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on January 9, 2003, at the ADE. A report was presented by Mr. Burks using information from APSCN, showing ADE Employees by Race and Section for the third and fourth quarters of 2002. A new graph was presented showing percent African American for ADE Employees in Grades 21 and above for 1996 through 2001. A new graph was presented showing Percent of Race and Gender Categories Employed for ADE Employees in Grades 21 and above for 1999 through 2001. It was suggested that a graph be produced showing the percent White beside the percent African American. It was suggested that a graph be produced showing the numbers of employees by race and gender along with the percent employed. It was stated that we should produce a graph of new hires by race and gender. A member of the Minority Recruitment Committee plans to study the numbers and race of consultant staff to determine the percentage of minority consultants. The next MRC Meeting has been scheduled for March 27, 2003, at the ADE. The MRC met on March 27, 2003, at the ADE. A new grapb. was presented showing percent White beside percent Black for ADE employees in Grades 21 and above for 1996 through 2001. A new graph was presented showing the numbers of ADE employees by race and gender in Grades 21 and above for 1999 through 2001. Mr. Jimmy-Burks will get ADE employment information for 2002 as soon as possible. When 2002 data is obtained, the graphs will be updated to include the new information. There was discussion about reporting MRC Meeting information to the State Board of Education. The information is also reported to the United States District Court which oversees the LRSD Desegregation Settlement Agreement. The MRC met on July 10, 2003, at the ADE. The Chairman of the MRC stated that he will contact members of the committee and encourage better attendance at meetings. Dr. Cummins is working on assigning more people to replace those who have left the committee. The person who provides employment information has been on vacation. The committee will update the minority employment reports and graphs with information through June of 2003 as soon as possible. The MRC met on September 9, 2003, at the ADE. New members that had been assigned to the committee attended the meeting. The meeting began with introductions of members. The history and purpose of the MRC was discussed. The way that minority recruitment ties in to the Desegregation Settlement Agreement was mentioned. There was an update on the progress made by School Districts in Pulaski County toward achieving unitary status. The committee will update the minority employment reports and graphs with new information as soon as possible. New MRC Office holders including the chairman will be appointed at the next meeting. 208 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on December 17, 2003, at the ADE. Reports were presented by Mr. Burks showing ADE Employees by Race and Section for the third and fourth quarters of 2002, and for the first, second and third quarters of 2003. There was discussion about differences in the numbers between the 2002 and 2003 reports. The ADE has a lot of open positions. The open positions present an opportunity to hire minority personnel. In some sections, the same people have been there for many years, so the minority percentages do not change. There has been difficulty in hiring because people interviewed declined to accept the pay offered. This is made worse for people who have been employed by the schools, because the school employees only work ten months. The school employees have an opportunity to supplement their income with jobs du.ring the summer. They could not do that at the ADE. It was suggested that the goal for the MRC should be for each ADE section to have an employment ratio of at least twenty-five percent African American. It was also stated that the task of the MRC is to report the racial makeup of the ADE. Sections with less than 25% minority should keep in mind the importance of having a racial balance reflective of the racial balance in the schools. New MRC Office holders were not selected because several members of the committee were unable to attend. The MRC will start meeting every other month, on the Thursday following the State Board Meeting. The MRC met on April -1, 2004, at the ADE. The Minority Recruitment Plan for 1997 was handed out. One of the plan action items suggests that the ADE review and analyze the salary of the three largest School Districts for comparison with ADE salaries. The MRC will work on a salary study. It was suggested that a cover letter giving information about the MRC should be produced to go along with the report of employees by Race and Section for all four quarters of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004. This report will go to the new ADE Director and Deputy Director. The MRC plans to e-mail committee members to ask if they would like to hold an Office in the committee such as Chairman, Co-Chair, or Secretary. After there is a list of members seeking an Office in the committee, there will be a vote. The next MRC Meeting is scheduled for May 13. The MRC met on May 21, 2004, at the ADE. Draft reports were presented by Mr. Burks showing ADE Employees by Race and Section for the first through fourth quarters of 2003, and for the first quarter of 2004. The MRC will check the new report and ensure it is accurate before sending it to the ADE Director. Fred Hodge was given the Office of Chairman of the MRC and Louis Ferren was named as Secretary. The Co-Chairman will be named at the next meeting. 209 XI. MINORITY RECRUITMENT OF ADE STAFF (Continued) B. Monitor minority representation at all levels of ADE and assess the effectiveness of the ADE Minority Recruitment Plan. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) The MRC met on August 23, 2004, at the ADE. A draft report was presented showing ADE Employees Grade 21 and above by Race and Section. Fred Hodge will review the report with the Human Resources Office to make sure it is accurate as of June 30, 2004. The MRC will check the new report again after changes are made to ensure it is accurate before sending it to the ADE Director. Discussion was held on the status of the ADE in relation to the LRSD Desegregation lawsuit. Mr. Morris will investigate whether or not the state has been relieved of any of its Desegregation Implementation Plan duties. The MRC met on November 30, 2004 at the ADE. Demographic reports were presented showing ADE Employees Grade 21 and above by Race and Section as of June 30, and September 30, 2004. These reports were reviewed to make sure they were correct. They will be given to Dr. Ken James. Mr. Willie Morris provided an update on the status of the LRSD Desegregation suit, the financial impact on the State and its prospects for being brought to a conclusion. Discussion was also held on providing current MRC members a more substantial and organized history of the MRC as was once done in a retreat. The decision was made to make a count of all of the members who did not experience the retreat and see if the number is sufficient to warrant something similar. Fred Hodge will conduct this sampling electronically. The MRC met on June 17, 2005, at the ADE. Demographic reports were presented showing ADE Employees Grade 21 and above by Race and Section as of December 31, 2004 and March 31, 2005. These reports were reviewed to ensure accuracy. Due to the Legislative Session, the MRC combined its review of the 2nd and 3rd Quarters of the Fiscal Year. The MRC met on April 4, 2007, at the ADE. Demographic reports were presented that showed ADE employees Grade 21 and above by race and section as of December 31, 2006 and March 31, 2007. A spreadsheet was handed out that showed for Grade 21 and above the number and percentage of Black, White, and Other race employees in each unit of the ADE. It was agreed that a report should be developed that will show units that are less than fifteen percent Black who have five or more employees. The reports show that for ADE employees' Grade 21 and above the percent Black has decreased. There was discussion about the reasons for this and ways to increase the recruitment of minority employees. The MRC met on October 9, 2007, at the ADE. Demographic reports were presented that showed ADE employees Grade 21 and above by race and section as of June 30, 2007 and September 30, 2007. A spreadsheet was handed out that showed for grade 21 and above the number and percentage of Black, White, and Other race employees in each unit of the ADE. After reviewing the September report, it was determined that it needs some corrections. A new September report will be handed out after the changes have been made. 210 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 16, 2001, ADE Staff met at Pulaski Heights Middle School in the LRSD with the principal to discuss the upcoming ECOE/ACSIP external visit. On January 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Mabelvale Elementary School in the LRSD with the ECOE Steering Committee to discuss/review the School Improvement Plan and details of the upcoming External Team visit. On January 19, 2001, ADE Staff met at Lynch Drive Elementary in the NLRSD and conducted a technical review of the ECOE/ACSIP School Improvement Plan. On January 22, 2001, ADE Staff met at Pulaski Heights Middle School in the LRSD with the principal to discuss the NCA process and standards questions. On January 23, 2001, ADE Staff met at Cloverdale Elementary in the LRSD and conducted a technical review of the ECOE/ACSIP School Improvement Plan. On January 25, 2001, ADE Staff conducted the Smart Step Quarterly Meeting at Little Rock with a workshop regarding Smart Step/ECOE/ACSIP for Smart Step Facilitators of the LRSD and PCSSD. On January 31, 2001, ADE Staff met at Meadowcliff Elementary in the LRSD and conducted a technical review of the ECOE/ACSIP Plan. On February 8, 2001, ADE Staff met at the LRSD Central Office with Gayle Bradford to discuss NCA and the upcoming ECOE external visits. On February 13, 2001, ADE Staff met at Gibbs Magnet Elementary School in the LRSD to update the ECOE/ACSIP Process in preparation for the upcoming team visit. On February 19, 2001, ADE Staff met at Pulaski Heights Middle School in the LRSD and conducted a technical review of the ECOE/ACSIP School Improvement Plan. On March 1, 2001, ADE Staff met at Crestwood Elementary School in the NLRSD to update the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On March 2, 2001, ADE Staff met at Lynch Drive Elementary School in the NLRSD to update the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On March 8, 2001, ADE Staff met at Cato Elementary School in the PCSSD to conduct an ECOE Team visit. On March 9, 2001, ADE Staff met at Dupree Elementary School in the PCSSD to conduct an ECOE Team visit. 238 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On March 8-9, 2001, ADE Staff conducted ECOE Peer Team visits at the following schools in the PCSSD: Baker lnterdistrict Elementary, Landmark Elementary, Murrell Taylor Elementary, and Crystal Hill Magnet Elementary. On March 14, 2001, ADE Staff met at Jefferson Elementary in the LRSD with the ECOE Steering Committee. On March 19, 2001, ADE Staff met at Otter Creek Elementary School in the LRSD with the principal to discuss the EDDS system. On March 20, 2001, Crestwood Elementary in the NLRSD conducted a chaired ECOE Team visit. On March 21, 2001, Seventh Street Elementary in the NLRSD conducted a chaired ECOE Team visit. On March 23, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a chaired ECOE Team visit at Badgett Elementary in the LRSD and met with the principal to discuss the ECOE. On March 23, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Principal at the LRSD Charter School to discuss possible placement of the school in the ECOE Cycle. On March 23, 2001, ADE Staff met at King Elementary School in the LRSD with the principal to discuss the upcoming ECOE Team visit. On March 23, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Assistant Principal at Stephens Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss placement in the ECOE Cycle. On March 23, 2001, ADE Staff met at Mitchell Academy in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss the upcoming ECOE Team visit. On the following April dates, ADE Staff met with Principals and Steering Committee Chairpersons, discussed School Improvement Planning, and scheduled dates for Fall 2002 Technical visits planning, and Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (ECOE) Peer Team visitation dates: April 11, 2001 - North Pulaski High School April 12, 2001 - Jacksonville High School April 13, 2001 - Sylvan Hills Jr. High 239 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) During May, ADE Staff provided the following school assistance: May 5, 2001 - Participated in Warren Dupree Elementary Book Fair and read books to students May 7, 2001 - Oak Grove High School - School Improvement Planning May 8, 2001 - Sylvan Hills High School - School Improvement Planning May 11, 2001 - Met with Brenda Boyles at her request at the PCSSD Office to discuss School Wide Designs and how they fit into School Improvement Planning. Other persons present were two ADE personnel, and Mr. Jim Johnson, Director of Instructional Support Services. On April 3, 2001, ADE Staff met at the Arkansas School for the Deaf in the LRSD to discuss the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Plan (ACSIP). On April 6, 2001, ADE Staff had a conference with Ms. Shryel Rose, the Principal at Bates Elementary in the PCSSD. On April 9, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to -Meadow Park Elementary in the NLRSD. On April 11, 2001, ADE Staffmet at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD to discuss ACSIP. On April 12, 2001, ADE Staff attended a Principals' Meeting at the NLRSD Central Office. On April 13, 2001, ADE Staff met at Pike View Elementary in the NLRSD to discuss ACSIP. On April 16, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to Bellwood Elementary in the NLRSD. On April 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Hall High School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Carver Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Geyer Springs Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at King Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Meadowcliff Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team Visit. 240 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 18, 2001, ADE Staff met at Pulaski Heights Middle School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 18, 2001, ADE Staff met at Cloverdale Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 18, 2001, ADE Staff met at Gibbs Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 18, 2001, ADE Staff met at Mabelvale Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 18, 2001, ADE Staff met at Mitchell Elementary School in the LRSD for a ECOE/ACSIP Team visit. On April 19, 2001, ADE Staff discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Cycle with the Assistant Principal of Stephens Elementary School in the LRSD. On April 24, 2001, ADE Staff met at Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD to discuss ACSIP. On April 27, 2001, ADE Staff met at Bates Elementary in the PCSSD to discuss ACSIP. On May 1, 2001, ADE Staff met at Park Hill Elementary in the NLRSD to discuss ACSIP. On May 4, 2001, ADE Staff met at North Heights Elementary in the NLRSD to discuss ACSIP. On May 25, 2001, ADE Staff held a Technical Assistance Meeting with Ms. Karen Fikes at Tolleson Elementary in the PCSSD. On June 4, 2001, ADE Staff met at J. A. Fair High School in the LRSD for an ECOE/ACSIP Overview. On June 4, 2001, ADE Staff met at Terry Elementary School in the LRSD for an ECOE/ACSIP Overview. On June 5, 2001, ADE Staff met at Parkview High School in the LRSD for an ECOE/ACSIP Overview. On June 12, 2001, ADE Staff met at Pikeview Elementary School in the NLRSD for an ACSIP Overview. 241 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On June 14, 2001, ADE Staff held a Technical Assistance Meeting at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD. On June 15, 2001, ADE Staff held a Technical Assistance Meeting at Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD. On June 19, 2001, ADE Staff met with LRSD Central Office personnel to discuss the upcoming ECOE/ACSIP Cycle. On June 25, 2001, ADE Staff met with the PCSSD Technology Coordinator to install Cimarron Software and discuss the School Improvement Process. On June 26-27, 2001, ADE Staff provided Technical Assistance Training on Gates Technology to Tri-District Superintendents and Principals at PCSSD Fuller Administrative Annex. Participants were_given an overview of the Educational Data Distribution System (EDDS). They were trained on the utilization and access of the EDDS. Participants were also trained on the use of the Cimarron Software that will serve as a guide in the development of their School Improvement Plans. Each participant was shown how to install the software and guided through the development of the School Improvement Planning Process. On June 28, 2001, ADE Staff provided training on Cimarron Software and an 0verview of the ACSIP Process. This was presented to personnel from NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD. On July 9, 2001, ADE Staff visited Summer School at Fuller Middle School. Students were engaged in various Literacy and Math Activities. In Algebra Class, the students were writing to explain how they came up with answers for problems solved on a worksheet. An English Class shared daily journal entries. On July 16, 2001, ADE Staff visited North Pulaski High School and observed Summer School operations. On July 17, 2001, ADE Staff provided a Gates Grant Software Training Workshop to Superintendents and Principles of PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD. Training was presented at the PCSSD Fuller Technology Center. Participants were trained on the use of the Educational Data Distribution System (EDDS/ORME). On July 18, 2001, ADE Staff presented training in using the Cimarron School Improvement Software for the PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD Staff. On July 24, 2001, ADE Staff assisted in the ORME/EDDS Training for the PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD Staff. 242 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, ADE Staff met with Leon Adams at the Little Rock School District Central Office to discuss using the Cimarron Software in submitting Title I, Title VI, and CSR funding requests for the 2001-2002 School Year. On July 30, 2001, ADE Staff conducted an ACSIP/Cimarron Overview at Fairfield Bay. LRSD personnel were in attendance. On July 30, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance advice regarding school planning at North Heights Elementary. On July 31, 2001, ADE Staff provided requested materials relating to the ECOE/ACSIP visits to the LRSD Central Office. Team reports were requested for the current Federal Courts processes. On July 31, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance advice to Rose City Middle School regarding school planning. On August 1, 2001, ADE Staff updated the Cimarron Software with the Elementary Education Central Office supervisor at the LRSD Central Office. On August 1, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance about Cimarron School Improvement Software to the Principal of Pine Forest Elementary in the PCSSD. On August 14, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance advice regarding school planning to Boone Park Elementary. On August 14, 2001, ADE Staff presented an overview of the ECOE/ACSIP Process and the Cimarron Software to Administration and Staff of Pulaski Heights Elementary in the LRSD. On August 16, 2001, ADE Staff presented an overview of the ECOE/ACSIP Process and the Cimarron Software to Administration and Staff of Mann Middle School in the LRSD. On August 17, 2001, ADE Staff presented an overview of the ECOE/ACSIP Process and Training on the Cimarron Software to the Steering Committee of Jefferson Elementary in the LRSD. On August 20, 2001, ADE Staff provided information regarding technical assistance to the Principal of Brady Elementary in the LRSD. On August 29, 2001, ADE Staff provided Cimarron Software Training to the Central Office ECOE/ACSIP contact person of the LRSD. 243 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On September 10, 2001, ADE Staff provided a CD-ROM containing Cimarron Software to the Central Office of the LRSD. This was for temporary loading in a computer lab for training purposes. On August 17, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to North Heights Elementary in the NLRSD. On August 20, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD. On August 27, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to Bates Elementary in the NLRSD. On September 7, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to Pikeview Elementary in the NLRSD. On September 6, 2001, ADE Staff presented a Gates Grant Training Overview to PCSSD ECOE/ACSIP Steering Committees. On September 7, 2001, ADE Staff provided a copy of the Cimarron Software packet to the Watson Elementar\n-Schoel Assistant Principal in the t.RSD. On September 11, 2001, ADE Staff visited PCSSD ALPHA Academy. This is an Alternative School for at risk students throughout the district. The school has an enrollment of 200 students, which includes middle level through high school. Criteria for enrollment for Grades 9-12 is discipline referrals from home schools, Job Corps, and Juvenile Court. Students from the other two Pulaski County Districts also attend on M-to-M transfers. Students receive most course work instruction through a technology infused curriculum. The school has a Math Lab. District wide Course Curriculum guides are used. The parents of students enrolled in ALPHA Academy participate in the initial enrollment conferences with students. Here student/parent expectations are shared for student success. Middle School students receive Character Education Development Training. Upon completion of credit recovery courses and discipline improvements, students resume regular attendance at initial school sites. On September 18, 2001, ADE Staff visited Academics Plus Charter School. On October 1, 2001, ADE Staff attended the CSRD Training Workshop for PCSSD. On October 3, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit with the Steering Committee Chairperson at Jacksonville High School (Cycle I). On October 4, 2001, ADE Staff trained the Principal and Steering Committee Chairs on use of Cimarron Software at Landmark Elementary (Cycle V). 244 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 8, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at North Pulaski High School (Cycle I). On October 9, 2001, ADE Staff trained Steering Committee Chairpersons on the use of Cimarron Software at Clinton Elementary School (Cycle IV). On October 9, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit for the Principal and Steering Committee Chairpersons at Sylvan Hills Middle School (Cycle I). On September 10, 2001, ADE Staff provided a CD-ROM Disk containing Cimarron Software for temporary loading in a computer lab for training purposes at the LRSD Central Office. On September 17, 2001, ADE Staff provided training for the Campus Leadership Team on the ECOE/ACSIP Process at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Training on use of the Cimarron Software in consolidating all improvement processes within the building was also provided. On September 18, 2001, ADE Staff discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Process with the Principal and Steering Committee Chairperson at Cloverdale Middle School in the LFZSD. Ptovided information for downloading Cimarron Software. Discussed the state of Curriculum Alignment within the building. Recommended that the Principal ensure that each staff member had a copy of the standards-based working curriculum and that each was aware of the importance of using the appropriate curriculum. Set up the software in the computer lab in preparation for a usage workshop for the entire staff. Sent an e-mail to Bill Nielsen and Krista Underwood requesting someone from the Math Unit and Literacy Unit to call the Principal in a response to her request for ADE assistance. On September 19, 2001, ADE Staff discussed downloading Cimarron and the ECOE/ACSIP Process with the Principal at Fair Park Elementary School in the LRSD. On September 20, 2001, ADE Staff discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Process with the Principal and Steering Committee Chairperson at David 0. Dodd Elementary School in the LRSD. Assisted the Chairperson through the Cimarron Software. On September 24, 2001, ADE Staff provided training in the use of Cimarron Software and provided an overview of the ECOE/ACSIP Process to the staff and Curriculum Coordinator at Cloverdale Middle School in the LRSD. Recommended to the Principal that she contact IRC personnel for assistance in Literacy and Math. Building test scores for the past two years was discussed. 245 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On September 25, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Campus Leadership ECOE/ACSIP Chairperson and the attendance Officer at Baseline Elementary School in the LRSD. Mac Huffman attended. Assisted the Chairpersons through the Cimarron Software. Discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Process. Reviewed the current SIP for the school. Wrote recommendations on the plan itself. (Expand the interventions, include Federal Programs, refine the goal statements, etc.) Building test scores for the past two years was discussed. On September 26, 2001, ADE Staff met with the ECOE/ACSIP Chairperson at Wilson Elementary School in the LRSD. Assisted with the Cimarron Software and discussed the process itself. Discussed the inclusion of Federal Programs and others within the SIP. Gave instructions on how to copy the software to a CD-ROM Disk. Recommended contacting Mac Huffman for some guidelines on district SIP requirements. On September 27, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team at Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. Discussed use of the Cimarron Software. Discussed including Federal Programs within the school SIP. The ECOE/ACSIP Process was discussed. Building test scores for the last two years were discussed. On October 10, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance-visit at Sylvan Hills High School (Cycle I) in the PCSSD. Provided information on ECOE/ACSIP Planning. On October 11, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Warren Dupree Elementary in the PCSSD. Provided information on ACSIP Software. On October 11, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Sylvan Hills Middle School (Cycle I) in the PCSSD. Provided information on ECOE/ACSIP Planning. On October 12, 2001, ADE Staff conducted an ECOE/ACSIP Overview with the Principal and Steering Committee Chairpersons at Jacksonville High School (Cycle I) in the PCSSD. On October 15, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Murrell Taylor Elementary in the PCSSD. Provided information on ACSIP Software. On October 16, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Oak Grove High School (Cycle I) in the PCSSD. Provided information on ECOE/ACSIP Planning. On October 18, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Daisy Bates Elementary (Cycle I) in the PCSSD. Provided information on ACSIP Software. 246 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 22, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Landmark Elementary School in the PCSSD. Provided information on ACSIP Software. Introduced a Title I Person. On October 23, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Academic Plus Charter School at Maumelle in the PCSSD. Provided information on ACSIP Planning. On October 26, 2001, ADE Staff attended Fall Festival at Warren Dupree Elementary in the PCSSD. On November 6, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Fuller Middle School in the PCSSD. Provided information on ACSIP Software. On November 9, 2001, ADE Staff met at the PCSSD Office with Jim Johnson of Instructional Support Services to discuss Technical Evaluation Review visits of the ECOE/ACSIP Team to be conducted on March 15, 2002. On November 9, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a Technical Evaluation Review at North Pulaski High School (Cycle I) in the PCSSD. On October 31, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Principal at Forest Park Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process and the upcoming team visit. On November 7, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Principal at Watson Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On November 8, 2001, ADE Staff made a drop-in visit at Rightsell Elementary School in the LRSD. The principal was not available. Left a message about a future meeting. On October 23, 2001, ADE Staff met with the Principal at Seventh Street Elementary in the NLRSD. Reviewed Benchmark test scores and the changes in the current School Improvement Plan. On October 24, 2001, ADE Staff met at Meadow Park Elementary in the NLRSD and reviewed Benchmark test scores with the principal and staff. On October 26, 2001, ADE Staff met at Amboy Elementary in the NLRSD and reviewed the current School Improvement Plan with the new Principal. On October 31, 2001, ADE Staff met at Rose City Middle in the NLRSD. Conducted a staff in-service on the Benchmark and the percent of students performing at or below basic. On November 2, 2001, ADE Staff met at the NLRSD Office. Discussed the upcoming School Improvement visit for the district with the Elementary Supervisor. 247 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On November 6, 2001, ADE Staff met at Poplar in the NLRSD. The revision of the School Improvement Plan was discussed with the new principal. On November 12, 2001, ADE Staff met at Jefferson Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team. Discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Process and the Spring Team visit. Trained the team on using the ACSIP Software. Discussed School Improvement Process while going through the software. On November 13, 2001, ADE Staff met at Terry Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team. Reviewed a draft of the Building School Improvement Plan. Discussed possible changes and the entire ECOE/ACSIP Process. On November 14, 2001, ADE Staff met at Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team Chairpersons. Discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Process and the use of the ACSIP Software as a Title I Application. Recommended that the team review the sample ACSIP Plans within the ACSIP Software. On November 16, 2001, ADE Staff met at Forest Heights Middle School in the LRSD with the principal to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. Set up a date in January to revisit the school and train the Campus Leadership Team in the use of the ACSIP Software. On November 27, 2001, ADE Staff met at Woodruff Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal and Campus Leadership Team Chairperson to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On November 30, 2001, ADE Staff went to McClellan High School in the LRSD. A meeting with the principal to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process was attempted, but the principal was unable to meet because of an unexpected, last-minute conflict. On December 03, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Rightsell Elementary School in the LRSD. Staff met with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team Chairpersons to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On December 04, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Wilson Elementary School in the LRSD. Staff met with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team Chairpersons to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On December 05, 2001, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at the LRSD Central Office. Staff met with Mac Huffman to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. An ADE Federal Programs Specialist discussed the LRSD Schools on the School Improvement List. 248 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On November 9, ADE Staff met at Lynch Drive in the NLRSD to discuss the current Benchmark test scores. On November 15, ADE Staff met at Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD to provide staff in-service on the School Improvement Plan. On November 16, ADE Staff met at Boone Park in the NLRSD to discuss changes in the School Improvement Plan. On November 19, ADE Staff met at Pikeview Elementary in the NLRSD to review a draft of the School Improvement Plan. On November 20, ADE Staff met at Park Hill Elementary in the NLRSD to review a draft of the School Improvement Plan. On November 21, ADE Staff met at North Heights in the NLRSD to review a draft of the School Improvement Plan. On November 10, 2001, ADE Staff met at North Pulaski High School in the PCSSD. -ECOE/ACSIP Committees designated Achievement priorities that have been selected according to data analysis. On November 12, 2001, ADE Staff provided technical assistance at Fuller Middle School in the PCSSD (Cycle Ill). Staff loaded Cimarron Software on Principal's and Assistant Principal's computers. On November 15, 2001, ADE Staff met at Jacksonville High School in the PCSSD. Staff was accompanied by a Math Specialist. On November 21, 2001, ADE Staff met at Oak Grove High School in the PCSSD. Staff attended the school's ECOE/ACSIP Staff In-service. Staff worked with Literacy Committee. ADE Math Specialist worked with Math Committee on data analysis. Staff was accompanied by ADE Math Specialist. On November 21, 2001, ADE Staff provided ECOE/ACSIP Overview at Joe T. Robinson Middle School in the PCSSD (Cycle IV). On November 27, 2001, ADE Staff met at Academic Plus Charter School in Maumelle. staff accompanied both Title I Specialists to school on a technical assistance visit in the development of the Title I Plan. On December 3, 2001, Oak Grove High School in the PCSSD identified Literacy and Math priorities. 249 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On December 6, 2001, ADE Staff met at Sylvan Hills Middle School in the PCSSD with Principal and Steering Committee Chairperson. Staff discussed, reviewed and made recommendations on rough draft of ECOE/ACSIP Plan. ADE Staff was accompanied by English Teacher from Forest Heights Middle School (Cycle II) for technical assistance. On December 6, 2001, ADE Staff met at Sylvan Hills High School in the PCSSD with Assistant Principal and ECOE/ACSIP Committee Members. Staff made suggestions on use of data findings to include all students. Staff was accompanied by English Teacher from Forest Heights Middle School (Cycle II). On December 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Meadowcliff Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss COE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. On December 17, 2001, ADE Staff met at Mabelvale Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. On January 2, 2002, ADE Staff met at Mitchell Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. On January 3, 2002, ADE Staff met at M. L. King Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. On January 7, 2002, ADE Staff met at Geyer Springs Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. On January 7, 2002, ADE Staff met at Chicot Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. On January 8, 2002, ADE Staff met at Fulbright Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP updates. Discussed Federal Programs Applications, ASIP Software, and the SIP Scoring Rubric. Left downloading instructions, SIP Rubric, and Rubric Score Sheet. 250 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2002, ADE Staff met with Marion Woods, Ester Crawford, and Dana Chadwick at NLR Central Office regarding school planning. On January 11, 2002, ADE Staff scheduled technical assistance with Mavis Cherry at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD. On December 12, 2001, ADE Staff met at North Pulaski High School in the PCSSD for a technical review visit. Staff discussed and advised on rough draft of ACSIP Plan. On December 13, 2001, ADE Staff met at Jacksonville High School in the PCSSD, for a technical review visit to assess plan. On January 8, 2002, ADE Staff met at Oak Grove High School, in the PCSSD, for a technical review visit. Used Score Sheet for School Improvement Plans Rubric to discuss and advise Principal and Steering Committee Chairperson on further development of ACSIP Plan. On January 9, 2002, ADE Staff met at Sylvan Hills Middle School, in the PCSSD, for a technical review visit with Reading/Writing Teacher from Mablevale Middle School and Math Teacher from-Forest Heights Middle School. Discussed rough draft of School Improvement Plan and made written recommendati0ns and changes. On January 15, 2002, ADE Staff met at North Heights Elementary in the NLRSD. Staff assisted Steering Committee with writing goals and action statements for the School Improvement Plan. On January 16, 2002, ADE Staff met at Park Hill Elementary in the NLRSD to review supportive data and its direct correlation to the goals that were chosen. On January 17, 2002, ADE Staff met at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD for in-service on the School Improvement Plan. On January 29, 2002, ADE Staff met at Pikeview Elementary in the NLRSD to review draft of School Improvement Plan. On January 31, 2002, ADE Staff met at Belwood Elementary in the NLRSD to assist committees with questions regarding writing action types. On February 1, 2002, ADE Staff met at Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD to assist committees with writing goals and action statements. On January 10, 2002, ADE Staff met at Washington Elementary in the LRSD with the principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP Process. Discussed Cimarron Software, Title I Applications, and the SIP Rubric. Gary Parish discussed the 75% criteria. 251 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 14, 2002, ADE Staff met at Bale Elementary in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP Process. Discussed Cimarron Software, Title I Applications, the SIP Rubric, and the 75% criteria. On January 14, 2002, ADE Staff met at Southwest Middle in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP Process. Discussed the downloading process for Cimarron Software, Title I Applications, and the SIP Rubric. On January 15, 2002, ADE Staff met at Wakefield Elementary in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP Process, Title I Applications, 75% criteria, and the SIP Rubric. On January 16, 2002, ADE Staff met at Forest Heights Middle in the LRSD with the Principal and the Campus Leadership Team to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process. On January 17, 2002, ADE Staff met at Henderson Middle in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP Process, Cimarron, Title I Applications, and the SIP Rubric. On January 28, 2002, ADE Staff met at McDermott Elementary in the LRSD with the Principal to discuss ECOE/A\u0026amp;SIP Process. Discussed the Title I Application Process, Cimarron Software, the SIP Rubric and scoring sheet. On January 30, 2002, ADE Staff met at Dodd Elementary in the LRSD with the Principal, Campus Leadership Chairpersons, and Mac Huffman of LRSD Central Office. Discussed the ECOE/ACSIP Process, Cimarron, Title I, and the 75% criteria. On February 5, 2002, ADE Staff met at LRSD Central Office with Mac Huffman to discuss all aspects of ECOE/ACSIP. On January 15, 2002, ADE Staff met at Jacksonville High in the PCSSD with the Principal, Randy Willison, the ECOE/ACSIP Steering Committee Chairperson, and members of the committee. Reviewed rough draft of School Improvement Plan using standards guide as reference. Recommended changes in School Improvement Plan. On January 16, 2002, ADE Staff met at Sylvan Hills High School in the PCSSD with Assistant Principal June Haney and members of ECOE/ACSIP Committees. Recommended changes in School Improvement Plan. Provided Principal with copies of Standards for Technology and AIPS for students. On January 24, 2002, ADE Staff met at Daisy Bates Elementary in the PCSSD with Principal Wanda Ruffins, and recommended changes in the School Improvement Plan. On January 28, 2002, ADE Staff delivered copies of PCSSD Cycle I Schools' Technical Review visits to Mr. Jim Johnson. Visits were conducted November 9, 2001 through January 28, 2002. 252 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 28, 2002, ADE Staff met at North Pulaski High in the PCSSD with Principal James Price and Steering Committee Chairpersons. Discussed revisions of the rough draft of the School Improvement Plan from last visit on 12/12/01. On February 11, 2002, ADE Staff met at Williams Elementary School in the LRSD with the Principal and Campus Leadership Chair to discuss ECOE/ACSIP, Title I, and the School Improvement Plan (SIP) Rubric. On February 15, 2002, ADE Staff met at Mabelvale Elementary School in the LRSD to conduct an overview of the ECOE/ACSIP Process for the entire staff. They led the staff through Cimarron in the Computer Lab. Federal Programs and the SIP Rubric were also discussed. On February 15, 2002, ADE Staff met at Stephens Elementary in the LRSD to conduct an overview of the ECOE/ACSIP Process for Chairpersons from Stephens and Woodruff. The Title I process and the SIP Rubric were also discussed. On February 19, 2002, ADE Staff met at Booker Elementary in the LRSD to conduct AM and PM Training Sessions on using the Cimarron Software, ACSIP Processes, Title I, and the SIP Rubric. Thirty-one schools were in attendance. On February 20, 2002, ADE Staff met at Otter Creek Elementary in the LRSD with the Campus Leadership Chair to follow up on previous Cimarron Training. On March 6, 2002, ADE Staff met at Wilson Elementary in the LRSD with the Campus Leadership Chairperson to discuss the School Improvement Plan and the Rubric. On March 7, 2002, ADE Staff met at the LRSD Central Office with all Cycle I Schools and Central Office Representatives to discuss the ECOE/ACSIP Process and the upcoming team visits. On February 5, 2002, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to Baker lnterdistrict Elementary in the PCSSD. On February 8, 2002, ADE Staff provided technical assistance to Murrell Taylor Elementary in the PCSSD. On February 11, 2002, ADE Staff met at Robinson Middle School in the PCSSD with the Principal and Campus Leadership Chair to discuss ECOE/ACSIP, Title I, and the Cimarron Software. The SIP Rubric was also discussed. On February 11, 2002, ADE Staff met at Tolleson Elementary School in the PCSSD with the Principal and Assistant Principal to discuss ECOE/ACSIP, Title I, and the SIP Rubric. Assisted in downloading Cimarron Software. 253 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On February 12, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Sylvan Hills High School in the PCSSD. Team Members included Peggy Covington, ADE Math Specialist. On February 15, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Sylvan Hills Middle School in the PCSSD. Team Members included Peggy Covington, ADE Math Specialist\nGlenn Holloway, Math teacher, Forest Heights Middle School. Jim Johnson, Dr. Robert Clowers, and Dr. Peyton from PCSSD accompanied us on the review. Dr. Clowers assisted the school with Data Analysis. On February 18, 2002, the Oak Grove Steering Committee Chairperson cancelled the technical review visit and rescheduled it for February 21, 2002. On February 19, 2002, ADE Staff gave an ECOE/ACSIP presentation at Northwood Middle School in the PCSSD. On February 21, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Oak Grove High School in the PCSSD. Team members included Bette Freeland, an English/Literacy Department Professor from UALR. Jim Johnson and Dr. Robert Clowers from the PCSSD attended the review. Dr. Clowers assisted school with Data Analysis, and provided missing data to include in the plan. On February 22, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Jacksonville High School in the PCSSD. Jim Johnson and Dr. Robert Clowers from the PCSSD attended the review. Dr. Clowers assisted with the school's achievement data. On February 26, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at North Pulaski High School in the PCSSD. Jim Johnson and Dr. Robert Clowers from the PCSSD attended the review. On February 27, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Jacksonville High School in the PCSSD. Team members included Chris Alexander, a Math Specialist from the ADE. Jim Johnson and Robert Clowers from the PCSSD attended the review. On February 28, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Daisy Bates Elementary School in the PCSSD. Team members included Sara Hogg, Literacy Specialist UALR\nVera Robinson, Assistant Principal, Watson Elementary School\nPam Persons, Literacy Specialist, Little Rock School District\nand Rebecka Martin, ACSIP Chair, Baseline Elementary School. Jim Johnson and Dr. Robert Clowers from the PCSSD attended the review. On March 1, 2002, ADE Staff discussed preparations for the ECOE/ACSIP Peer Team visit by phone with Oak Grove High School in the PCSSD. Staff spoke with Janis Morrison, Steering Committee Chairperson. 254 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On March 8-9, 2002, ADE Staff conducted ECOE Peer Team visits in the PCSSD. Schools monitored were Baker lnterdistrict Elementary, Landmark Elementary, Murrell Taylor Elementary, Cato Elementary, Warren Dupree Elementary, and Crystal Hill Magnet Elementary. On March 12, 2002, letters were mailed to Cycle I Principals in the PCSSD, requesting meeting times with them and ECOE Steering Committee Chairpersons. Meetings will begin ECOE Planning for upcoming 2002 Peer Team visitations. The Cycle I Schools are Daisy Bates Elementary School, Oakgrove High School, Sylvan Hills Junior High School, Sylvan Hills High School, Jacksonville High School, and North Pulaski High School. On February 13, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review of the SIP at Pikeview Elementary in the NLRSD. Assisted the Principal in downloading Cimarron Software. On February 19, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Park Hill Elementary in the NLRSD. ADE staff reviewed ACSIP Plan for March Team visit. On February 21, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD. ADE staff reviewed ACSIP Plan for March earn visit. On February 22, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a techr.1ical review visit at Belwood Elementary in the NLRSD. ADE staff reviewed ACSIP Plan for March Team visit. On February 28, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at North Heights Elementary in the NLRSD. ADE staff reviewed ACSIP Plan for March Team visit. On March 5, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical review visit at Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD. ADE staff reviewed ACSIP Plan for March Team visit. On March 11, 2002, ADE Staff worked with Steering Committee Chairs on finalization of report at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD. On March 13, 2002, ADE Staff assisted in preparations for NLRSD Peer Team visit at the NLRSD Office. On March 11, 2002, ADE Staff went to Forest Park Elementary School in the LRSD. The Principal was unavailable. Information about the upcoming team visit was left with the secretary. On March 13, 2002, ADE Staff met with the ECOE/ACSIP Steering Committee and the Principal at Terry Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss progress on the SIP and the upcoming visit. 255 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On March 14, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal at Fair Park Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss progress on the SIP and the upcoming visit. On March 15, 2002, ADE Staff chaired the team for the ECOE/ACSIP visit at Daisy Bates Elementary School in the PCSSD. On March 18, 2002, ADE Staff delivered information about the upcoming LRSD team visit to the ECOE/ACSIP Chairperson at Robinson Middle School in the PCSSD. On March 19, 2002, ADE Staff chaired the ECOE/ACSIP visiting team at North Heights Elementary in the NLRSD. The team served as the NCA Team as well. On March 20, 2002, ADE Staff chaired the ECOE/ACSIP visiting team at Pike View Elementary School in the NLRSD. The team served as the NCA Team as well. On March 21, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal at J. A. Fair High School in the LRSD to discuss progress on the SIP and the upcoming team visit. On March 22, 2002, ADE Staff went to Pulaski Heights Elementary School in the LRSD. The Principal was unavailable. Information for the upcoming team visit was left with the secretary. On April 2, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal and Campus Leadership Chairperson at Carver Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss updating the SIP and using the Cimarron Software. On April 3, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a final visit to the closing Badgett Elementary School in the LRSD. On April 3, 2002, ADE Staff met with the ECOE/ACSIP Co-Chairs at Carver Elementary School in the LRSD to suggest changes in the current plan and to provide instruction in using the Cimarron Software. On April 4, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal at Jefferson Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss progress on the School Improvement Plan and the upcoming visit. On March 18, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a staff in-service on the ACSIP/ECOE Process at the North Little Rock High School West Campus. On March 19, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a Supervised ECOE Team visit at Belwood Elementary in the NLRSD. On March 19, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a Supervised ECOE Team visit at Boone Park Elementary in the NLRSD. 256 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On March 19, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a supervised ECOE Team visit at Glenview Elementary in the NLRSD. On March 20, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a supervised ECOE Team visit at North Heights Elementary in the NLRSD. On March 20, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a supervised ECOE Team visit at Park Hill Elementary in the NLRSD. On March 20, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a supervised ECOE Team visit at Pike View Elementary in the NLRSD. On March 21, 2002, ADE conducted staff in-service on ECOE at North Little Rock High School East Campus. On March 22, 2002, ADE Staff met at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) for ORME Training. On April 1, 2002, ADE Staff met at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) for ACSIP Training. On April 3,_2002, ADE Staff conducted a Technical Assistance Meeting with Steering Committee on ACSIP Process at the North Little Rock High School East Campus. On April 4, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a Technical Assistance Meeting on the ACSIP Process with the Principal at Central Sixth Grade. On March 15, 2002, ADE staff conducted ECOE/ACSIP Peer Team visits in six PCSSD Cycle II Schools: North Pulaski High School, Sylvan Hills High School, Sylvan Hills Middle School, Jacksonville High School, Oak Grove High School, and Daisy Bates Elementary School. On March 22, 2002, ADE Staff conducted a technical assistance visit at Northwood Middle School in the PCSSD. Cimarron Software was discussed. On April 8, 2002, ADE Staff monitored the Fourth Grade Benchmarks Test at Jefferson Elementary School in the LRSD. On April 9, 2002, ADE Staff monitored the Sixth Grade Benchmarks Test at Henderson Middle School in the LRSD. On April 9, 2002, ADE Staff met with ECOE/ACSIP Cycle II Schools at LRSD Central Office to discuss the team process for 2002-2003. 257 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal of Dunbar Middle School in the LRSD to discuss the progress on the ECOE/ACSIP Process. Federal Programs Application was discussed. On April 11, 2002, ADE Staff monitored 11th grade Literacy and EOC Exams at McClellan High School in the LRSD. On April 11, 2002, ADE Staff provided ACSIP Overview at Fulbright Elementary in the LRSD. On April 16, 2002, ADE Staff met with the ECOE/ACSIP Steering Committee Chair of Baseline Elementary School in the LRSD to review the plan and discuss progress. Federal Programs Applications processes were discussed. On April 18, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal of Forest Park Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss the upcoming visit. On April 30, 2002, ADE Staff supervised the ECOE/ACSIP Team visits at five LRSD Schools: J. A. Fair High School, Parkview High School, Baseline Elementary School, Fair Park Elementary School, and Jefferson Elementary School. On May 1, 2002, ADE Staff supervised the ECOE/ACSIP Team visits at five LRSD Schools: Wilson Elementary School, David 0. Dodd Elementary School, Forest Park Elementary School, Pulaski Heights Elementary School, and Terry Elementary School. On May 1, 2002, ADE Staff provided monitored Algebra I EOC Exam at Parkview Magnet High School in the LRSD. On May 6, 2002, ADE Staff met at the Central Office with the Federal Programs Coordinator and the private schools served by the LRSD. The funds application processes were discussed. On April 9, 2002, ADE Staff provided Professional Development on ACSIP at the North Little Rock East/West Campus. On April 10, 2002, ADE Staff monitored 8th Grade Benchmarks Test at Ridgeroad Middle School in the NLRSD. On April 12, 2002, ADE Staff attended ACSIP Meeting on ACSIP Reports at the NLRSD Office. On May 2, 2002, ADE Staff provided monitored Geometry EOC Exam at North Little Rock East High School. On May 6, 2002, ADE Staff provided Professional Development on ACSIP at the North Little Rock West Campus. 258 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On May 7, 2002, ADE Staff provided ACSIP Training and Overview at Poplar Street 6th Grade in the NLRSD. On May 8, 2002, ADE Staff provided Professional Development on ACSIP at the North Little Rock East Campus. On April 18, 2002, ADE Staff provided technical assistance visit at North Pulaski Middle School in the PCSSD. Assisted ECOE/ACSIP Chair with converting School Improvement Plan to Software Format. On May 28-29, 2002, ADE Staff met at the LRSD IRC to provide School Improvement in-service for LRSD staff. On May 31, 2002, ADE Staff met with the ECOE/ACSIP Chairperson at Wilson Elementary School in the LRSD to discuss the follow-up from the External Team visit and the Federal Programs Applications process. On June 7, 2002, ADE Staff met at the LRSD Central Office with the Central Office staff to discuss the Federal Programs Applications process. On May 22, 2002, ADE Staff met at the NLRSD Central Office with-the Federal Programs Coordinator about the applications process. On May 29, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal and ECOE/ACSIP Chairperson at Dupree Elementary School in the PCSSD to review the SIP, discuss the Federal Programs process, and offer suggestions for revisions. ADE Staff conducted ECOE/ACSIP Overview presentation visits at the following Pulaski County Cycle I Schools with Principals and Steering Committee Chairpersons. Expectations were discussed for Peer Team visits scheduled March 14, 2003. School personnel were provided with packets of materials that included the ACSIP Rubric, Scoring sheet, information on ACTAAP, Academic Improvement Plans (AIPs), Student Standards for Technology, Curriculum Alignment and Mapping, sample ACSIP Plans, scheduled monthly Technical Review visits from September 2002 - February 2003. Correlates were discussed as part of ACSIP/ECOE. Provided technical assistance, loaded and explained procedure for using Cimarron Software in the development of School Improvement Plan. May 21, 2002 Homer Adkins Elementary May 23, 2002 Mills High May 24, 2002 Academic Plus Charter May 28, 2002 Robinson High May 29, 2002 Tolleson Elementary May 30, 2002 Jacksonville Elementary 9:00-12:30 May 30, 2002 Arnold Drive Elementary 1 :00-3:30 259 XVI. MONITOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Continued) D. Follow-up and assist schools that have difficulty realizing their school improvement objectives. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2012 (Continued) On June 13, 2002, ADE Staff met at the LRSD Central Office with the Federal Program Coordinator and Administrative Assistant to assist with the application process. On June 18, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal and Administrative Assistant at Baseline Elementary in the LRSD to work on the Title I Application/SIP/Cimarron. On June 18, 2002, ADE Staff met with the Principal and Administrative Assistant at McClellan High School in the LRSD to work on the SIP/Cimarron. On June 24, 2002, ADE Staff assisted the Administrative Assistant at Baseline Elementary in the LRSD in upgrading the SIP. On June 25 and 27, 2002, ADE Staff assisted the Title I Coordinator at the LRSD Central Office in completing the Federa\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_68","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":["2012-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. 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/68"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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-I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 1 -I I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 ,Bi~ed.: QQ _fhej ntpr,~~-i.?ry .a ~~l/a~_IEr~: ~t Mi:!y~3J\n-gp12, th.f '6Q)f tiL~glafed-fo(FY 1:1 O 2_, _su!)Ject to penod1c-a_dJU!l'Jl~nts. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 0~s-n}aM1 1aoyw, s3:1 , . 2012, -d-istrib-\"-u tio ns\" o f sf-a- te-  r o~u-n-ciation E-un-o,ng f o_,h .. F-Y =J f-i-i.2 w e re Cgso --$ss\nsi15,44s NLRSD l:-$3{.797,()38 PGSSD :'$3'8\n'992\n228 ~ri:~,i~IJotrnE:gtf6.f,~tat~ F.,91\ni~~-~!~of,f'!5:~b.Sfi~'.~~+~~~t~~,:f9r,.ft\n)Jf1Z,at ,9y_3t' ~o~ 2\nsubJ~ct tg :Renod1~:stdJt1strn~nts.,: \\Y,~n=U?? J9.!l9w~: Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 ,:[{~~:9~)~:~~i~f9l~,~li_i?.}\n'~'l:~J~~w~ah~~'.~Plf9~fctilaf~J1~i~f::May}M r 2012? fo~ ffY,1:111.2, subJeGt1tP\nP~F19.9Jf:\u0026gt;.9dJ!-.!~Ji]Em,ts: E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Base(~ri !hE: inforryiption\n~v~ila~I~:: fht1\n'AfS~_j\naJgul~~d {af _M~~y'9f ,2QJ2~-for FY111.:f 2, sybject Jo peri9qffadjy_Jrne!:)!s, It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the Staff Attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. BJ1~~-~~pn,: . ~~:,.~~f9rrj,~ti,q~~~'Q!i1~~9!~.\nth,f\nAD!\n:\u0026amp;~Iffi_yl~t\\td.\\~-.~~J~-~j_42Q_12\n\u0026amp;f6.r: FY11 /J2\n' subject, to:J?,enoq_i_q ~dN.fill1Jerit,~, G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Qi~tf~~.~ti?P~}qrJ:Y.,,:1) l,1~ -~fM~Y':~)\n\\?Q1t1\n,lqt~W~ . -~,1~1t~1\n~ffe4,\\\\'.~lf9Nn~ht alcyJated fqf:FXJ\n1/17)tJ~s $14\n-s7a\n72_o-:~y_bj~c.(fifpefi9~ic: agjQ$trn~off H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011, for FY10/11, 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. Actal as of Jun~3o, io12 Q!Stf_[~utiofis-f9.fr\ny\n:I1if2 aLrvi.Y j_:1, -~gJ~\n-~!~ [~e.t_c1JJ9![ferts.\n(aJc\nula}e~ ,fcfr_FY ~11f1'2, at..rviay,~1\n\\?Q1g'/suTuje~[ t9:~p~'i-12dl9 a~dju~trr'lDi~\n:wre: J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay Districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/1 O: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1,354,368.33 NLRSD - $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1,020,436.26 PCSSD - $1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1 ,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11/12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271 ,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11/12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD -$1 ,778,000.70 ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 05/66 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. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/10 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 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. 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. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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: i..::RSD - 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, 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 $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, 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 $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1 ,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71,210 per unit and two 4 7 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Bids were released in July 2011 , for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-4 7 passenger buses and 1-4 7 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities \u0026amp; Transportation submitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen (16) buses for the three Districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSD Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 Passenger buses On April 3, 2012, The Office of State Procurement sent out the request for bids for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses being purchased. The bid opening will take place on April 19, 2012. The breakdown of the buses was submitted previously. On May 9, 2012, The Office of State Procurement was awarded the bid for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses from Diamond States Bus Sales in Conway, AR. Three (3) 47 passenger buses@ $67,054.00 each Thirteen (13) 65 passenger buses @ $68,575.00 each Total bid awarded is for $1,092,637.00 Buses should be delivered sometime in August. 11 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 June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 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. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 2. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 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. 13 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11 /12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 . 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11/12. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 percent 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. Then it was filed with the Court.- Tfie 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 vis its 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 fi led 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. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 conciuded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additionai 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts were held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and School Improvement visits. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 and 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. 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) Staff Development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5 and 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 from 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. On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 from 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. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995_ 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie 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. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 feasibility 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 from 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. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase Activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., declared the LRSD unitary and released the District from Federal Court supervIsIon. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County Districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper Federal Court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County Districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County Districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the .Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The Court ruled that the District could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary School assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 11 , 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the Districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenors filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that School Desegregation Monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the District, or on the District's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County Districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Act 2 was passed in the Special Legislative Session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase Meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the District. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an Independent District. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the Court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in Federal District Court. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (QOM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that QOM has proposed a 2008-2009 Budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the Districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that Legislators, Attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and Representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 27 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the District Court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful iri monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation .funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the School Choice Law and the Charter School Law. The LRSD has said that Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. , withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County School Desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney, General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule Court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another- article talked about the first Court hearing with U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an Attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District, Stephen Jones, an Attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an Attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three Districts to continue even if the Districts are all unitary. John Walker, an Attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 30 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since State Funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1.6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a Federal Court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the District. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure, provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for Districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School Applications will appear in the next State Board Meeting Agenda. 31 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock- School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that the Little Rock School District had requested information about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 32 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General -Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski Gounty School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for District Staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE Legal Department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the District starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The State has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case reiates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 35 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, 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 Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, stated that on March 19, 2012, they were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release the State from the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The settlement schedules had not been discussed in the last two years. Mr. Richardson also stated that on March 29, 2012, the two main things that were submitted to the Courts were Charter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gap. Mr. Morris stated the big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary areas in the last Court Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part of the County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the PCSSD facilities plan. Due to bad weather conditions during Spring Break, Mr. Morris was unable to visit any facilities. Next week, if the weather permits, he will visit facilities that are not testing. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. Transportation and facility funding are to continue being provided until being released from the Court. There has been no feedback on LRSD from Mr. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negative impact on their litigation. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no response to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 36 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 June 30, 2012 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 June 30, 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 37 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 38 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and Worker's Compensation was 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. 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. 39 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 40 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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 and 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 scho-oi 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. 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. 41 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) 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. 42 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 wfll 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 Distriets were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011, 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 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. 0n 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. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 0-uring 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. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 attarning 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. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 8evelopment, (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. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 I ntervenors 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. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 and 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 and 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 met 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. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 Si:immary 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. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 53 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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. 54 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (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 or 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. 55 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. 56 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On October 8, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 5, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 15, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 21 , 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 14, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 11, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of September. On November 3, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of October. 57 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2012 (Continued) On December 8, 2008, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of November. On January 12, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 16, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 13, 2009, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 11 , 20\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_177","title":"Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2012-05-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee (MRC) meeting, agenda, minutes, handouts, and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/177"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["agendas (administrative records)","minutes (administrative records)","handbills","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  \n\nI. Call to Order MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA May 15, 2012 II. Reading of the Minutes of April 17, 2012 Ill. Executive Director's Report A. Correspondence B. Financial Transactions C. Newspaper Articles D. Recruitment Update E. LRSD Original Magnet Schools Personnel - Vacancies and New Hires IV. Business or Action Items A. Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report- Discussion and Vote B. Set Next Meeting Date C. Stipulation Magnet Schools' Annual Principal Reports 1. Booker- Dr. Cheryl Carson, Principal - 8:35 a.m. 2. Carver- Diane Barksdale, Principal - 9:10 a.m. 3. Williams - Sandra Register, Principal - 9:45 a.m. 4. Mann - Patricia Boykin, Principal -10:30 a.m. 5. Gibbs - Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal -11:05 a.m. 6. Parkview - Dr. Dexter Booth, Principal -11:40 a.m. V. Adjournment DRAFT MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES April 17, 2012 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Tuesday, April 17, 2012. Members Present: Bobby Acklin, NLRSD-Acting Chairperson Dr. Robert Clowers, PCSSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Danny Reed, ADE Joy Springer, Joshua lntervenors Absent: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, LRSD- Chairperson Guest: Margie Powell, Monitor- Office of Desegregation Monitoring The meeting was called to order at 8:40 a.m. by Acting Chairperson, Bobby Acklin. He immediately called for a reading of the minutes of December 13, 2011. A motion was made by Joy Springer to approve the minutes as presented, and Danny Reed seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's report. She called the Committee's attention to items in correspondence, with the first item being a memorandum to all three Superintendents and to the Education Commissioner inviting them to attend the Magnet Fair to be held at Park Plaza Mall on DRAFT DRAFT January 21, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Copies were given to each Committee member for their information. A memorandum was sent to all three districts' student registration personnel requesting their assistance for Magnet Fair. Copies were given to each Committee member, but no action was required by the MRC. The next memorandum was a thank-you to all student registration personnel who worked at the Information Booth at Magnet Fair. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. A thank you letter was sent to Melissa Griffith, Assistant General Manager at Park Plaza Mall, thanking her for her and her staff's help during Magnet Fair. Copies provided the MRC were for information only. Last, but not least, a memorandum was sent to all the school volunteer participants for Magnet Fair. Ms. Creer thanked everyone for their help in making the Fair a success. Copies were given to MRC members. A Court Order was received which approved the interdistrict magnet schools' final 2010-11 budget and proposed 2011-12 budget. No parties objected, so Judge Marshall issued the Order dated 27 December 2011. Copies were given to MRC members. Bills in the amount of $12,500.36 were presented for payment. Ms. Creer explained that the bulk of the expenses covered the Magnet Fair and enrollment advertising, form printing, etc. for the early enrollment period which began on January 23, 2012. Danny Reed made a motion to pay the bills, and Oliver Dillingham seconded it. The motion carried unanimously. Newspaper articles since the previous MRC meeting were given to MRC members for their perusal. Ms. Creer provided a brief recap. An article from Hogan Lovells providing information about how school districts may use race and race-neutral approaches in making student assignment -2- ORAFT Decisions was given to each Committee member. No action was required by the MRC. With regard to a recruitment update, a packet of information that was used during the registration process this year was given to Committee members. A detailed timeline was presented, advertising about locations where to apply, copies of the letters that the MRC Office provided to parents of rising 6th and 9th grade students, and the actual allotment numbers provided by the LRSD Student Registration Office was included in the packet. Each Committee member received their own copy of the packet, but no action was required by the MRC. Ms. Creer reminded MRC members about the process Little Rock School District used this year for registration. The first week of registration was held at an offsite location, while the second week registration returned to the Student Registration Office. The registration went so well that it most probably will be used again next year. Magnet Fair was a success again this year. Some of the schools want it to be earlier next year. The MRC Office is looking into this possibility. We want to do all we can to do what is best to maintain enrollment in magnet schools. All three districts would have to agree to this. Oliver Dillingham asked if a significant number of people asked to make this change. Bobby Acklin asked if the first day of application could be pushed back. Mr. Dillingham also mentioned that the time the Mall can accommodate the Fair is another thing that has to be considered. Parkview's Spring performance, Annie, had a great turnout, and Parkview's Senior Art Exhibit is being held this date. Several other events are scheduled, and Ms. Creer said that Parkview is making a big effort to advertise about applying to attend a magnet school at each of these events. The Stipulation Magnet Schools Evaluation Report was the next item on the agenda. A copy of the final draft was given to each Committee for their review. Ms. Springer said that she wants to read this first before making comment and voting on approval. It was agreed by consensus that all members would peruse the document and be ready to vote at our next meeting scheduled in May, 2012. -3- DRAF1 Mr. Dillingham says he wants to see something that addresses the disparity gap. It was further agreed by consensus that MRC read the report and e-mail the MRC Office with any questions. These questions would then be forwarded on to Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Consultant, for clarification. Dr. Robert Clowers noted several items that he questioned. There were a number of places that are printed in bold, and he felt that this needed clarification. A discussion was held with regard to the Stipulation magnet principals' reports. Ms. Springer said that she wants to see the information disaggregated by race and gender in all the data that is presented. Wants to see things as to who met AYP, etc. Dr. Clowers says he is interested in seeing the gap closed over time. Ms. Springer said this type of information should be available. Gibbs' principal was able to talk about who was not performing on items in the tests. Booker was one of the other ones. We need to get on the same page. It was agreed by consensus to hold the next MRC meeting on May 15, 2012, with the principals' reports on the agenda. The MRC meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m., and the principals' reports will begin right after the meeting. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn, and Joy Springer seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. -4- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE BILLS TO BE PAID May 15, 2012 1. Capital Business Machines 70.20 (Monthly Billing for MRC's Office Copier Maintenance Contract) 2. Aire Ark, Inc. 65.90 (Two Monthly Billings - February and March - to Provide Hosting for MRC's Website and e-Mail) 3. Mass Enthusiasm, Inc. 866.67 (Second Installment for Services Rendered to Provide New Website for MRC) 4. Aire Ark, Inc. 65.90 (Two Monthly Billings -April and May- to Provide Hosting for MRC's Website and e-Mail) 5. CompSys 240.30 (Services Rendered to Repair MRC Office Computer) 6. American Home Life 825.00 (MRC's Office Rent for May, 2012) 7. American Home Life 182.50 (MRC Communications Expense for April, 2012) 8. Capital Business Machines 70.20 (Monthly Billing for MRC's Office Copier Maintenance Contract) 9. Staples, Inc. 116.57 (Supplies for the MRC Office) 10. Central Arkansas Newspapers 229.00 (Advertising in the 2012 Baseball Magazine for North Little Rock, Jacksonville, Sherwood and Maumelle) TOTAL BILLS TO BE PAID $2,732.24 State gets 2 plans to cut costs School district has to find $11 million CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Special School District and its two employee unions submitted to state Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell by Monday's deadline conflicting proposals for cutting about $11 million in costs in the state-controlled, fiscally distressed district. In a letter late last week, Kimbrell \"respectfully request[ed]\" that the school district, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff provide to him \"specific, written recommendations on how the staffing and the fiscal practices of the [district] should be modified in order to realize $11 million in cost savings by the end of the 2012-13 school year.\" Kimbrell told the two sets of parties that the Arkansas Department of Education staff will use the proposals in deciding \"what binding recommendations\" to impose on the district. The Pulaski County Special district of 17,000 students and 3,000 employees is classified by the state as fiscally distressed because of past financial mismanagement and for expenditures exceeding revenue. The district is operating  See DISTRICTP,a ge ~ District  Continued from Page 1 B with a state-appointed superintendent and no locally elected school board. It has only until the end of the 2012- 13 school year to correct its financial problems or, by law, face merger with one or more other districts .. The budget-cutting plan offered Monday by Superintendent Jerry Guess and his staff includes slicing two days from the teachers' 192-day work year, discontinuing \"severance\" pay to retiring teachers and phasing out the salary credits that employees receive for completing district-taught short courses. In all, the district's proposal calls for cutting about $4 million in the 2012-13s chool year from provisions in the teacher and support-staff contracts that don't expire until the end of the 2014-15s chool year. The district plan envisions the budget cuts growing to $5.6 million in 2013-14, and $6.67 million in the next year, which would help the district cushion the possible loss of $11.6 million a year in special state desegregation aid. The state has asked a federal judge to end desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County districts, an amount that totals $70 million annually. The proposed $4 million in cuts identified by district administrators in the contracts would be paired with about $6.5 million in cuts outside the Professional Negotiations Agreements and include eliminating about 77 positions through layoffs, retirements and resignations, plus altering the school opening and dismissal times to save transportation and supervision costs. Those $6.5 million in cuts are not in dispute. The district plan envisions ending the coming school year with $14.1m illion, or 8.28 percent of annual expenditures, which is short of the district's goal ofl0 percent in reserves. But the district would attain its goal in future years as more of the salary costs for the district- taught short courses are removed. While the district is proposing $4 million in cuts directly affecting employees and their contracts, union leaders Marty Nix and Emry Chesterfield in their documents submitted to Kimbrell proposed an alternative $5.9 million in budget cuts that would not require a change in the contract language. Instead, the associations offered several short-term memoranda of understanding that would freeze or reduce employee costs next year but preserve the contract benefits over the long term. The associations, for example, proposed memoranda that would suspend employee attendance incentives\nreduce the amounts paid to employees for district-taught training and short courses\nand reduce the amounts paid to employees for supplemental work, such as coaching or sponsoring spirit group, music, drama and journalism programs. Employees with those supplemental contracts and are eligible for pay based on seven or more years of work would be frozen for one year at the pay level for six years of work. The unions' plan does not include reducing the teacher work year. The plan calls for saving $2.5 million by ~placing as many as 125 retiring teachers with lesser-paid teachers. The plan also calls for cutting by 10 percent the cost of district-purchased services and cutting by 10 percent the cost of materials and supplies purchased by the district - but not those supplies affecting students. District officials in their plan to Kimbrell anticipated that the unions would seek the 10 percent discount and argued that it wasn't realistic savings unless it could be ap-plied to fuel, insurance,utilities and building repairs. \"Fiscal prudence requires these expenditures to be budgeted sufficiently since there is often little control over the actual cost,\" district leaders wrote. Nix, the president of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, said the unions' proposed plan would result in total expenditures of $167.6 million and yearend balances of $16.9 million, which is 10.1p ercent of annual expenditures and the goal of district leaders. In the documents sent Monday to Kimbrell, the unions accused district leaders of attempting to void the Professional Negotiations Agreements in their entirety and replace them with their own set of personnel policies. The leaders of the unions \"appealed\" to Kimbrell to direct Guess to resume talks with the union leaders to resolve the budget issues. \"We too, as employees, voters and taxpayers are committed to a win/win result,\" Nix and Chesterfield wrote. \"The Unions and the Professional Negotiations Agreements are not the enemy,\" they continued. Kimbrell has invited the leaders of both unions to meet with him at 8 a.m. today. Arkansas Democrat-Gazettef ile photo William Goff, Pulaski County Special School District chief financial officer,( left)a nd districtS uperintendentJ erry Guess answer lawmakers' questions last week. On Friday the state ordered the district to cut its budget. PCSSD  Continued from Page 1 A est - are to receive letters by May 1 notifying them of the contract changes, including some pay reductions, Guess said. Kimbrell's Friday letter to Guess brings to an end several weeks of budget discussions between the district and the unions. Those talks began after Guess announced in midFebruary that failure to make millions of dollars in budget cuts - including contract concessions from the unions - would be \"fatal\" to the district, which has been categorized by the state as fiscally distressed. The district is operating with a state-appointed superintendent and no locally elected school board. It has only the next school year to improve its financial condition or face being ordered by state Board of Education to merge with other districts. . The district has an operatmg budget of about $170 million. Leaders of the two unions offered in the talks with Guess to forgo across-theboard raises and increases in district contributions to their insurance costs. Union leaders also proposed one-year suspensions of some benefits through \"memoranda of un, derstanding,\" but refused to agree to any changes in actual language of the contracts. Statet o districtC: ut budget,l op off unions County schools told to slash $11 million CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASOEMOCRAT-GAZETfE The teacher and support- staff unions in the Pulaski County Special School District lost all collectivebargaining rights, and their 2010-15 negotiated contracts were terminated as a result of Friday directives from the state's education chief. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell di- Last week, Kimbrell asked the two sides in the talks to present to him their budgetcutting plans with the admonition that he would make a fmal, binding decision. \"I would have preferred that PACT, PASS and PCSSD arrive at a mutually-acceptable agreement because that would have been the best outcome for the district's students, staff, administration, patrons,\" Kimbrell wrote to Guess in the Friday letter, copied to the leaders of the two unions. \"Regrettably, that did not occur,\" he said ''If PCSSD is to rected Pulaski County Special School District Superintendent Jerry Guess in a six-page letter to sever ties with the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff, and to carry out nearly $11 million in budget cuts for the corning school year. days, ending employee attendance incentives, eliminating \"severance\" pay to teachers who re.tire, and phasing out over three years the salary increases paid to a majority of employees for courses taught in the district that fall short of college credit courses. Those budget cuts will include reducing the teacher work year by two days to 190 All state-certified employees in the 17,000-student district - the state's third-largSee PCSSDP, age 7A return to local control as a district that is fiscally sound now and in the future, significant action must be taken without further delay. In this regard, the PCSSD administration must be given the flexibility to swiftly implement several necessary actions aimed at removing the district from fiscal distress within one year.\" Marty Nix, president of the teachers association, and Emry Chesterfield, president of the support-staff association, issued a terse statement calling the action by the commissioner and the superintendent \"mean-spirited.\" The associations have called an emergency joint meeting of their members for 5 p.m. Monday at the Arkansas Education Association building for the purpose of taking direction on how to respond to the Kimbrell directives. A representative of the associations declined to speculate Friday on the possibility of employees taking a job action, such as a strike. Both associations have gone on strike in the past but, in.more recent years, successfully relied on Pulaski County court decisions to preserve their contracts and bargaining rights. Guess, the former superintendent of the Camden-Fairview School District who was appointed by Kimbrell to the Pulaski County Special district job last July, responded immediately on several fronts to Kimbrell's directives. His actions included sending e-mails to the union leaders and to all district employees and asking a fedem.l judge presiding in the 29-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit to expedite a judicial review of Kirnbrell's More information on the Web PACT and PASS. PACT and PASS wouldn't even seriously discuss this possibility with me.\" \"So be it,\" Guess said. \"I re-the Pulaski County Special School District, filed a federal court motion asking U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. to quickly issue a judgment declaring that the state's binding recommendations to the district are \"legal, proper, and binding and should be obeyed by all parties to this action,\" including the two unions. tion taken in the long-running desegregation case, nor do I have the luxury to adopt the sense of certainty possessed by PACT/PASS.\" He said the unions overlooked the fact that the district must be declared unitary, or desegregated, by the federal court. To accomplish that, the district must have adequate funding to improve its school buildings that serve high percentages of black students. Kimbrell's letter, filings, and more arkansasonline.com/desegdocs actions, declaring them legal. new my commitment to you to be here with you - and for you - doing everything in my power to make this school district work. \"[T]h.is letter serves as notice to you both that the PCSSD is withdrawing recognition of PACT and PASS as the collective bargaining units for the District's licensed and classified staff effective immediately,\" Guess wrote to Nix and Chesterfield. \"Working together we can give you, the PCSSD employees, real job security - the real job security that is found in an economically sound, conservatively managed school district. It is found in hard-working, dedicated teachers guided by fair-minded, hard-working administrators working together Both unions have announced intentions to challenge the state's withdrawal of their recognition in state court, Jones said. But the federal court is the proper forum to decide the dispute \"and to do it most efficiently and with the greatest economy of time,\" Jones continued. \"Further, this letter serves as notice that the PCSSD is immediately terminating the PACT. and PASS [professional negotiations agreement] and simultaneously implementing the personnel policies for certified personnel and support- staff personnel. However, the District will continue to observe the co.mpensation/ fringe obligations of individual employee contracts until June 30, 2012.\" Guess sent a more conciliatory e-mail to the district's 3,000 employees, saying the onions \"simply weren't interested in making a deal.\" \"I want to prepare you for the coming bombardment,\" he said after assuring employees that their current salaries will continue for the remainder of this school year. 'Tm sure you'll hear over and over in days to come that getting rid of PACT and PASS was my main goal all the time. That's simply not true. I assure each of you that I did everything humanly possible over the past four months to negotiate new [professional negotiation agreements] with to provide the best possible education for their students.\" In an interview, Guess said the district's reliance on personnel policies committees to advise school boards and district leaders on employee working conditions is consistent with what is done in almost all Arkansas school districts. He said the new sets of proposed policies for teachers and the support staff are \"sit-ting on Dr. K.irnbrell's desk.\" Kimbrell, who serves in the role of the district's school board, will have to approve the policies. The unions last month filed two lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court challenging the legality of forming personnel policies committees at a time when the district had recognized unions as contractbargaining agents. \"We are going to finish the year well, and we are going to have a good 2012-13,\" Guess said Friday. \"Parents should be reassured that th.is is a move to put the district in solid fmancial condition. It is a move in the right direction.\" Sam Jones, an attorney for Much of K.irnbrell's Friday letter dealt with the budgetcutting measures presented to him earlier this week by the unions, including a position statement in which the unions argued that the district was likely to win a multimillion- dollar court award from the state for inadequate transportation funding. Kimbrell called the associations' financial plans, in part, \"unclear\" and inadequate in terms of assuring the district's solvency in later years should the federal court allow state desegregatic\n\u0026gt;n aid to the district - about $ll million a year - to be terminated at once or phased out. \"PACT/PASS appear to request that PCSSD defer important decisions until a later date, arguing that beyond salary freezes for the 2012-2013 school year, '[t]here is no urgency for anything more at the present time,\"' Kimbrell wrote. \"I will not attempt to argue the merits of any legal posi- \"Second, whether state desegregation funding ends in one year or several years hence, sound budgeting practices dictate that PCSSD should not depend upon state desegregation funding in order to continue its operations,\" Kimbrell said. \"PCSSD must be able to show that it can continue its operations for the benefit of its students with or without state desegregation funding.\" Kimbrell said the district's budget plans, which include nearly $ll million in cuts the first year and will grow to $13 million when fully realized in the 2014-15sc hool year, address the potential loss of desegregation aid. Kimbrell said that without action, the school district would spend more than it receives in revenue to the point that it would have only $3 million in reserves next year, and by the 2013-14 school year, it would have an illegal $5 million deficit. \"It is my utmost hope and desire to return control of the PCSSD to whom it belongs - the district's patrons and locally elected school board,\" he said. Information for the article was contributed by Evie Blad of the ArkansasD emocrat-Gazette. . Educationno tebook CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE 3 state schools getd iamontda g Cabot Middle School South in.Cabot, Paris Middle School in Paris and Hells tern Middle School in Springdale have been named Arkansas Diamond Schools as part of the state's Schools to Watch initiative, a national recognition program developed by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. The schools were cited for using research-based strategies within a school schedule to give every child access to a rigorous\nhigh-quality education. The schools are studentcentered with teachers and administrators who are deeply committed to the academic achievement of all students,  .Arkansas Schools to Watch co-directors Charles Green . and Mona Briggs said last week in announcing the selections. 4rkansas has had 10 schools feceive the honor since 2007.,Schools are designated fqr a three-year period, after which they must be redesi~ated. ,. Sho.wto feature studentsa'r tistry The Little Rock School District will showcase to the public the artistic talents of its students in kindergarten through 12th grades at the second annual Artistry in the Rock event April 29-30 in the Metroplex Event Center at 10900 Colonel Glenn Road. Musical and dramatic performances, as well as artwork exhibits, will be part of the free event that will be from 1-7 p.m. April 29 and 9 a.rn. to 2 p.m. April 30. The Artistry in the Rock is the result of work by the Little Rock School District's fine arts department that includes among its offerings elementary beginning band, piano laboratories at some elementary and middle schools, band and choir at all middle and high schools, orchestra at some middle and high schools, drai:ha at all high schools and dance at magnet seconda,ry sch9ols. Additionally, l3 of the fine arts specialists in the district have achieved national certification by .the National Board for Professiopal Teaching Standards. App developed ons tate'ss chools The Arkansas Department of Education's Research and Technology Division has developed an application that enables users of smart phones ard computer tablets to access information on Arkansas school districts, schools and educational cooperatives. The application, which can also be used on desktop and laptop computers, includes contact information and quick links to maps locating each school. The application is available for use by the general public. Those wishing to access the sitecan open a browser and navigate to adedata.arkansas. gov/mobile/. 8 LRp upils4, teacherws in StephenAs wards and Akef Abu-Rmaileh\nof Anne andJeffSimmermakMargaret Anne Beetstra of er\nAaron Yin of Little Rock Episcopal Collegiate School, Central High School, son of daughter ofJoan and Stephen Fengjuan Zhang and Wendud Beetstra\nCatie Edwards of Yin\nTiancheng Zhang of PuParkview Arts and Science laski Academy, son of Jinfen Magnet High School, daugh- Li and Werile Zhang. ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZETfE Eight Little Rock high school seniors and four teachers received 2012 Stephens Awards on Monday. This, year, The City Education T,rust is providing $5,000 scholarships to the outstanding students and $7,500 cash awards to the instructors, a new~ release said. Jackson T. Stephens and W.R. \"Witt\" Stephens formed, the trust in 1985 with proceeds from the sale of the Stephens' interest in River- \"Ii. Video on the Web www.arkansasonline.com/video side Cable Television Co. The ceremony was Monday in the AT\u0026amp;T Auditorium at the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce office. Student winners were: Muhammad Abu-Rmaileh of Little Rock Central High School, son of Aida Shanti ter of Joanne Edwards\nWhit- Winning teachers were: ney Gao of Little Rock Cen- Kara Branscum of Little Rock tral High Schoo.I, daoghter Christian Academy, Michelle of Li Tong and Xiang Gao\nDowell of Episcopal ColleRachel Madigan of Mount giate School, Melissa Anne St. Mary Academy, daughter \"Missy\" Gazette of Mount of Susie and Steve Madigan\nSt. Mary Academy and Betsy Tom Simmermaker of Cathe- Hall of Little Rock Central lie High School for Boys, son  High School. EDITOfUALS Itf inallyh appened Necessityc ouuin't lYaifto rever \"I'm tired of negotiating with you.\" -Every boss who ever lost patience with a staff of demanding whiners. \"I'm tired of negotiating with you.\" -Every long-patient, over-stressed teacher who ever had to put up with a spoiled brat in her classroom \"I'm tired of negotiating with you.\" -Every judge who was ever exasperated with an attorney who thinks of himself as some kind of privileged character. \"You're so 'SPE-cial.\" - The Church Lady on the old Saturday Night Live show. THE TEACHERS' union and its mate, the one representing staff workers in Pulaski County's long mismanaged school district, can't say they weren't warned. Time and again. The last warning came February 13th from the school district's emergency supennteilde\"nt \"and surgeon, Jerry Guess, who put it as plain as he could, as plain as it was, as plain as it should have been for years: \"What I will do if we do not succeed [in these negotiations], suffice it to say that I do have a plan for unilateral  implementation of the district's last, best and final offer to the unions during these negotiations.\" . Sure enough, he did what he had to do. It had long been time to either fish or cut budget He cut The school distric:t could go oI).ly so long dithering with unions that had been allowed essentially to negotiate with themselves. And the result was years of special privileges that ran  counter to the interests of public and  taxpayers, students and parents, the  State of Ark\nmsas and good sense in general. Not' to mention just plain economic necessity. At day's end Friday, necessity finally caught up with the special pleaders and especially privi-leged.  ,The unions .lost all their collectivebargaining powers, and a total of $ll million in budget cuts is to. be made during the corning year. The day of reckoning finally came: Friday, April 20, 2012. It took long enough. . Pulaski County's school district, now under new and long-needed management, just couldn't go on eternally dithering with its unions. The bills had to be paid. The school district had to be saved. For years the ruinous results of letting the unions have their every little way and whim have been all too obvious: Featherbedding contracts that were costing the much-burdened taxpayers millions in unnecessary expenses. How much? An estimated $13 million a year as of last February. And it hasn't been reduced by much since. Now it's down to $ll million and must be cut Eleven million dollars. That's how much fat still needs to be cut to avoid the school district's not being a school district any more but just part of anoth- er. (little Rock's? North little Rock's?) How to put this delicately? Folks, Pulaski County's school district is broke. And the brokenness is because of all the provisions in contracts \"negotiated\" by that former, elected, pandering management. (Read: the now-disbanded school board) The district could no longer afford those provisions, not that it ever could. Llke \"severance\" pay for teachers that were retiring, not being severed from the payroll. What a sweet deal. That, too, is over. How did this all happen? Well, there were elections to win, seats to hold, influence to peddle, unions to please. So what if the books got worse year after year? That would be somebody else's problem Kick it down the road. Well, we've come to the end of the road Somebody else rs now representing the long-suffering public, Le., the State of Arkansas. His name is Jerry Guess, appointed superintendent and.respon-sible party.    Over the I past few months, there were some piddling agreements, but no Agreement. And now the state has done what it needed to do. Jerry Guess' message to the unions was unmistakable Friday. \"I'm tired of negotiating with you\" MUCH TO the union's chagrin, an employer-in this case, the S~te. of Arkansas-can't just go on negotiating forever. Not without conducting its end of the negotiations from a banlauptcy court. Under the law, management can simply impose its final offezA: nd now it has done just that The taxpayers had been soaked enough by a school district run entirely too long by\nfor, and of the teachers' unions. The head of the teachers' union ~all~~ th~ state's decision \"mean-spirited, w~~h we g_uess is her synonym for realistic. But m a way the unions deserve . to be congratulated At last they've ended all their own special benefits and privileged positions. By abusing therp. for years. . Since the district is now the state the State of Arkansas has gone ahead and made the cuts it needs to make to keep the district solvent. And eliminated all the excesses in the contracts signed, lo, these many years ago. It had to. So we can keep school next year in Pulaski County. \"!'m d.:ed of negotiating with you,\" D:\"'1ght Eisenhower might as well have said to Orval Faubus in 19.57t,h e year when defiance and delay fmally came ' a-cropper here in Arkansas. Only Ike didn't need words\nhe had the 101st Airborne. In 2012, the people of Pulaski County and the State of Arkansas have a D~partment of Education, Tom W. Kimbrell, Commissioner. And now he's taken action, too. Let's hope it'll be an education, the real thing, for all concerned Not just the end of a contract stuffed with all manner of supposedly ever-flowing goodies at taxpayer expense for a couple of spoiled unions. 1-/-Z.'lIL Schootu nionsr uleouts trikeb utp lano thers teps CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOl\nRAT-GAZEITE Teachers and supportstaff employees in the Pulaski County Special School District won't strike but will take other steps to preserve their union representation and negotiated contracts, leaders of the two unions said Monday. \"Morale is low, but they. are going to go ahead and work out the year,\" Marty Nix, pr.esident of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, said about district teachers and the support staff after a 2-hour emergency membership meeting that was closed to the public. \"We want to put people's fears to rest,\" she said. \"There won't be a strike, especially in the near future. These students are going to finish the year on a good note.\"  The joint meeting of the teachers' union and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff was called in the wake of Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell's directive Friday telling Pl).laski County Special district Superintendent Jerry Guess to PCSSD  Continued from .Page 1 A sever ties between the district and its unions and terminate the employee contracts negotiated with those unions. Kimbrell further directed Guess and the school district - the state's third largest, with 36 schools and 17,637 students - to proceed with making nearly $ll million in cuts in the district's 2012-13 operating budget, including $4 million from employee benefits in the contracts. Guess welcomed the nostrike news Monday night. \"I'm really pleased they aren't contemplating any kind of job action,\" he said. \"I think what we do is really important, and. missing days for some sort of job-related statement - I would hate to see that happen to kids in the district.\" The budget cuts are intended in part to rebuild the financial reserves in a district designated by the state as \"fiscally distressed.\" It is operating under state control, with a state-appointed superintendent and no locally' elected school board.  Union members at the meeting affirmed support for their leadership and formed a crisis committee to involve parents and taxpayers in the dispute. \"We are going to handle it in court and in the court of public opinion,\" Nix said about the efforts to retain collective- bargaining rights and contracts that carry an expiration date of June 30, 2015. \"We're not going anywhere,\" she said. Teachers interviewed after the meeting said repeatedly that it was unfair that they will lose pay and other benefits while the superintendent makes a salary of $200,000 plus benefits. \"No one wants to give up a percentage of their salary when they see what the others are making,\" teacher Mi gnon Hatton said. Another teacher questioned why she should suffer losses as the result of the district being placed in }seal distress. \"I was in my classroom teaching,\" she said. \"I didn't sign a single check _or hire a single person.\" The stage is already set for the legal fight in both federal court and Pulaski County Circuit Court. The district filed a federal- court motion Friday asking U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. declare that the state's directives are \"legal, propet, and binding and should be obeyed by all parties to this action,\" including the two unions. Attorneys for the associations will file a response in opposition to that in the next few days, Nix said. ,  '. , Additionally, the associations last month filed lawsuits against teachers and supportstaff members elected to new district personnel policies committees. The committees are authorized in state law to malce recommendations on employee working conditions and benefits'in lieu of a union-negotiated contract: Nix said. she expects that those lawsuits, now pending in two different Pulaski Conty Circuit Court venues, will be expanded in light of more recent developments. Earlier Mond.i.y, Guess sent to all certified employees in the district a letter telling them that th,eir contracts will not be renewed for the2012- 13 school year. He is recommending instead that their employment be continued for the 2012-13 school year on different terms and conditions. The letter lists about a dozen changes that include reducing the teacher work year and pay by two days, from 192 to 190 days. O~her changes include the elimination of two days of sick leave a year, elimination See PCSSDP, age 6A of one day of bereavement leave, elimination of pay for some bus and recess duty, elimination of art attendance incentive, and the elimination of '.'severance\" pay~ents to teachers who retire. The attendance incentive is $100 per semester if a teacher takes no more than one day of leave, or $300 for the school year if no leave is taken. The severance payment is one day's pay times years served in the district.  Another significant changes is the phaseout of salary credits that teachers receive for taking district-taught courses r\u0026lt;1ther than collegecredit courses. More than 570 teachers are placed on advanced steps on the salary schedule because of district courses rather than college courses. Guess' letter advises the employees that they have a right to a hearing on the proposed changes to their PCSSDc osctu tsa tfe.ctingem ployeceo ntracts TheP ulaskCi ountyS peciaSl choolD istricti s makinga bout$ 11m illion in budgetc uts in the2 012-13 schooly ear,i ncludinga bout$ 4 milliont hat will be takenf rom benefitsp rovidedt o teachersa nds upport staff in theirn egotiatedco ntracts.T hes cho'odl istrict,a t the directiono f ArkansasE ducationC ommissioner TomK imbrelol n Fridayw ithdrew-recognitioonf thee mployeeu nionst hat negotiatedth ose contractsa nd terminatedth e contractsfo r teachersa ndf or supports taff. Followinga re thec uts thata re beingm adet hat affectt hee mployeesc'u rrentb enefits. Costs avings 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Eliminateb us duty overages paid to teachers En.niirlatepayme3n6tm sitfo1ru t8'SuperVpiS8ifOOn re . .\n. ...  $35,002 $35,.00~ $35,002 breakfast tutoring Eliminatel unch/recessd uty compensationt o teachers Reduce the number of bus duty stipends by 1/3 Reduce the teacher salary schedule by two days, from 192 to 190 days Eliminatet he annuala ttendancei ncentivep a'y fort eachers: adn,inistrators, support staff El_iminaoten e bereavementl eaved ay. . . Phase oui over three.years the.4% payment for proiessionai 101,578 107,678 132,599 795,000 102,615 30,000 101,578 101,578 107.,678 107,678 132,599 132,599 795,000 795,000 102.,615 102,615 }.0_.090 30_.000 gr~.Vvt~.~~.ntf~f~~rt ~t~. a,chers... .... .. ..... _ .. .. ....... . ... 409,.000 800,000 1,200,000 P.~~~~ .out.~t.a.ff..~~~~l~p_rn~~.t.son,p.f~~nr.,~~a.~t!p~p.ons~ ta .t.t. .............. 1.1.~A?..~. :)~~/~~. :::: :3-~1 ~6.?~ Phase out placement on salary schedule based on district courses 1,396,542 2,308,917 2,800,383 01sdiiiiiiiii\"1i\"s\"ii'ver~\nEeiiaimeiii\"iii.reiir1riii.iii.i.i ii1:iiyeiis\":'' .:: ::~~ :.s .~:.. q:o$..::~::o:~.:~.:: ~ao: s.:oa~ ctiann.agmee'6 f accruecfl eafvoe si ck'lea.:,eaii.d.. ................... ,. reduce by two days .. Totalc oste duclionfrso mt hee mployees'ineg91iated contractasn dr elatedp oliciefso ro there mployees Additionaels tirTJacteods to f unusesdi ckl eavlbonus for supporst tafft o matchp olicyfo r t~achers..-, ' Netc ostr eductionfsro mn egotiatecdo ntractasn d relatedp.o liciefso ro there mployees SOURCEP:u 1asCklo untyS peciaSl chooDl istrict contract and that the hearing must be requested within. 30 days of receipt of the letter. Nix said Monday that the employees will fight the changes in their contracts by asking for those hearings. The hearing is typically held before the school board. In the case of a district in state control, the state education commissioner serves as the school board. Guess' letter gives a website [pr the district's newly completed set of personnel policies, which will replace the terms of the current contract: www.pcssd.org. Communityreaction to the state action agasf the llilion recognition and tliircontracts, as well as the budget cuts, was mixed Monday.  , . Gov. Mike Beebe :is supportive ofKimbrell's d_edsion to end union recognition and mandate budget cuts, spokesman Matt DeCample said. . '1Commissioner Kimbrell kept the governor apprised throughout the process, and he obviously felt that this was the step that had to be taken to resolv~ ~e problems in the district,\" DeCample said. The governor's office trusted the Education Department's attorneys to consider potential leg\n hurdles before Kimbrell opted to end union contracts, I\n\u0026gt;eCample said. \"Y,,e trust them that they k\u0026gt;oked through all the possibilities before takil).g that step,\" he said. State Sen. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock, said she originally spported the state's takeover of the district. But Chesterfield, a former teacher union member and husband of Pulaski Association of Support Staff leader Emry Chesterfield, has since developed concerns about the \"broad and vague powers\" that state laws give leaders qver~eeing fiscally distressed districts.  Particularly \"distressing'' is having two appointed employees - Guess and Kimbrell - making major decisions once voted on in public meetings by an elected school board, Linda Chesterfield said. 218,970 218,970 218,970 .. \\. t \" . :/ ,  $4,239,941 $5,667,190 $6,673,530' .-:-1$4\n03~-~154 038 -154,038 ...... \\ 'ti  ... , 1 , t $4,085,903$, 5,513,152 $6,519,492 ArkansaDs emo~rat-Gazette \"I have not seen any change in the spending powers of this administration versus the previous one,\" she said. \"What I have seen is a lack cif parental involvement, period.\" L Ending union recognition is not the solution to the . district's financial pr.oblems, Chesterfield continued.  Under.proposed cuts, administrators will keep their current contract l.eri.gths while teachers will lose time, she said. \"No one identified the  unions as a problem\n, Chesterfield said. ''If we're going to change what is going on, there has to be shared sacrifice.\" In addition to parts of Little Rock, the district covers several smaller commui: J.i.tiesi,n cluding Jacksonville and Maumelle. . . Maumelle Mayor Mi.~hael Watson said he supported trimming some teache't benefits that weren't \"on par with the rest of.tM.state\" but he hadn't yet.formed an opinion .OI_l Kimbrell's decision to end union recognition.  . \"I think there were sorpe ltems that needed to be looked at,\" he said. \"I don't know if doing away with the contract completely was the way to go, but Ilhink it needed to be addressed in some form or fashion.\" In Jacksonville, residents are hopeful that the state's takeover and financi~l deci-  sions will put the city a step closer to its goal of having a separate, independent school district, Mayor Gary\"Fletcher said.  \"I th0k that we're getting to a pomt to recognize that the district is just too big to be managed,\" he said. . Information for this article was contributedb y Evie Blad of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. NLRsets deadline in schools chiefhunt CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE North Little Rock School Board members and a consulting firm hired last week to assist them in selecting a new' superintendent agreed Tuesday to a May 21 deadline for candidate applications and took other steps to get the search under way.  Kieth Williams, a retired Arkansas superintendent and now representative of the executive search firm McPherson \u0026amp; Jacobson of Omaha Neb., told board membe\ns that the timeline that calls for the po'ssible hire of a new superintendent by early June with _a start-work date of July 1 1s the shortest with which he has ever dealt. \"Nothing is goi~g fo ~e lessened in the process m regard to what we are doing in our home office and the effort [ we] are .putting into this \" Williams said in referenc~ to himself and his colleagues Bobby Lester and Diana Julian, who are both retired central Arkansas educators who work with the recruiting firm. The School Board voted in mid-March to seek a superintendent to succeed Ken Kirspel, whose contract does not actually expire until June 30, 2013, See SEARCHPa, ge 10Bf Search the characteristics and skills that the School Board would like to see in a new superin-  Continued from Page 1B tendent and will meet with community members at a 6 which is when he has said he p.m. meeting next Tuesday to wants to retire. do the same. Board members Board members have said are in the process this week they want'to try to put a new of nominating people to be superintendent in plac~ right invited to participate in that away, if possible, so the new \"stakeholders\" meeting. leader will be on hand for the Board members said they start of the district's five-year, would like a new leader to be $266 million school building a visionary, charismatic and and renovation program rath- experienced superu:itendent er than starting the job a year with proven leadership, ac~from now in the midst of the demic-improvement and f1- planning and construct_ion. nancial skills. School Board members The new superintendent said earlier this month that also should be willing to work Kirspel continues to have the in partnership with the School full support of the board and Board and able to work well he will remain the superin- with a diverse student body tendent in the coming year and staff in an urban setting, if a satisfactory successor is the board members agreed. not found. They also called for a new \"If we start this process leader to be open to instrucnow we are going to be with tional innovation, committed you until it is finished,\" Wil- to community health initialiams told the board Tuesday. tives and embrace technology \"If it is not finished July 1, then-as a learning tool. we are going to be with you To get further informaagain in September, starting . tion about what the general again, and we will go through public would like to see in the whole gamut of the pro- .a new sc.hool-district leader, cess and assist you in finding the McPherson and Jacobson someone. Our goal would be firm will place on its website to find someone by the end of and on the district's website December.\" a survey open to the general The district is expected public that will ask about the to pay no more. than $22,300 strengths of North ~ittle Rock in fees and expenses for the and the North Little Rock search, although Williams School District, and what a said that total will be less than new superintendent should that if a candidate is selected accomplish and what the obthis spring. stacles the new superinten- The company has already dent might face: , begun placing advertisements The_ supenn tendent s about the job opening in the salary m the 9,000-student Arkansas Democrat-Gazette . district is currently about ~d with state and national $152,000. Willi~s said t~at education organizations and the avera~e p~d _to supe~mpublications. The job is also tendents ll_l d1stncts_ similar advertised on the company's to North Little Rock 1s about website, http://www.mac- $170,000. He ur_ged ~o~rd njake.com. members to begm thmking The consultants spent about the amount t~ey want time Tuesday determining to pay a new executive. School Board member Scott Miller told his board colleagues that some North Little Rock businessmen approached him this week with a plan of possibly supplementing the district's salary offer to entice a \"world class\" superintendent candidate. That funding raised by the business community could be up to $100,000 a year for multiple years if the qistrict chooses to accept it, Miller said. . If the board is successful m hiring a new superintendent,  it plans to retain Kir~pel to assist the new supermtend~~t and possibly serve as a lJaJson between the board and the building plan consultants, DLR Group of Overland Park, Kan. LR schoolsu, nion.. to startm ediation Pay impasse takes federal step Friday CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETfE Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Education Association will start work with a federal mediator Friday morning to resolve an impasse in negotiations on a compen~ation package for this school year. Cathy Koehler, president' of the Little Rock Education Association, which is the union that represents all district employees except administrators, said Wednesday that there is \"a significant difference\" in the positions taken by the two negotiating ,teams on issues related to raises and health-insurance benefits. The association's team declared an impasse in the talks April 13. That prompted the call to mediator MarkMartin of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. tonight includes no items related to employee contracts and so no board action is ex~ _pected. Teachers in the 25,000-student district have a three-year contract that calls for annual negotiations on salaries and other financial benefits. In recent years, inclui:ling this year, district leaders and teachers have waited until mid-school year to begin salary talks so that the district officials have more accurate information on revenue that is available for across-theboard pay raises that are then retroactive to the beginning of the school year. Koehler said Wednesday that the association membership \"has been exceptionally patient\" and that won'.t happen next year. \"We are well aware of tlie responsibility of the district to not allow its fund balance to drop, but that' does not mean we ar~ .. going to lay over a.d t~e ri~yiing wh~J?:'th~y\n~aV\\:/ chosen to spend money Jar eignt:o).\"n ,inem 9.nths without thinking.about their emplo'f ee.s _t,all\"'K'b l  ,-,i,~dr, a,1 ,,., oe ,er sai ::f Koehler and Associate Superintendent Dan Whitehorn, who is the district's chief nego_tiator, both declined Wednesday io describe the offers and counteroffers in the nego_tiations, citing restrictions! in the ground rules that are used by the bargaining teams. \"I'm certainly coming to listen and learn and keep an open mind,\" Whitehorn said about the mediation session. \nDi~tric:t employee's' l'iave no't: !eceived aqross-the bbard raises this year, but eligil\n\u0026gt;lee mployees who have not reached the !OP of the salary scale have-received step increases for their additional yeru\n, di\"Jw\nt\u0026gt;erk}'P erience. \"My true hope is that we get this resolved using the federal mediator,''. said Koehler, who plans to lead informational pic)\u0026lt;ets to inform the public about the dispute, outside today's 5:30 p.m. Little Rock School Board meeting. The board's agenda for  FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2012  3B No chan' gef orN LRs choolv ote, Boards taysw ithr egulare lections chedulea fterz oesr edrawn EVIE BLAD exemptions for districts that  cree, similar to North Uttle er was the soJevote against ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE 'meet certain criteria, includ- Rock's, to prove it qualified the resolution, citing some The North Little Rock ing compl\\ance with the fed- for the exemption. uncertainties about the state School Board voted Thurs- era! Voting Rights Act. The state Jaw s,ays certain Jaw. day to continue with its.reg- The district has never districts \"shall be exempt,\"  The three board members ular election schedule rather opened all of its zones in Jones said .. ' . whose terms expire this year than opening all seven seats one election sinceit began \".Courts have found that are Miller, who represents up for election in Septem- its current voting schedule. 'shall' is mandatory unless Zone 2\nDarrell Montgomery, ber.  in 1989, Superintendent Ken it results in absurdity,\" he. who represents Zone 3\nand State law requires re- Kirspel said. said. John Riley, who_represents drawing boundary lines in \"I would advise that we Abo.ut eight protesters Zone 7. , all zoned Arkansas school continue as.we have done,\" gathered outside the dis- The district's seven newdistricts where zones have he said. trict's administration build- ly reconfigured zones, apgrown unequal in population North Little Rock School ing to demand the board proved in March, are similar since a U.S. census. North District attorney St~phen open up all seats for elec- to the previous zones, but -Little Rock's board had al- Jones told board members tion. They waved signs with Zones 1, 2 and 3 that encomready approved new zone that federal courts previ~ slogans like \"shall is not pass the southern half of the boundaries. ously upheld the decision of mandatory.\"  clistrid are more compact In those situations, the. the Marvel] School District No one spoke in opposi- than before. Jaw also requires alJ school to claim an exemption from tion to' the board's plan reboard seats to be open for the election requirement. gardihg elections during the election after the zone lines That district pointed to a 30- meeting. ' are altered\nbut it provides year-old desegregation de- Board member Scott Mill- I NLR School Board rejects proposaflo rt eacherr aises EVIE BLAD ARKANSASDEMOCRATGAZETIE The North Little Rock School Board rejected a request from _itsP ersonnel Policies Committee on Thursday to provide a 3 percent raise to the district's teachers. Financial .uncertainty makes it a difficult time to increase salary costs, board members said. But they did not rule out potential raises in the future as administrators settle que~tions about projected enrollment, building timelines and plans to trim the district's budget in other areas. \"We want you to understand that we have not forgotten you,\" School Board Presi dent Dorothy Williams said. \"You are still on our radar.\" Without the raise, most teachers will receive a pay increase next year as an additional year of experience brings them to a new \"step\" on the district's salary plan. The raise proposal from the committee of certified personnel would have added 3 percent to each of those \"steps,\" costing' the district about $806,000, committee Chairman Majoice Thomas said. The cornrnittee proposed app,lying the raises retroactively for the 2011-201s2c hool year. If they had been approved, teachers would have received back pay. \"All we ask is that, in all of your planning, you do not forget about the teachers,\". Thomas said. She noted the board'~ decision to cut a !\n\u0026gt;onus it previously provided for teachers who have perfect attendance  during a given semester as another example of belt-tightening some teachers have faced. Board members said they would be willing to consider raises after the Arkansas Department of Education clarifies when it expects to contribute to the district's building plan and after enrollment proj.ections give leaders a better sense of the school system's financial fu-ture.  North Little Rock schools have lost enrollment for the last two academic years, Superintendent Ken Kirspel said. LR districtu, nionf ail to reach' ~c~Qrd .  ~- CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETfE . Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Education Association ended a full day of mediation Friday over employee pay raises for the current school year, with plans to resume talks at 1 p.rn. Wednesday. it up today but we didn't,\" said Deborah Desjardin, a middle school math teacher and chairinan of the association's negotiations team. The association is the ~nion and contract bargains ing agent for teachers as well as for most .support staff, except for administrators.  \"It's ongoing,\" said district \"We were hoping to wrap Associate Superintendent Raises  Continued from Page 1 B the bargaining teams' ground rules. The negotiations are not open to the public. . \"As long as you are talking, you are doing all right,\" Peggy Nabors, a spokesman for the union team, said at the conclusion of the session, which started about 8:30 a.m. and ended after 5 p.m., with a break for lunch. I, Teachers in the 25,000~ student district, the state's largest, have a three-year contract that calls for annual negotiations on salaries and other financial benefits. In recent years, including this year, district leaders and teachers have waited until mid-school year to begin salary talks so that the district officials have more accurate information on any revenue that is available for across-the-board employee pay raises. The union team decla.red an impasse in the talks April 13, and the teams then brou.ght in mediators Mark Martin of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and Barry Strange from the Arkansas Department of Labor. The mediators will continue to work with the teams Wednesday, Desjardin said Friday. While there has been no agreement on an acrpssthe- board pay raise,, eligible employees did receive a step increase for their additional year of teaching experience, as, they do every year. 'However, the district's longest tenured employees - those at the top of their salary schedules - are ineligible for the step increases, which range between 2 percent and 3 percent. Friday's talks came on the heels of a Thursday night School Boarcj. meeting that started with tejlchers and other association members lining both sides of the ,800 block of Markham Street chanting an~ waving signs that called for employee raises. Cathy Koehler, president of the association, told the School Board that it is time to resolve their differences, \"We have conducted ourselves for 10 or 11 months now as a peace-loving group of people who have not -disrupted school or not in any way disrupted student learning,\" Koehler said, \"The time has come to get a resolution on a financial agreement.\" Thursday's board meeting  agenda included no items directly related to the negotiations, The board members took no action on the matter other than to express appreciation for employees and urge that all parties work together and remain partners to benefit students despite any differences of opinion on how to operate the district. Dan Whitehorn, who is the spokesman for the district's negotiations team. _ \"We listened to their proposals and tried to keep an open mind,\" Whitehorn said, \"We look forward to meeting with them again Wednesday.\" The district and union teams are atte,mp'ting to reach a tentative agreement on a compensation package - includin~ .a possible pay raise or changes in the district contribution to employee health insurance - for the 2011-12s chool year that ends for students on May 30 and for teachers on May 31. Neither team would describe the offers and counteroffers, .citing restrictions in See RAISESP,a ge1 2B \"We strive for consensus and to work together because we know that if we pull together , .. we do our best work,\" board member Greg  Adams said. \"We know there are going to be disagreements.\" In the 2010-11 schoolyear, teachers and support staff received a 1.5 percent across-the-board pay increase, an increase to the distriizt's contribution to health-insurance premiums and a $750 bonus.,  In the 2009-10 school year, the Little Rock School Board and the teachers union approved a 1.25 percent pay raise for teachers. In 2008-09, the pay raise was 0.5 percent\nin 2007-08, it was 2 percent. In 2006-07, employees received a 3 percent raise. Step increases for experience were also paid in each of those years to eligible employees. Allowc ounty-districspt lit, aid phaseoutj~u dgeu rged CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Special School District on Monday proposed an eight-year phaseout of millions of dollars in state desegregation aid and the formation of a new, 10-school Jacksonville school system as a way to ~eet desegregation obliga-tions. , Attorneys for the 17,000- stude.n,t district made the proposal to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. in response to a March 26 :request by the state to be Schools  Continued from Page 1 A gation funding. The 1989 settlement serves as the basis for special state d~segregation funding to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts. That funding _is now about $70 million a year and totals more than $1 billion since the agreeme?t. The money helps finance Little Rock's six original magnet schools and all three districts' majority-to-minority interdistrict student transfer programs, employee health and retirement costs, and general operating expenses. The magnet schools and majority-to-minority student transfer program in particular \"':'ere designed to promote racial desegregation of schools and the districts. Sam Jones of Little Rock and Allen Roberts of Camden tl:e Pulaski County Special dis~ tnct attorneys, said that instead of accepting the state's motion, the judge should modify the 1989 settlement because released from financial and other desegregation obligations in a 1989 settlement agreement to the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The Pulaski County Special district attorneys said the state's motion to immediately end desegregation aid should be denied. Attorneys for the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts also responded Monday to the state's motion, urging the court to deny the request to end desegre-ree SCHOOLPSa, ge 7~ the agreement nas not completely _fulfilledi ts purpose of producmg three unitary or desegregated districts in Pulaski County. . ~e Pulaski County Special distnct has yet to achieve unitary status in nine areas of its operation, including its faciliti~ s-The Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been declared fully unitary by the courts. \"The State essentially arg: ues for a complete obliterat10n of the 1989 Settlement Agreement,\" Jones and Roberts wrote. \"However, while the agreement might warrant the substantial changes proposed  by PCSSD, it has not yet reached the point where it should be jettisoned wholesale.\" They said that \"much of 0e agreement should remain m place, or even enhanced\" un~ the district becomes fully urutary. \"The District proposes that the Court approve the creation of a separate Jacksonville area school district,\" Roberts and Jones wrote. ''Its creation would ~ot ~ave a segregative impact m either a new Jacksonville School District, or in PCSSD sans Jacksonville. Its creation would be popular among the patrons of Jacksonville and the residual PCSSD. Popular support remains a critical element in attaining unitary status.\" The attorneys said the new Jacksonville district would be eligible for a far greater share of state funding for new and renovated facilities than the Pulaski County Special district could receive on its own for the Jacksonville area schools. And the detachment of the Jacksonville area would reduce the number of facility projects that the remaining Pulaski County Special district would have to address to comply with the_ terms of its 2000 desegregation plan, they said. Some Jacksonville civic and government leaders have wor~ed for several years to establish a school district independ_ ent ~f 0e Pulaski County Special distnct, saying a Jacksonville district could be more competitive with nearby school systems such as Cabot. A move to form a Jacksonville district was thwarted in 2003 \"\".hen, at the urging of the Pulaski County Special district, a federal judge detennined that d~taching Jacksonville would hinder desegregation efforts in the remaining Pulaski County Special, Little Rock and North Little Rock districts. _Jerry Gues~. the state-appomted Pula_skCi ounty Special School D!Stnct superintendent, said in an interview Monday that a 4,500-stud_ent Jacksonville school system could be eligible to receive more t~an half of its building renovat10n funds from the state. The Pulaski County Special district, determined.to be a 'wealthy' district, is eligible to receive from the state less than 3 percent of its building and renova-tion costs.   The remaining Pulaski County Special district would have about i2,500-students and 26 schools, Guess said. \"We think it would greatly enhance the operational efficiencies for this district and that district,\" he said. A Jacksonville district would likely include both Jacksonville and North Pulaski high schools as well as Jacksonville Middle 'and seven elementary schools - Bayou Meto, Arnold Drive, Tolleson,' Adkins, Tay\\or, Pinewood, and Dupree. Jones and Roberts t~ld the judge that they agree Wlth the state that it.is time to end the ,\nprotracted litigation\" in.what will be a 30-year-old school desegregation lawsuit this )'.ear. In addition to formmg a separate Jacksonville district, they recommended that the judge modify the 1989 s~~lement agreement by requmng the district and state to comply with the district's desegrega~ tion plan within three y_e~rs, and fix the school fac1ht1es within a reasonable amount of time. A federal appeals court in December.affirmed a lower court's finding that the Pulaski County Special district h~d failed to meet its obligations m. regard to student as.sigriment to schools and classrdoi:ns, Advanced Placement and gifted education, discipline, ~c\nhool facilities, scholarships, special educ,i.tion, staffing, student achievement ahd monitoring. : Jones and Roberts also pr_oposed a phaseout of the special state desegregation funding that amounts to about $20 million a year to the district. That phaseout. would be done -by providing the full amount of funding for the coming 2012-13 school year and then reducing the annual amount over the next eight years so that the final desegregation payment in 2019-20 would be 80 percent of the amount paid to the district this coming year. Additionally, Roberts and Jones proposed the three Pu. laski County school districts present the court with a pl'.111 for phasing out state and district financial support for the six original special-program magnet schools in Little Rock and the majority-to-minority interdistrict student transfer program over no more than seven years. The magnet schools - Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams elementaries, Horace Mann Middle and Parkview High - along with the interdistrict transfer program were designed to promote racial desegregation in the three school districts. The state pays one half tl,ie education costs for the magnet schools and incentive costs to participate in the interdistrict transfer program, as well as all student transportation costs. Adding an unusual twist to the case, the Pulaski County Special di.strict is currently classified by the state as fis-  cally distressed and is operatingi under state contrcil, with a state-appointed superintendent and no elected school board. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell serves as the school board for the district. However, because the state and the district have opposing interests in regard to the 1989  settlement and desegregation .agreement, the school district by court order doesn't confer with Kimbrell and the state Department of Education about its legal positions in the desegregation case. Guess said Kimbrell was not consulted or even told about the district's posttion in the court filing.  \"We have carefully avoided discussing these issues,\" Guess said. Chris Heller and Clay Fendley, attorneys for the Little Rock School District, which is the plaintiff in the case, said the state is asking to be released from its commitments under the '1989 settlement and related agreements on the magnet schools and majority-to-minority transfer program with~ut showing that it complied Wlth those agreements in good faith or that it has eliminated the vestiges of its constitutional violations to the extent practicable. \"The state's request must be denied as a matter of law,\" Heller and Fendley told M\n:u:shall. \"There is no point in pro- ceeding to develop the factual record under the wrong legal standard_.\" they said. \"The State's Motion for Release should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.\" Stephen Jones, an attorney for the North Little Rock School District, also said that the state !'has a burden of proving it has complied with the 1989 settlement agreement and the existence of any changed circumstances that justify the relief it seeks.\" He also urged that if the judge determines the state desegregation money-should be terminated\nthat it be phased out and not ended immediately.  \"The districts need a transition period to maintain fiscally  sound schools,\" Stephen Jones wrote, adding that the districts need to uphold promises made to students who participated in the magnet and interdistrict transfer programs. Those students should be able to complete the grades in their current schools, he said. The Joshua intervenors, who represent black students in all three districts, asked for a deadline extension to turn in its response. $70,000in f oodatPulaskCi ountys chooles ~ires ' . . . . . CYNTHIA HOWELL en patties, fajita meat, pasta, Scott in that position. District ify for another job within the. walk. away. Without pointing :{\\~SAS DE~OCRAT:GAZETIE tomatq.pa~te\ncorri, beans and officials refused to comm~nt  district. He was director of .f mgers,'that's about all I can Some l,600 1cases of food blueberritf\n-to a pe_rs6rm.el T.sday on Scott's employ'-'\nthe student nutrition depart- say.\" valued at more than $70,000  problem. . .   . m_~~t ,statfis. in ,the district,'. ment f\u0026lt;?r the _past four years . _. . Goif sai~ the _district has and provided by the U.S. De, \"This is a lot of free stuff,\" saymg that. it was an unre- . \"I didn't have control of . been workmg smce he bepartment of Agriculture at nq Goff said,. calling the waste . solved personnel matter. the warehouse\" where ,the gari. his job there last August cost to the Pulaski County \"inexcusable.\" ''.And instead -Scott, contacted at his food was stored, Scott .said. on improving practices and Special Schoor District. be-' of using the free s'tuff, -0-e hqme, said Tuesday that he' \"B\\lt it ultimately fell OI). me,\" adding controls in t:p.es tudent came outdated arid now must- werebuying\"fro~vendors to. was asked by district offi~ . he said about the resporisibil- nutrition department. be destroyed, district officials feed kids.\" c.ials to leave that job and he . ity But he alsosaid that \"if the said Tuesday. Regena English became . intends to do so. He will not . \"It was a very stressful controls that wer\\! in place Bill Goff, the district's chief the istrict's interim director: challenge the dismissal by re-. yeai: going through the.fiscal - ~specially if the existing financial officer, :attributed of student nutrition\u0026gt;'effective questing a hearing. distress of the district. They policies and regulations had  the expired food.:_ some' 6f Tuesday, Goff said.  However, th.e 27-year dis- said they couldn't affo_rdt o. bee_nf ollowed ...!..iwt ould not, which included cheese, chick- Englis~ repl_aees I?ale tJ\ni!::et mployee hopes to qual- 'lose .that money. I chose to See FOODP, age 4B. Food  Continued from Page 1 B have happened. There is no excuse for it.\" The expired commodities were discovered last month in an Arkansas Department of Human Services monitoring visit to the School District's warehouse, Goff said. The state agency is responsible for overseeing the distribution of U.S. Department of Agriculture commodities. The warehouse review also uncovered a similar amount of food that was nearing expiration. However, the district has been able to incorporate that food into its menus for school meals or transfer it to other school districts that can use it promptly, Goff said. \"We're not proud that it happened,\" Goff said about the aging inventory. \"But we are glad it got discovered when it did.\" The district also had to destroy old food in 2010, Goff said. The Pulaski County Special district, the third largest in the state with about 17,000 students, typically receives up to $~00,000 a year in USDA commodities for its schoolmeal service, Goff said. Deal feached . . . in LR district sets 1 % raise Tentativep act now awaits board,u nion-memberO K CYNTHIA HOWELL a copy of the tentative agree- ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE ment in response to an Ai- Little Rock School Dis- kansas Freedom oflnformatrlct teachers and support tionAct request. staff will receive a 1 percent School district and emraise retroactive to the be- ployee association leadginning of the current school ers were finalizing plans year if a tentative agreement Wednesday evening for ratireached Wednesday is rati- fying the proposal at special fied by the School Board and meetings later in the week. union members.  Late Wednesday evening, the Negotiating teams for Little Rock School Board anthe district and the Little nounced it would hold a speRock Education Associa- cial'meeting at 5 p.m. Friday. tion, which is the contract cathy Koehler, presibargaining agent for the dent of the association, said teachers and support staff in Wednesday. that she was the district, also tentatively pleased with the tentative agreed to a $16.92 increase in agreement and the tone it the district's contribution to sets for continued collabo, the monthly health insurance ration between the district ~remiums for participating  and its employees. employees. \"I can't help but smile a That would increase the whole lot about this one right district contribution from now,\" Koehler said, adding $301.44 a month to $318.36, that the tentative agreement retroactive to Jan. 1 of this was reached without any disyear. ruption to students or to the District officials released  See RAISEP, age 2A Raise  Continued from Page 1A community. Jody Carrejro, president of the Little Rock School Board, said he was happy to see the completion of the .talks. . \"It was not my, first choice, but in negotiations things seldom are your first choice,\" Carreiro said about the agreement terms. \"But I'm pleased, very happy, No. l, that it is done and, No. 2, I think it is a reasonable deal, for the district and for the teachers.\" A 1 percent increase to all eligible employees\nwould produce a beginning.salary-of $33,617.85fo r a teacher.with a bachelor's degree and no experience. The beginning salary is currently $33,285. Tlie district's top teacher salary'is. $64,841. A 1 percent increase would add $648.41 to that. ' Dani.el Whitehorn, -associate superintendent for secondary education and the district's chief negotiator, thanked Peggy Nabors, the chief negotiator for the Little Rock Education Association, and her team of teachers and support staff for working with the district team. ''We are all really about the same thing, w)J.ich is student achievement,\" Whitehorn said immediately after the two-hour negotiating session Wednesday. \"We nee'd to work together and we need each other's support to make student achieveient happen. We didn't w\npit to be apart on salaries\n'' \" . Whitehorn:acknowledgeii that the tentative agreement took'some time .. i ~ The twotteams began talks in March ap.d ,the .teachers' team declared_ an impasse April 13. That prompted the call by the teamtos M arkMartin, a mediator with the Federal Mediatidn and Conciliation Ser-vice, -and 'Barry Strange, a mediatonwith the Arkansas Department of Labor. Bothmediato\"rs worked with the teams last Friday and again Wednesday. ,  \"We clearly ,had tp understand each other's.position,\" Whitehorn said. \"I think it to.ok a while.:for that .to play out - for us to get all the facts ancf for them to get all the facts,- on what is really going on. The, mediators had \"Wtfare ~~ really about the same thing, whichi s student achievementW. e need to work t~gether and we neyd each other's support to niake student achievement happen. We didn't want to.be apart on - salaries.\" , - DanielW hitehornt,h e district'cs hiefn egotiator  ' to no across-the-board pay raises for the current 2011'12 school year after the district was taken over. by the_ state last summer. . St~te officials, in consultation with Pulaski County Special district lead.ers, are imposing salary cuts for the 2012-1_3sc hool year, in part through a two-day reduction in the teacher work year plus the phaseout of salary cred-its that employees receive for a key role in clarifying that ever, the district's longest-ten- district-taught short courses. for both $ides.\"  ured eynployees -those at the Little Rock School Dis- Teachers in the 25,000- top or their salary schedules trict teachers have typically student !district with 3,800 - are ineligible for the step in- received annual across-theemploye~ s\nhave a~ee-year creases, which range between board raises. contract that calls for annual 2 percent and 3 percent. In the -2010-11_,schoyoel ar, negotiatio.ns on' salaries and The Little Rock district-is teachers and support staff other financial benefits. likely to be the only one of received a 1.5 percent across- In recent years, inolud- the three districts in Pulaski the-board pay increase, an ing this year, district leaders County to provide ac-ross- increase to the district's conand teachers have waited un- the-board raises to its teach- tribution to health-insurance til the middle of the school ers and other employees this premiums and a$750 bonus. year to begin salary talks so school year. In the 2009-10 school year, district officials, have more The North Little Rock. the Little Rock School Board accurate informalioh on any School Board last week re- -and the teachers union aprevenue that is,avai!able for jected a request from that proved a 1.25 percent pay across-the-board.employee district's Personnel Policies raise for teachers. pay raises. Comeflittee to provide a 3 In 2008-09, the pay raise While there has been no percent raise to the districts was 0.5 percent\n_in 2007-08, across-the:board raise so far teachers, saying that financial it was 2 percent. In 2006-07, this year, eligible. Little Rock uncertainty made it a difficult employees received a 3 perdistrict employees did,receive time to increase salary costs.  cent raise. Step increases for a step increase.for an cldition- Teachers and other. em- experience also were paid in al, year of teaching experience, ployees in the Pulaski County each of those years to eligible as th~y.~q,o\\every ye~i.How- Special-School District agree.d  employees. ., Gunfireleaves LR students uninjured Alabama space camp hit by shots DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE STAFF AND WlRE REPORTS A group of Little Rock fifth-graders attending space camp in Huntsville, Ala., were never in any danger when shots were fired at the U.S. Space \u0026amp; Rocket Center's Davidson facility Thursday morning, a school district spokesman said. Shortly before 10 a.m., three shots were fired into the building that houses the Saturn V rocket, with at least one bullet striking the rocket, a Huntsville television station reported. Investigators said the shots likely were fired from Interstate 565, which runs adjacent to the facility. Pam Smith, a spokesman for the Little Rock School District, said the 43 students from Carver Magnet Elementary School were in an exhibit in the interior of the facility when the shots were fired and were \"never in harm's way.\" Smith said it was the students' last day at the center before returning to Little Rock today. The students left Little Rock on Wednesday with three teachers and eight chaperones for the space center, a trip students from the school have made regularly for 20 years, she said. Parents were notified in a letter and phone call Thursday afternoon, Smith said. No injuries were reported in the shooting. 2 unions in district plan rally at Capitol ARKANSASD EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Associatioh of Suppo~ t Staff, .employee organizations that lost the right last month to represent Pulaski County Special School District employees in contract negotiations, are hosting a rally on the state Capitol steps Saturday. The rally, which is to start at 10 a.m., will feature speakers Marty Nix, president of the teacher organization, and Emry Chesterfield, president of the support staff. pne of the purposes of the rally is to enable members of the public to show support (or teachers and support staff 1~ the Pulaski County Special district and in all public schools, according to a news rel~ase issued by the organizations. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell last month directed Superintendent Jerry Guess to sever the ties between the district and the two unions, and terminate the employees' contracts that were otherwise due to expire in June 2015. The district, which is in fiscal distress and under state control without an elected school board, also was directed to carry out nearly $11 million in budget cuts for the coming 2012-13 school year. Those cuts, including a twoday reduction in the teacher work year, will result in reductions in employee pay. Guess complied with the directives from the state. Union leaders have said they will fight the loss of the con~ ract and negotiating rights m court. Studentsu rgej udge to keepd istrictsa' id ARKANSAS DEMOC!t'.T-GAZEITE Attorneys-for black students in the three Pulaski County school districts on Friday urged a fede/al judge to deny the state's request to be released from financial and other commitments it made in a 1989 school agreement in the county's long-running desegregation case. The Arkansas attorney general's office, on behalf of the state Department of Education, filed a motion in March asking U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. to relieve the state of 23-yearold obligations, which have resulted in the payment of more than $1 billion in desegregation aid to the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special schc:ioi districts. ' In that time, the Little Rock and North Little Rock districts have been declared unitary and the Pulaski County Special district partially unitary by the federal courts. The.state has argued that the changed circumstances in the districts warrant the release h --\\ ~ L More information  on the Web Dislriclsta keovearn dd esegregation arkansa~online.com/documents/ of the state.  J John Walker and Robert Pressman, attorneys for the black students who are known as the Joshua intervenors, argued Friday that that the Pulaski County Special district has fallen short of fully implementing its desegregation plan \"due in large part to the historic, laissez faire approach of the State to simply pay money and do nothing else to help the district meet its obligations.\" The Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special distric\nts filed motions ii}. opposition to the state's motion earlier this week. Marshall has set a,.May 21 deadline for the attorney general's office to file its response. No hearing date.has been set for the issue. 2B  SATURDAYM, AY 5, 2012  1 % school raise approvedin LR Board also OKs $16.92 more for contributionto insurance CYNTHIAH OWELL ARKANSADS EMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board at a b~ief special meeting Friday approved a 1 percent across-the-board raise for nearly all employees and a $16.92 monthly increase in the district's contribution to employee health insurance costs for the current 2011-12 school year. The board voted 6-0 to finalize the compensation agreement that was negotiated between representatives of the district and the Little Rock Education Association, the contract-bargaining agent for teachers and for support staff such as custodians, bus drivers, security officers and secretaries. Union members approved the agreement at a meeting Thursday, Peggy Nabors, a spokesman for the association's team, told the School Board. While the association negotiated on behalf of teachers and the support staff, the raise ~d health-insurance increase will appLy to all employees, including principals and associate superintendents.' Only Superintendent Morris Holmes will not automatically receive the 1 percent increase. He negotiates his contract separately with the School Board. The raise, retroactive to the beginning of this school year, and the insurance increase ret- : reactive to Jan. 1, will be paid to employees in their June 15 paycheck, said Kelsey Bailey, the district's chief financial ')fficer. Individual teachers will see their salaries increase by 1 percent to as much\u0026lt;as 3.5 percent this year as a result of the raise coupled with an automatic step increase for experience that eligible teachers began receiving earlier this school year. . The district's most exp\u0026lt;\n. nenced teachers - those at  the top of the salary schedule - are ineligible for the experience step and will receive just the l percent increase. .The d'istrict's new starting salary for a teacher with a bachelor's degree and no experience will be $33,617.8-5 up from the current $33,285T. he district's top teacher salary is $64,841. A 1 percent increase will add $648.41 to that. The $16.92 increase in the district's contribution to the  monthly health insurance premiums for participating employees will indease the ~ontribution for participatmg employees from $301.44 a month to $31836. That is equal to the total cost for single cv ,'erage of an employee. The cost of the raise will be_ about $2.l million, Bailey said. The cost of the insurance benefit will be $350,000 for the second half of the 20ll- 12 school year, or $700,000 for ~e entire 2012 calendar year. Board member Dianne Curry thanl\u0026lt;ed the board and union teams for their work saying she knew it was a dif~ ficult decision., The two teams called in a fedei:al and state mediator to assi~t in reac~g a tentative agre~ment. ' . .' 'ffhes'e are to~gh times/' Cl\\F~ _ad9ed.\" Yer y'few ~om~ parues\nare giving any increases.  We're happy because we know our employees work hard - our teachers and support stilff,\" she said. Teachers in the 25,000-student district with 3,800 employees, have a three-year contract t~at calls for annual negotiat10ns on salaries and other financial benefits. District leaders and teachers waited until the rn!ddle of the school year to begm salary talks so district officials would have more accurate information on available revenue for pay raises. The contract expires this summer, so representatives of the employees and the district a_ree xp~cted td begin negotiations Wlthin weeks on terms for a successor contract. Board member Greg Adams made the motion Friday to approve .the compensation package after Holmes recommended it.  But Holmes also,told the board that work is under way on the 2012-13 district budget, and he expects to ask the board to hold a work session s~on on what he anticipates will be some complex issues . He sai? the budget plarming ~ takemto account the poss_ 1ble(o ss of state desegregatJon aid that now totals about $40 million a year, as well as so1\n!e school building needs. We don't plan to leave a stone unturned to educate you and your education of us_,\"H olmes _said.\"W e hope this.commuruty will look into the Jaws of this budget and into the guts. We want to show ev_erybody what we have. Lay this budget open. This is serious business for us. We are very concerned about some issues.\" Two school um onssue overax mg State can't end pactsf, ilingss ay CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZE1TI Teacher and supportstaff unions in the Pulaski County Special School District on Friday legally chal- 1 enged state and district actions to end collective bargaining and terminate the employees' union-negotiated contracts. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff filed similar but separate amended complaints in Pulaski County Cir_c4it Court against the Arkansas Department of Edui:ation, the school district a'nd members of two newly formed personnel policies committees in the district. i. The lawsuits accuse the Education Department of exceeding its authority in directing the district to withdraw union recognition and terminate the contracts.  Friday's lawsuits amend the March 5 lawsuits filed by the unions over the es- 0See UNIONSP,a ge 3A, More recognition and that the per-information sonnel policies committees Unions -\\.. dering withdrawal of union  Contihued from Page 1 A on the Web be declared invalid and the tablishment of the personnel L policies they propose not be policies committees. Latest motion filings implemented. The expanded lawsuit~ fol- arkansasonline.com/documents/ Pulaski County Special low in the wake of the Edu- __ ..,_________ School District Superinten-cation Depart~ent's April. district but ensure fair and eq: dent Jerry Guess said Friday 20 directive to the Pulaski uitable treatment of employees that he and the district's atCounty Special district to and give them \"a meaningful torneys had not seen the latend recognition of the two voi:ce\" in contract negotlations est -lawsuits, but said district employee unions and to ter- and grievance hearings.. leaders had tried to worlc with minate the contracts - called Blackstock argued that the two associations.  professional negotiations when state law authorizes the \"We have said frol:n the agreeierits ~ as part of an EducationDepartmenttomake beginning that our)ntenoverall plan by.the state and binding recommendations to tion was to find a common districf\\:o cut $11 million in. a superin,tendent regarding ground where we could.get the district's 2012-13 budget. staffing, it is not directing the the district ori-a solid fililin- 1]:i:ed istrict, 'c1assified by scrapping of the contract but cial course ari.d do iliat with the s~::i.tela st year as fis,cally deciding the number of work- the cooperation and particidistre'ssetl, is under statfcon-  ei.-sa district needs. . pation of PACT and PASS,\" trol,. operatipg with :a -'state:- ' The lawsu1ts fuithe'r con- Guess said. -' ,, ', ' appointed sup,erintendent tend that the Pulaski County . He said district employees and no locally elected school Special district bi\neached the .ciio~e to form. thl/per~oruiel board. '  '  employee contracts-:- which policies com'inittees'eailler The Friday s\n_\n_itsa ccuse expire at the.end o(the2014-15 this spring ',',b'ec.ausei t bethe siate,'agencyidf applying school y.ear.:....b: Y,w ithdraw- came obvious to them that rules'i-egardiii.g ,fisc\nald istress ing union recognition, termi- PACT and P}\\SSd id not seem in a way that will \"injure\" the riating the contracts and by to be interested in working to plaintiffs. '  . . failing to exercise all the steps a reasonable compromise.\" The suits,-filed by attorney in the contract to resolve dis- S_eth ~lomeley, a spokes- Clayton Bl~ckstock also 3.F-putes. Those steps include man for the state Education gue that the state exceeded its negotiations, mediation, fact- Department, on Friday relegal authority in dealing with finding and a hearing before ferred to April 20 documents a fiscally distressed district. a school board. issued by the agency stating \"The [Arkansas Depart- The. suits also say the dis- the reasons and_legal basis for ment of Education] does not trict violated state law by al- the state's decisions. have the statutory authority lowing the formation of the In an April 20 statement, to order the wholesale scrap- personnel policies commit- Arkansas Education Comping of the [professional ne- tees to advise district lead- missioner Tom Kimbrell said gotiations agreements] under ers about employee benefits his goal \"is to return control the guise of this statute and and working conditions at a of the PCSSD to whom it becorresponding Rules,\" Black- time when the unions were longs - the district's patrons stock wrote. recognized as the employee and a locally elected school He also said the contract bargaining agents. board. This will require \"coBtains a plethora of em- Blackstock _asked that steady financial belt tightenployee policies, many of which the professional negotia- ing wherever possible and ophave been in effect for over tions agreements remain in erational efficiency. The focus two decades,\" that do not af- full force and effect, that the. must be on providing the best feet the fiscal practices of the state be stopped from or- educational opportunities for Besidest he two cases in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the union recognitiona nd terminated contract issues also are , pending in federal court before U.S. . District Judge D. -Price Marshall Jr. the students of PCSSD.\" The plaint\niffs in the lawsuit regarding the teachers union isimes are the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, Pamela Fitzgiven and Loveida Ingram. Judy Stockrahm also is listed as a plaintiff but has asked to withdraw. The defendants named in the teacher un.iori lawsuit are Robin Dorey, Callie Matthews, Kristina Laughy, Diane Wagner, Ella Sergeant, Nick Witherspoon, Paul Brewer, Veronica Perkins, Jackie Smith, the school district and the Education Department. Brewer, the district's executive director of human resources, and Principals Perkins and Smith are all admin. istrat~rs appointed to the p~rsonnel policies committee. The other individual de-  fendants are teachers elected by their colleagues earlier this year to serve on the personnel policies committee except for Sergeant, who was elected but chose not to serve. She has been replaced by Witherspoon. The teachers union lawsuit is assigned to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Mary McGowan. Lonriie Coney, Belinda Pearl and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff are the plaintiffs in the suit challenging the end of recognition for the support staff. The defendants in that suit are Keith Cooper, Cheryl Howey, Regena English, Becky Del Rio, James Watson, John Sparks, Charles Blake, Derrick Brown, Bill Goff, the district and the Education Department. Goff is the district's chief financial officer, and Brown is the chief technology officer. The other individuals are support-staff employees elected to the personnel policies committee. The support-staff union lawsuit is assigned to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wen-dell Griffen. Besides the two cases in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the union recognition and terminated contract issues also _are pending in federal court before U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr,  The Pulaski County Special district last month asked the judge, who is presiding in the district's desegregation case, to declare the state ana distdct actions legal. On Friday, the attorney general's office filed a response opposing the Pulaski County Special district's request, saying that the matter falls outside the parameters of the desegregation case and outside the federal judge's authority.  TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2012  3B Shinnh onoreda s Educatoro f Year OtherL R schoolteachersr ecognizeda t annualC rystalA wardsb anquet ARKANSADSE MOCRAT-GAZETTE Bridget Sweetser Shinn, an English teacher at Horace Mann Magnet Middle School, received the 2012 Marian G. Lacey Educator of the Year Award at the Little Rock School District's annual Crystal Awards banquet Monday night at the Embassy Suites Hotel. Also honored at the banquet were:  Sarah Jane Relano of Williams Magnet Elementary, who was named the Little Rock School District ElementarSy chooTl eachero f the Year.  Natalie L. Holliman of Dunbar Magnet Middle School, who was named Middle School Teacher of the Year.  Keith Richardson of Central High,w how asn amedH ighS chool Teacheor f theY ear. Teachers from every school in the district were recognized during the banquet and received commemorative trophies. The honored teachers at the high school level were:  Central:F rankB aker,R ichardsona nd BettyeW illiams.  J.A.F airA: llisonB elcherC, ynthia Dokoutchaaenf d MaryJ acobs.  Hall: Chandle Carpenter, Connie Mccann and Sonja Williams.  McClellanL: esa Booker,L inda Peoplesa nd MargaretR eed.  Parkview: Brenda Bankston, Linda Neal and Debra Rogers. The honored teachers at the middle-school level were:  CloverdaleL: akeithaA ustina nd BrendaT homas.  Dunbar: Holliman and Kristi Ward.  ForestH eightsT: royG reena nd HarriettaL indsey.  Henderson:A ntoinetteJ arrett and MalindaM artin-Johnson.  Mabelvale: Karen Kelley and Tamara Rowe.  Horace Mann: Shinn and Wendy Welch.  Pulaski Heights: Janet Buford and Lee Thompson.  Accelerated Learning Center: Marty Burton.  Felder Academy: Mindy Williams.  HamiltonL earningC enter:P hyllis Tartt.  MetropolitanC areerT echnical Center: Barbara Swihart. The honored teachers at the elementary-school level were:  Bale:K athleenG regory.  BaselineJ: amieT homas.  BookerT: ammyH igdon.  Brady:T ammieR hea.  Carver: Jason Crader.  Chicot: Nadine James.  Dodd: Amanda Swift.  Fair Park: Lori Kriz.  ForestP ark:M ichelleG raves.  FranklinM: itziN icks.  FulbrightH: aleyA rmstrong.  Geyer Springs: Neresa Williams.  Gibbs:T racyB arbarotto.  JeffersonA: mberM atthews.  King: Candi Van Patter.  MabelvaleK: elliH edrick.  McDermottP: aigeP uckett.  Meadowcliff: Angela Rodriguez.  Otter Creek: Sharonda Hughes.  Pulaski Heights: Juliet Ste-phens.  Don Roberts: Holly Jenkins.  RockefellerK: elli Fuller.  RomineL: indseyW elch.  StephensP: akitaS hutes.  Terry: Dorothy Malone.  WakefieldA: lison Evans.  WashingtonM: eganH airston.  Watson: Mildred Butler.  Western Hills: Sharon Warren.  Williams:R elano.  Wilson: Christy Cecil.  WoodruffJ: essicaW eaver. ArkansaDs emocrat.-.( !,a.zette LETTERS Ours ystemi s top-he1~vy Cynthia Howell's recent story on the Pulaski County Special School Dis-trict's financial woes really caught my attention as a very good story representative of many schools' woes. What caught my attention most was that we have a school district with 17,000 students supported by 3,000 employees. Small teacher-to-student ratios are a wonderful teaching and learning tool. We all know the first thing that happens when a school gets into fman- . cial distress is that the classrooms get more students per teacher. Let's factor in a very liberal amount of \"nonteacher\" support to keep the school going, say 20 percent of the 3,000 employees are staff (secretar-ies, janitorial, physical maintenance, bus drivers, etc.), giving 600 staff, and leaving 2,400 \"teachers.\" I think this is a very high number, based on my education experience\n17,000 students to 2,400 teachers is a wonderful 7 to 1 ratio. We know this is not the case, so we must ask the question: \"How many administrators does it take to bankrupt a-school?\" Quoting Marty Nix, \"the teachers in this district cannot shoulder all of the cuts\" is quite an understatement. The problem with Pulaski County is a good sampling of what is wrong with the education system in Arkansas. We have too many administrators in the entire system, from the Arkansas Department of Education all the way down to each school with individual superintendents. And we wonder why the system is broke. STEVEGANN Russellville DODTDeac hing Where Are They Now? Cole Hadden: Reader, Writer, Inventor Louise Carpenter, Reading Recovety Teacher, Little Rock, Arkansas In the fall of 2007, Cole entered m)' kindergarten classroom at Carver Magnet Elementary in the Lierle Rock School District as a happy boy who loved to swordplay. He was most interested in science and hisrory, and it was clear to his classmates char Cole knew a lot. I remember how excited he was when asked to share ahom komodo dragons as we read books about reptiles, because he knew more about chem rhan I did. Nor only was Cole a bright kindergarten student, he was also very kind and considerate of all students in the classroom. He was every child's friend. Cole was the kind of kindergarten student char all teachers would wane in rheir classroom. Cole enjoyed reading more than writing. As you can imagine, he had rremendous oral language. Nor only could he talk about komodo dragons, bm many ocher animals and species 34 Journal cf Reoding Recovery Spring 2012 as well as historical faces. Reading and writing slowed him down, but he cried very hard. Cole became frustrated when composing and writing stories because he had so much to say bur couldn't ger it down on paper. He made adequate progress in kindergarten, bur he struggled. When Cole went co first grade, he transferred co another school and it just so happens rhar I did, roo. I received the opportunity to train for Reading Recovery chat year and ended up in the same school as Cole, although neither one of us knew the other was making a change. We both transferred to Gibbs Magnet School in the Lierle Rock School District. Cole was my very first Reading Recovery scudenc during my training year and with great success discontinued in 20 weeks. The following year, Cole's second-grade reacher recommended char he anend COLE'S K'NEX CATAPULT I oui.cr wm n kindagnrtm t,acher whm .r/,cfirst met \u0026lt;.nle in her d.1wroom. my literacy group for extra support in writing, and Cole continued ro make progress. Cole is in the fourth grade now and just completed writing a biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His reacher, Staci Hula, said char Cole is a wonderful scudenc. Cole's science project, citied \"Cole's K'Nex Catapult,\" won first place in the Fourth-Grade Science Fair, and he was awarded a Kindle. This was a huge honor! Cole is reading War Hom and Red Tads on his Kindle. Oh, and he still enjoys swordplay! f.011ire comin11etso track Cvle's progrm 1111IdI proud of hi, achievenwm, i11rludi11hgi. \u0026lt;ru m1 fir\nt place win in r/,e G,bh, 11-frigneSrc /,nnl Fourth-Grade Scitn.-e! :1ir. Sandy Luehrs From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Donna, Joy Springer [jspringer@gabrielmail.com] Friday, May 11, 2012 3:51 PM donnacreer@magnetschool.com 'Sandy Luehrs' RE: MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING - AGENDA High I apologize for the delay in my responding to Dr. Drefus' report, but I have been swamped with other matters. I am trying to locate in her report where the Research Questions are specifically answered. Can you tell me? It seems to me if the enrollment of magnets is declining and they are becoming more black and/or African American, we need to respond to that question Why? As I understand the purpose of the magnets was to have racial balance and help to eliminate one race schools. I hope that the principals will be able to tell me that the achievement gap is narrowing and not just be able to say: \"we met AYP\" or \"we almost met AYP.\" The data appears to me to show that the gap in achievement remains. I also have the following questions: 1) how does the magnet theme strengthen student learning to address AA student achievement? 2) can you direct my attention to the portion of the report that deals with what children are learning and its effect on their achievement? 3) are principals doing informal or formal evaluations of their programs to determine what programs work to address specific needs of students? I read the report that this is lacking?? Am I correct? Thank you. From: Sandy Luehrs [mailto:maqnet@maqnetschool.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:36 PM To: 'Mitchell, Sadie'\n'Bobby Acklin'\n'CLOWERS ROBERT L.'\noliver.dillinqham@arkansas.gov\n'Danny Reed (ADE)'\njsprinqer@qabrielmail.com Cc: 'Margie Powell'\n'BOWLES BRENDA'\nmarvin.burton@lrsd.org\ndaniel.Whitehorn@lrsd.org\n'(arson, Cheryl'\n'Barksdale, Mary'\n'Hobbs, Felicia'\n'Register, Sandra'\nPatricia.Boykin@lrsd.org\n'Booth, Dexter'\n'Donna Creer' Subject: MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING - AGENDA Importance: High Oops!!! I forgot to attach the agenda forthe meeting. Here it is. Sandy No virus found in this message. Checked by A VG - W\\,\\ w.an!.com Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2425/4991 - Release Date: 05/11/12 Sandy Luehrs From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Sandy Luehrs [magnet@magnetschool.com] Thursday, April 19, 201211:42 AM 'cheryl.carson@lrsd.org'\n'Barksdale, Mary'\n'Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org'\n'Sandra.Register@lrsd.org'\n'Patricia.Boykin@lrsd.org'\n'Booth, Dexter' 'Mitchell, Sadie'\n'Donna Creer' Attachments: STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS ANNUAL REPORT TO THE MRC - May 15, 2012 STIPULATION MAGNET PRINCIPALS REPORT- 2012 - MEMO.doc\nSTIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS - ANNUAL REPORT FORM.doc\nStipulation Magnet Principals PowerPoint - 2012.ppt Importance: High Good morning, Please see the following memorandum and attachments from Donna Creer regarding the annual report to the MRC. We have your reporting scheduled for Tuesday, May 15, 2012, with time slots as follows: 8:00 a.m. -8:30 a.m. 8:35 a.m. - 9:05 a.m. 9:10 a.m. - 9:40 a.m. 9:45 a.m. -10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. -11:00 a.m. 11:05 a.m. -11:35 a.m. 11:40 a.m. -12:10 p.m. 12:15 p.m. -1:00 p.m. attending. MRC Monthly Meeting (Anyone wishing to attend is more than welcome) Presenter #1 Presenter #2 Presenter #3 Presenter #4 Presenter #5 Presenter #6 LUNCH will be served -You are invited, so please let us know if you will be Please confirm that you have received this information, and provide your requested time slot for presenting ASAP. Remember, it is on a first-come/first-served basis. We will be looking forward to seeing all of you then. Sandy TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJ: DATE: Dr. Cheryl Carson, Principal - Booker Magnet Diane Barksdale, Principal - Carver Magnet Dr. Felicia Hobbs, Principal - Gibbs Magnet Sandra Register, Principal - Williams Magnet Patricia Boykin, Principal - Mann Magnet Dr. Dexter Booth, Principal - Parkview Magnet Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director Magnet Review Committee Dr. Sadie Mitchell, MRC Chairperson Associate Superintendent, LRSD Stipulation Magnet Schools Report to the MRC April 18, 2012 Thank you for clearing your calendar and preparing to attend the May 15th MRC meeting. As is customary, this is the meeting during which Stipulation magnet school principals report to the MRC. We look forward to your 20-minute (or less) report, with ten minutes allocated for Questions and Answers. Adhering to this timeline will allow all magnet schools to report during one meeting. For your information, we have attached a REPORT FORM delineating questions to be addressed. In the interest of clarity and brevity, the MRC members have requested that some report items be presented via PowerPoint and some be included as a part of your written report (see attached template for your PowerPoint format). Thanks again for compiling the information that gives us a glimpse of the current \"STATE OF THE MAGNETS.\" The data in your report is used by our office, MRC members, and their parties, as a quick reference for magnet school information. We appreciate you and your hard work. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. DGC:sl Enclosures: 1) Stipulation Magnet Schools Annual Report Form 2) Template for PowerPoint SCHOOL: STIPULATION MAGNET SCHOOLS ANNUAL REPORT FORM 2012 PRINCIPAL'S NAME: e-mail: OTHER ADMINISTRATORS (Asterisk if new): NAME: e-mail: NAME: e-mail: SCHOOL SECRETARY: direct phone: phone: phone: phone: ........................................................................ , CURRENT ENROLLMENT: RACIAL COMPOSITION: LAST YEAR'S ENROLLMENT: __ % B % NB 1. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC AND LIST ANY REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES. Justify additional staff, reinstatement of staff, programmatic thrusts, etc. 2. SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU HA VE FOCUSED ON IN YOUR ACSIP. A. Please recap how the five-year and two-year improvement plans your school received from the MRC were used to improve your school. Include past, current or planned improvements. 3. PROVIDE STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS (planned, inprogress or completed). 4. REPORT ON CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS (planned, proposed, or added). 5. DID YOUR SCHOOL MEET AYP? If not, please discuss subpopulations and interventions put in place to address student deficiencies. 6. LIST OUTSTANDING OR NEW RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES. 7. SHARE A RECAP OF HONORS AND/OR A WARDS WON (staff, school, student). 8. RECAP PARTICIPATION ATNATIO AL, REGIONAL, OR LOCAL CONFERENCES OR INSERVICES. 9. PROVIDE INFORMATION AS TO NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HA VE WITHDRAWN OR EXITED YOUR SCHOOL'S PROGRAM AND THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. 10. SUPPLY ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU WISH TO INCLUDE.\nStipulation Magnet Principals ANNUAL REPORT to the MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE 2011-2012 (LIST YOUR NAME HERE) (name of school) School website: Face book/twitter: Principal's Name: E-Mail: Direct Phone Line: Asst. Principal's Name: E-Mail: Direct Phone Line: (Area of responsibility, if applicable): School Secretary: Direct Phone: Counselor: Direct Phone: PTA President: E-Mail: Phone: SCHOOL COMPOSITION Race/ Native African Hispanic/ Multi-ethnicity American Asian American Latino White Ethnic Number and \\.,omplete (complete (completP tsomplete (complete (complete Gender your your your our your your of numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers children here) here) here) here) here) here) .,omplet .,omplete (complete (complete (complet .,omplete /OUr your your your 10Ur your Number numbers numbers numbers numbers umbers numbers of staff here) here) here) here) here) here) SCHOOL COMPOSITION cont. Grade Configuration: (List total number of students per grade level, by Glv ,eth V y d gender) REQUESTS FOR BUDGET INCREASES Faculty/Staff: Curriculum Related Materials: Equipment/Facility: Other (please list): (NOTE: List \"none\" in each category where you are not requesting an increase.) RECAP ONLY ON POWER INT Detailed information should be provided in written report. CURRENT ACSIP FOCUS (Please provide a copy of your current ACSIP report to each MRC member in your written report.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT SCHOOL STRUCTURAL CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS (If any occurred during 2011-12 or are proposed for 2012-13. Do not include any prior to 2011-12.) RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. CURRICULUM/COURSE OFFERINGS Changes in 2011-12 or Proposed Changes for 2012-13: (NOTE: ONLY changes this year or needed changes next year, not the entire curriculum offered.) RECAP ONLY ON WERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) Achieved/Not Achieved: Overall: Math/Literacy Areas Individually: Subpopulation info: Provide data for the past three years showing achievement gap in math and literacy, in particular, on African-American student achievement. (Provide by grade, race and gender.) LRSD's STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS Achieved/Not Achieved: (Show evidence for Benchmark performance by grade, race and gender) INTERVENTION OR SUPPORT SERVICES Provided by your school (to students or teachers) to enhance academics, test taking skills or to raise test scores. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. RECRUITMENT Outstanding/New Recruitment Activities. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. SCHOOL HONORS/AWARDS School/Staff /Student Recognitions. Participation at National/Regional/Local Conferences. RECAP ONLY ON POWERPOINT Detailed information should be provided in written report. WITHDRAWALS Provide number of students who have withdrawn or exited your school's program and the reasons for doing so ( y grade, race and gender). DISCIPLINE REPORT Provide report which includes suspensions, expulsions and in-school discipline efforts (by grade, race and gender). MISCELLANEOUS Information you may wish to include but not covered in previous slides) Detailed information should be provided in written report.\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_38","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":["2012-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration","Arkansas. 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/38"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["project management"],"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\nf - Dr. Tom W. Kimbrell Commissioner State Board of Education Dr. Ben Mays Clinton Chair Jim Cooper Melbourne Vice Chair Joe Black Newport Brenda Gullett Fayetteville Sam Ledbetter Little Rock Alice Mahony El Dorado Toyce Newton Crossett Mireya Reith Fayetteville Vicki Saviers Little Rock Four Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1019  (501) 682-4475 W' ArkansasEd.org An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION May 31, 2012 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 RECEIVED JUN 1 2012 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 DPMIHDY Dear Gentlemen: By way of this letter, I am advising you that I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of May, 2012 in the abovereferenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~C-~ Jeremy C. Lasiter General Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 DPM/HDY PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. l,etal DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for May, 2012. BY: ~C-~~ J ~ - Lasiter, General Counsel Ark. Bar No. 2001-205 Ark. Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I\nJeremy Lasiter, certify that on May 31, 2012, 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 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 of May 31 , 2012 ~~c:l ori\"tttj : i~forrn~tt\u0026lt;?n :av9ijabie jfAprif-30\n,_2012, ] h 0A1fE c ?T2ufaticf t he Stite Foupd~t_i,on )=unding Jor FY J1 t12: siJbjecf lb 'periqdi~ adjustments'. 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. 1 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. ActualasofMay31,2012 Based on the information availabie at April 30, 2012, the ADE calculated for FY 11 /12, subject to periodic adjl,!Stments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 On April 30, 2012, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 11 /12 were as follows: LRSD - $50,469,962 NLRSD - $28,619,857 PCSSD - $35, 139,086 Th~ allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 11 /12 at April 30, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $61 ,907,286 NLRSD - $34,983,681 PCSSD -$43,018,176 D. Determine the number of Magnet students resid ing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the Staff Attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 On October 26, 2010, changes were made in the expense per child to $8,336. Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at April 30, 2012, for FY11/12, subject to periodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Distributions for FY 11/12 at April 30, 2012, totaled $11,855,367. Allotment calculated for FY 11/12 was $14,373,720 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2011 , for FY10/11, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of May 3f'.2012 Distributions for FY t1f12 at A~nl 30, 2012, were: LRSD - $4,478,595 NLRSD - $5,590,822 PCSSD- $10,101,019 The allotments calculated for FY 11/12 at A,pri( 30, 2012, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,458,463 NLRSD - $5,564,846 PCSSD - $9,761,876 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 In September 2010, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 10/11 were submitted to the ADE by the districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay Districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 09/10 to the Districts. In August 2010, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. In January 2011 , General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 10/11 to the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 In September 2010, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 09/10 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2009, the following had been paid for FY 09/10: LRSD - $4,054,730.00 NLRSD - $1 ,471 ,255.67 PCSSD - $2,544,356.20 In September 2010, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation bu_g_get. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 30, 2010, the following had been paid for FY 10/11 : LRSD - $1 ,354,368.33 NLRSD- $510,218.13 PCSSD - $905,109.15 In February 2011, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $2,708,736.66 NLRSD - $1 ,020,436.26 PCSSD - $1 ,810,218.30 In December 2011 , General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 10/11 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2011, the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $3,977,759.00 NLRSD - $1 ,456,077.37 PCSSD - $2,320,249.40 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays Districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) In December 2011, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31, 2011 , the following had been paid for FY 10/11: LRSD - $1,297,333.34 NLRSD - $515,623.32 PCSSD - $889,000.35 In February 2012, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 11 /12 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. North Little Rock was overpaid $271,487.69 over the last two payments. The current payment reflects what is due less the amount of the overpayment. At February 29, 2012, the following had been paid for FY 11 /12: LRSD - $2,594,666.67 NLRSD - $689,693.05 PCSSD - $1,778,000.70 ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's Transportation Coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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. In September 2007, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 07/08 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2008, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 08/09 School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2009, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 09/1 O School Year for the Magnet and M-to-M Transportation Program. In September 2010, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 10/11 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. 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. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00 and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. In March 2007, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 4 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each and 4 - 65 passenger buses for $66,390.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a lift for $72,440.00 and 5 - 47 passenger buses for $63,465.00 each. The total amount was $1,036,115.00. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 In July 2007, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,036,115. In March 2008, 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 $66,405.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 65 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $72,850.00 and 1 - 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $70,620.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $66,405.00 each, 2 - 47 passenger buses for $65,470.00 each and 2 - 47 passenger buses with wheelchair lifts for $70,620.00 each. The total amount was $1,079,700.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In March 2009, 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 $65,599.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 2 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $65,599.00 each. The total amount was $1,049,584.00. In July 2008, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1 ,079,700. In August 2009, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Central States Bus Sales $1,049,584. Bids were opened on May 7, 2010, for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The low bid was by Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,135,960. There are fourteen 65 passenger buses at $71 ,210 per unit and two 4 7 passenger units at $69,510 per unit. Little Rock will get 8 - 65 passenger buses. Pulaski County Special will get 4 - 65 passenger buses and 2 - 47 passenger buses. North Little Rock will get 2 - 65 passenger buses. In September 2010, 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses were delivered to the Districts in Pulaski County. Finance paid Diamond States Bus Sales $1 ,135,960. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 Bids were released in July 2011 , for sixteen Magnet and M-to-M buses. The bid was awarded to Diamond State Bus Sales for a total of $1 ,078,790. There were ten 65 passenger buses at $67,398 per unit, four 47 passenger buses at $65,835 per unit and two 47 passenger with lift buses at $70,735 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 all buses have been delivered. Little Rock received 7-65 passenger buses and 1-47 passenger with lift bus. Pulaski County Special received 1-65 passenger bus, 4-4 7 passenger buses and 1-4 7 passenger with lift bus. North Little Rock received 2-65 passenger buses. On March 14, 2012, The Division of Public School Academic Facilities \u0026amp; Transportation submitted paperwork requesting that DFA solicit bids on sixteen (16) buses for the three Districts. The breakdown of the buses is listed below. Little Rock NLR PCSSD Eight (8) 65 Passenger buses Two (2) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 65 Passenger buses Three (3) 47 Passenger buses On April 3, 2012, The Office of State Procurement sent out the request for bids for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses being purchased. The bid opening will take place on April 19, 2012. The breakdown of the buses was submitted previously. On May 9, 2012, The Office of State Procurement was awarded fhe bid for the sixteen (16) Magnet and M to M buses from Diamond States Bus Sales in Conway, AR. Three (3) 47 passenger buses@ $67,054.00 each Thirteen (13) 65 passenger buses@ $68,575.00 each Total bid awarded is for $1 ,092,637.00 Buses should be delivered sometime in August. 11 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 May 31, 2012 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 May 31 , 2012 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 May 31, 2012 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 May 31, 2012 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. 12 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each School Year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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. 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. 13 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 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. Distribution in July 2007 for FY 07/08 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 07 /08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $92,50Q. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11/12 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 11/12. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 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. 14 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. Distribution in July 2007 for F 07/08 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to ODM for FY 07/08. Distribution in July 2008 for FY 08/09 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 08/09. Distribution in July 2009 for FY 09/10 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 09/10. Distribution in July 2010 for FY 10/11 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 10/11 . Distribution in July 2011 for FY 11 /12 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 11 /12. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 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 percent of air 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 ATIE Administrative Team, the Arkansas State Board of Education and the Districts. Then it was 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. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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, -rg97 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. A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts were held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and School Improvement visits. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and' evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) 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 from 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 and 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. 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. 19 / II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) Staff Development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5 and 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 from 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 foiFebruary 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. On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Grnup met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 from 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. On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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. 21 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) 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 Gmup 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 from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to disct::ss 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 from 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. 22 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 beer:i 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 from 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. 23 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from 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 from 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 feasibility 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 from 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. 24 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On March 16, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review previous Implementation Phase Activities. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, reported that U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., declared the LRSD unitary and released the District from Federal Court superv1s1on. It was stated that the ADE should continue desegregation reporting until the deadline for an appeal filing has past, or until an appeal has been denied. House Bill 1829 passed the House and Senate. This says the ADE should hire consultants to determine whether and in what respects any of the Pulaski County Districts are unitary. It authorizes the ADE and the Attorney General to seek proper Federal Court review and determination of the current unitary status and allows the State of Arkansas to continue payments under a post-unitary agreement to the three Pulaski County Districts for a time period not to exceed seven years. The three Pulaski County Districts may be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if their motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status are filed no later than October 30, 2007, and the School Districts are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Matt McCoy and Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office updated the group on legal issues related to desegregation. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 5, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 12, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out the syllabus of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June 28, 2007 about the Seattle School District. The Court ruled that the District could no longer use race as the only criteria for making certain Elementary School assignments and to rule on transfer requests. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that an expert was going to study the Pulaski County School Districts and see what they need to do to become unitary. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2007, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 25 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 11, 2007, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the LRSD being declared unitary and the Joshua lntervenors filing a notice of appeal to the 8th Circuit Court. The LRSD and the Joshua lntervenors have asked that the appeal be put on hold while they pursue a mediated settlement. Mr. Scott Richardson from the Attorney General's Office said that the LRSD had until October 31 to respond to the appeal filed by the Joshua lntervenors. He said that the NLRSD was trying to get total unitary status and the PCSSD was working on getting unitary status in their student assignment. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out news articles about the Districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The Joshua lntervenors filed a motion with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The Little Rock School District filed its response to the motion by the Joshua lntervenors. After the Pulaski County Special School District sought unitary status, the Joshua lntervenors requested that School Desegregation Monitors do a study on the quality of facilities in the District, or on the District's compliance with its desegregation plan. Judge Wilson denied the requests by Joshua lntervenors. The North Little Rock School District asked for unitary status and Joshua lntervenors objected and asked for a hearing. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 26 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On April 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. House Bill 1829 that passed in 2007 allowed Pulaski County Districts to be reimbursed for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary or partial unitary status if they are declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the Federal District Court no later than June 14, 2008. Act 2 was passed in the Special Legislative Session that started March 31 , 2008. This extends the deadline for unitary status to be reimbursed for legal fees from June 14 to December 31 . Also discussed in the Implementation Phase Meeting was the push by Jacksonville residents to establish a Jacksonville School District. On April 15, 2008, the PCSSD School Board voted 4-2 against letting Jacksonville leave the District. In 2003, U. S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., stopped an election in Jacksonville on forming an Independent District. He said that taking Jacksonville out of the PCSSD would hinder efforts to comply with the Court approved desegregation plan. A request by the PCSSD for unitary status is pending in Federal District Court. The next rmplementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 10, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. He handed out a news article that talked about an evaluation of the North Little Rock School District's compliance with its desegregation plan. The evaluation was done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a Federal Desegregation Monitoring Office. ODM said \"NLRSD has almost no compliance issues that would hinder its bid for unitary status\". Another article said that ODM has proposed a 2008-2009 Budget that would allow for closing at the end of December 2008 if the School Districts in Pulaski County are declared unitary before then. Each of the Districts has petitioned U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., for unitary status. Another article was handed out stating that Legislators, Attorneys from the Attorney General's Office and Representatives of the three School Districts in Pulaski County have been conducting meetings to discuss ways to phase out desegregation payments. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2008, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201 -A at the ADE. 2 7 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 9, 2008, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings have been taking place to prepare for the possibility that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the ruling that gave the Little Rock School District unitary status. The LRSD has requested that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. The LRSD also asked for restrictions on new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, protection from sanctions if they are in fiscal or academic distress, and a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. In a September 17 update on the status of the PCSSD implementation of its desegregation plan, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) stated that in some PCSSD schools, black males have suspension rates above 50%. ODM stated that \"district-wide, discipline rates continue to climb\" and black males \"have discipline rates far out of proportion to their presence in the student body.\" Issues listed in the ODM report lead them to \"suggest that PCSSD is not presently in the posture to either seek or be awarded unitary status by the District Court.\" The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 28 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) On January 8, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Mr. Scott Richardson, Arkansas Assistant Attorney General received a letter in January from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the appeal of the unitary status ruling was \"under active consideration\". Mr. Richardson had sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in December asking him to inform the judges of legislative, legal and financial matters that hinge on the panel's decision. The panel had heard oral arguments about the appeal in March of 2008. In another news article, the Attorney General's Office rejected proposals to cap the number of new Charter Schools in Pulaski County, waive penalties for fiscal, academic or facilities distress, and establish a new state-funded education service cooperative in Pulaski County. The Attorney General's Office also rejected the request that for the next seven years, the three School Districts in Pulaski County continue to receive the same amount of desegregation funding that they will receive this year. Instead, the Office suggested reimbursement based on declining percentage rates, such as 77 percent of desegregation funding the second year, 54 percent the third year, and similar reductions the following years. Other topics of discussion in the meeting included the School Choice Law and the Charter School Law. The LRSD has said that\" Charter Schools interfere with efforts to comply with desegregation obligations. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 23, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Little Rock School District had achieved unitary status was discussed. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., withdrew from the desegregation lawsuit, and was replaced by U.S. District Judge Brian Miller. The first hearing on the Pulaski County School Desegregation lawsuit with Judge Miller was scheduled for April 13, 2009. This hearing was cancelled because Judge Miller was involved in a car accident that morning. The hearing was going to be about how far the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts have progressed toward unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2009, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 29 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On July 9, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article stated that on May 19, Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel and Arkansas Assistant Attorney, General Scott Richardson filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to schedule Court hearings on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 22, 2009, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article states that Arkansas Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel has proposed a seven year phase out of state desegregation payments. Another article talked about the first Court hearing with U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller on the requests for unitary status by the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. The hearing was held on September 30. Sam Jones, an Attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District, Stephen Jones, an Attorney for the North Little Rock School District, and Chris Heller, an Attorney for the Little Rock School District, want the state desegregation payments to the three Districts to continue even if the Districts are all unitary. John Walker, an Attorney for the Joshua lntervenors, told the judge that an expert should testify on educational achievement in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. He thought the judge was \"influenced\" by the reports he had received from the state. Judge Miller set January 11 as a unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District, and January 25 as a unitary status hearing date for the Pulaski County Special School District. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 7, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 30 - II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On January 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. One article talked about declining enrollments in the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). The PCSSD lost 275 students this year. Since State Funding is based on average enrollment, the reduction in students could cost the PCSSD $1 .6 million if the number of students stays the same the rest of the year. Enrollment in public Charter Schools in Pulaski County is up this year by 718 students. Also discussed was the news that U.S. District Judge, Brian Miller postponed the unitary status hearing date for the North Little Rock School District from January 11 to January 25. He postponed the unitary status hearing date for the PCSSD from January 25 to February 22. The Joshua lntervenors had requested delays in the hearings. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Louis Ferren, ADE Internal Auditor for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). He also talked about a draft of a Federal Court motion that could be presented by the Little Rock School District that would accuse the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. Recent news articles about the desegregation case were discussed. Some articles talked about the PCSSD unitary status hearings discussing the condition of school facilities in the District. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation, talked about school facilities in the PCSSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 8, 2010, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 8, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Ms. Melissa Jacks, Interim Program Manager for Licensure, provided updated information about NLRSD regarding the possible closure of Elementary Schools in response to declining enrollment within the district. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Commissioner for Accountability, talked about the need for Districts to be sure their buildings are ready to open in August. Mark White, ADE Council for Legal Services, said Charter School Applications will appear in the next State Board Meeting Agenda. 31 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On October 7, 2010, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, said U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the . Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that Arkansas Assistant Attorney General Scott Richardson is preparing a case in response to the lawsuit from the Little Rock School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. On January 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, up-dated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark White from ADE Legal Services said that U.S. District Judge Brian Miller is considering the information that was presented in the desegregation unitary status hearings for the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. He also stated that the Little Rock School District had requested ir:iformation about individual students that cannot be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Little Rock School District Superintendent Linda Watson resigned. The Little Rock School Board chose Morris Holmes as the Interim Superintendent. Facility plans by the Pulaski County Special School District to close several schools caused concerns by parents in the district. The plan included closing Robinson High School and sending students to Maumelle High School. Closing College Station Elementary was also part of the plan. 32 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 7, 2011 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. There was discussion about the lawsuit from the Little R\u0026lt;Jck School District that accuses the state of violating the desegregation agreement by approving Charter Schools in Pulaski County. The ADE has asked U.S. District Judge Brian Miller to reject the Little Rock School District subpoena of information about students attending Charter Schools. An attorney for the ADE stated that the requested information could not be released because of Federal Student Privacy Regulations. Judge Miller said that he would delay a decision about the subpoena until after his decision about whether or not the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts should be given unitary status. A report released by Attorney General Dustin McDaniel stated that some of the desegregation funding provided to the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School Districts was placed in their general funds instead of being used for desegregation purposes. The financial records for the Little Rock School District are being analyzed. The 88th Arkansas General Assembly passed an act to provide oversight of and accountability for state desegregation funding received and expended by the Pulaski County School Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2011 , at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On July 7, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, talked about Plan 2000. This is an amended desegregation plan for PCSSD approved in March of 2000. Judge Brian Miller ruled on May 19, 2011 , that PCSSD did not successfully meet their plan in the areas of student assignment\nadvanced placement, gifted and talented and honors programs\ndiscipline\nschool facilities\nscholarships\nspecial education\nstaff\nstudent achievement\nand monitoring. Judge Miller ruled that the NLRSD was in substantial compliance with their desegregation plan except for District Staffing. The Attorney General's Office has recommended that the ADE provide more assistance to the PCSSD with the areas of Plan 2000 that have not been fully implemented. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 13, 2011, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 33 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) On October 13, 2011, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. The instrument has been through the ADE Legal Department for approval and is currently at the Attorney Generals' Office under review. Once approved, Mr. Morris will take a team of monitors to PCSSD and will utilize the new monitoring instrument in order to help them better address the 9 areas of compliance that were designated non-unitary. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, updated the group on his trip to St. Louis where the 8th Circuit Court heard the appeals for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD. No decision was made on the appeals. Mr. Lasiter said Judge Miller really liked the PMT and stressed that it will be very important for us to continue documenting everything this way. Mr. Morris informed the group that Judge Miller has stepped down and Judge Marshall is now presiding over this case. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 34 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) On January 5, 2012, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase Activities from the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Morris also discussed that a monitoring instrument has been developed for use with PCSSD. Mr. Morris met with PCSSD and will monitor the District starting the second semester. There were nine (9) areas from the Court for PCSSD that did not meet compliance requirements. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated that Judge Miller said the desegregation funding should stop. The 8th Circuit Court said that NLR is fully unitary but funds should continue until after the hearings. The State has spent over a billion dollars for desegregation funding in Pulaski County. The ADE must document how the desegregation agreement has been implemented. LRSD filed motion in Court over Charter Schools and achievement gap. The hearing will be held in March. Charter Schools can be part of the hearing where the case relates to Charter Schools. They can't contest the funding for desegregation. The ADE will continue to have Implementation-Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally fin ished. PCSSD said ASCIP does not address all the items that are in their Plan 2000. PCSSD wants ACSIP changed. ADE is supposed to help PCSSD get in compliance with the nine (9) compliance items. PCSSD wants to help with Professional Development because of their budget constraints. The Legislature changed laws so that there was no longer a limit to the number of Charter Schools. Charter Schools were put in Pulaski County. The LRSD argued that Charter Schools don't provide transportation so the racial makeup of the Charter Schools is racially identifiable and cause more segregation. People have complained about PCSSD putting new and very expensive buildings in areas where black students are not likely to attend. Standards Assurance Monitoring and Federal and State Monitoring will be done for PCSSD like the other Districts. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 5, 2012, at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 3 5 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 impact~ of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) On April 5, 2012, 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 Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, stated that on March 19, 2012, they were still waiting for Judge Marshall to release the State from the 1993 Settlement Agreement. The settlement schedules had not been discussed in the last two years. Mr. Richardson also stated that on March 29, 2012, the two main things that were submitted to the Courts were Charter Schools Open Enrollment and Achievement Gap. Mr. Morris stated the big issue is trying to address the nine (9) non-unitary areas in the last Court Order while in fiscal distress. The funding for the facilities in the Western part of the County is better than the funding for pre-existing facilities. On March 1, 2012, Dr. Stein received the PCSSD facilities plan. Due to bad weather conditions during Spring Break, Mr. Morris was unable to visit any facilities. Next week, if the weather permits, he will visit facilities that are not testing. The ADE will continue to have Implementation Phase Meetings until the desegregation case is totally finished. Transportation and facility funding are to continue being provided until being released from the Court. There has been no feedback on LRSD from Mr. Heller. The Charter School Laws are the only thing having a negative impact on their litigation. Mr. Jeremy Lasiter, ADE General Council for Legal Services, stated there has been no response to letters in the past 5-6 years. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2012 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 36 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 May 31 , 2012 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 37 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 The information for th is 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 May 31 , 2012 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 May 31 , 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 38 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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 impedes desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and Worker's Compensation was 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. 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. 39 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continued) 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- Distdcts. 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. 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. 40 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) 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 and 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. 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. 41 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (Continued) 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. 42 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (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. In July 2007, 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 86th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. The ADE attorney is reviewing laws and regulations to look for any that may impede desegregation. In June 2011 , 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 88th Legislative Session, and any new ADE rules or regulations. 43 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 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. ActualasofMay31 , 2012 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continae to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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 44 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 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. 45 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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. 46 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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 AD E'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. 47 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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 g_Qal 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, Septemb.er 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. 48 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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 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. 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. 49 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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 and 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 De.segregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review and 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 met 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. 50 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (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. 51 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (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. 52 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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. 53 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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 1-4, 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. 54 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (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. 55 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2012 (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 Exe_cutive Summary for the month of November. On January 17, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of May. On July 9, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2007, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its Executive Summary for the month of August. 56 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2012 (Continue\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":2,"next_page":3,"prev_page":1,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":12,"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}}]}}