{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_70","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/70"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org November 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TORJNG Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, /eud~ - Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 's\u0026amp;rifsmith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL PLAINTIFoiEGREGr1iw:a~NITORING 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 November 30, 2006 B_ased on the,infoi:miti6n available at-Octc56er 31,:_~006 t e ADE calculate the State Foundation Funaing for FY:o67DI7 subjectto Ri3riodic adjustrnem.sl 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. l. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006  r 31 : 2:00'6, distributionsqf State Fouodatio'q Fundin'g'for FY 06/07 were 9 675~62Q if te Foundatio F..!J.b.gln~ :calculatedj or F.Y b6/07 at O.cto6'en B eriodic affustments were as follows 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 November 30, 2006 ffase 'on the information available, therfr,DE calculafed a't October 31, 2006 foo FY 06/07~ suojed to ,periodic adjustme 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 November 30, 2006 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 November 30, 2006 ~sed on thgihfo@mion:av~ilable,\nthe ADE calculated.at O.ctober 31, 2006.forl EY 06/07, suoject to periodic adjust e ts G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Qistri64tL9ns for F'? 06.L07 9t 1 ,2.906 'tot tment alculated for FY06/07 was 4 sub'ect to 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 November 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Distri6ut1orfs,\n(of(E\nY{0:6ZO].iatrGct'dl5efIB1m2-00tl$werm [6e:::'.~llo calciJ@ed'.fofFY 06/07 a't' Oclo6er:3J,-2006\n:S:ubject to'per1fill@ acfustm re 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 November 30, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In September 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 06/07 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD-$1,948,253.16 In September 2006, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $4,200,321.00 NLRSD - $975,891.96 PCSSD - $3,062,606.93 In September 2006, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 06/07 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At September 2006, the following had been paid for FY 06/07: LRSD - $1,413,384.34 NLRSD - $333,217.73 PCSSD - $1,074,447.23 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2006, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 06/07 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) IriJune 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 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 November 30, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 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 November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1 . . Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring'Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and.prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Ac\ntual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed . It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. A(::\ntual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. A_ctual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p. m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 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 November 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE.  On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported . There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 - 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 November 30, 2006 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 November 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 A. committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing , no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) T_he ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 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 November 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the AD E's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the lmplementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas. State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkan~as State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 9\n2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September.  On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. o'\"n Novemo~r.,13:2006. t5e.Ad$ai:i~a{SfatiiBO:afd][Egucat[o:n reviewed and'.aborov:eg tie PMT and its executive summary or tne montn o Octo e 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed , and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipl ine data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed , and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATJON (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) lri February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for th is item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facil itate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training . In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's P.artnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulatlon of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training , Dr. Reynolds addressed the following : 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT MP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing . Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. The following tra ining has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning .\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, tra ining was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented . Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig , Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach . This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning , and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel tra ined Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided train ing for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions) . LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geome\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_1775","title":"Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision, two notices of deposition and rescheduling, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School employees","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision, two notices of deposition and rescheduling, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1775"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["63 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision; District Court, two notices of deposition; District Court, letter rescheduling deposition; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. CASE NO. 4:82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT, NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRJGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT AND PRAYER FOR RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For the reasons which follow, the JoshuaJntervenors object to the LRSD Compliance Report and request to be released from court supervision. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. K. 1. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [Compliance Remedy, para. A] 2. LRSD administrators .have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding \"school portfolios\", \"district portfolio\", and \"data 1 warehouse.\") ; see also Attachments hereto A-6, para. 6-7 (Springer Aff., 6-28-06) 3. In the preparation of the 8 \"formal step 2 evaluations,\" PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. See Attachments at 1-3 (cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation).1 These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A (court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B (\"comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; .. . \") It was at all times apparent that 1:milding the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the - assistance of outside evaluators (or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators; was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 4. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. BJ a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing ,. compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; [iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education 1 The fourth evaluation for 2005-06 (of Pre-K literacy program) is not yet available. 2 status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, ,.courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; [ xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools expos~d to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to determine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questiormaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessmerit process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (use of questionnaire postponed) See also Attachments at A-6, para. 6 (Springer Aff.) d. PRE's \"quarterly written updates\" show work on \"school\" and \"district portfolios\" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned \"school portfolios\" in its quarterly report of 9- 1-05 at 3, corrections in the ~'Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report\" of October 25, 2006,\" early in the 2006-07 school years,\" show that \"LRSD expects to ,., .J ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year.\" [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: \"Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio.\" [At 3] At present, one can not determine the state of completeness of the \"district portfolio,\" compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] _ e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): \"PRE is also investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing.\" The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): \"To support the portfolio 's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis.\" PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See Attachment at A-15 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History\")] 4 g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Attachments at A-5 to A-6, para. 5 (Springer Aff.). 5. With regard to the 2005-06 evaluations, at least the evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program contain insufficient description of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D (\"Has the Section 2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students; as it has been implemented in sch?ols throughout the district?\" [emphasis added)]; Attachments A-19 to A-22 (Joshua Intervenors 's Comments on inadequate program descriptions in these evaluations)] 6.  While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems noted in this docm.ent. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Attachments at A-15 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE a:t page 2, para, 4] 7. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph H of~he 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments at A-16 [\"Compliance History\" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) \"The Superintendent threatened . . . [the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua.\"] 8. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy.  See Attachments at A-22 (no response made to this letter seeking information on PRE staff); see also paragraph 7 of this submission (threat of PRE's Director). [Compliance Remedy, para. I] 9. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the 5 school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously - reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 10. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua repres~ntatives. Moreover, team member part1cipation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Attachments, k7, para. 10 (Springer Aff.). 11 . The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Attachments, A-16, para. 7 (PRE \"Compliance.History\"). For example, we understand the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, to be that some of the key Section 2.7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, _this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: \"LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2.7 programs as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 12. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program 6 evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, .!. 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for 2005-2006 school year filed by the LRSD to date do not comply with the requirements of the remedy. 13 . The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Remedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LRSD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 14. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. 15. The LRSD is submitting the draft Pre-K literacy evaluation on or about November 15, 2006 (today). By letter of October 31, 2006, Joshua representatives requested counsel of the LRSD to provide certain information bearing upon compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. While counsel agreed to provide the requested information, it has yet to be received. Given these two factors, Joshua Intervenors request the opportunity to supplement these objections should the content of information later received indicate the need for supplementation. 7 CONCLUSION Respectfully, the Court should reject LRSD's request for a finding of substantial compliance with the 2004 remedy and its prayer for release from court supervision and the Court should require the LRSD to show cause why it is not in contempt of Court. Joshua points up that the LRSD Board of Directors have not been fully informed of the requirements of the Court by counsel and are not fully aware of their obligations under the Order or the authority which they have to take action and direct their administration with respect to the agreed upon remedy. Accordingly, Joshua requests that the school administration and district counsel be enjoined to fully i\"'.1form the Board of Directors of the Court's orders, the duties and expectations ofthe Board and that LRSD administrators with respect to the Compliance Remedy. In addition, the Court is also requested to enjoin the LRSD administration and the Board of Directors from' punishing PRE staff for attempting to in'iplement the court ordered remedy in good faith. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors request that PRE, after the court hearing, report directly to the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District for the next two years while the process of program assessments and evaluations is being embedded as directed by the Court. LRSD should remain under court supervision for a minimum of two additional years and be required to comply fully with those aspects of the 2004 remedy to which compliance has been inappropriate. ls/Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 8 ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on this 15th day of November, 2006 a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and in addition a copy has been mailed by U.S . mail to: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 9 - ATTACHMENTS TO JOSHUA OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COlVIPLIANCE REPORT A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 . A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for Read 180 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for A+ Springer Affidavit of June 28, 2006 Dr. Karen DeJarnette's Letter to Dr. Mitchell dated November 3, 2006 PRE Compliance History starting with Cover Page Joshua Comments regarding the 20005-2006 Draft Evaluations Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated December 1, 2005 Case 4)32-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 132 '- CREP C,mtu for R~earch in Etlucadonai Polir:y Center for Research in Educational Pciicy The Universily of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree Little Rock School District Read 180 Evaluation DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT October 2006 Clif Mims, Ph. D. Deborah L. Lowther, Ph .D. J. Daniel Strahl, M.S. Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University  Attachment 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 112 CREP Cilnter for Rueardr in EducationaJ Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree -------- Evaluation of 21 st Century Community Learning Center, Little Rock School District, 2005-06 Technical Report DRAFT October 2006 Heidi Kenaga Jerry A. Bates Fethi lnan Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion University Attachment 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4052 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 56 The A+ Education Program At Woodruff Elementary, Little Rock School District An .Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African-American Student Achievement Draft-Report for Review and Comments Only October 16, 2006 .James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies .Los Angeles~ CA 90095-1521 jamcsc/@.gscis.ucla.edu Note: The opinions expressed in this report Dre t ho~e of the author and not necessarily tho5e of Little Rock School District or Woodruff School personnel. The profes~iona l schools find colle~es or the Univer~ity ofCallfornin do not tnke official positions 011 prog!\"llm cvnluntion stlltements of faculty ~nd do not officinlly endorse nonaffilh1tc.d progn1ms. Attachment 3 IN THE UNITED STATES D.ISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO. 4:82cv00866WRW/JTR AFFIDAVIT OF JOY SPRINGER Comes now the affiant, Joy Springer, who states under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. My name is Joy Springer and I have been assigned by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with. the court's order.of June 30, 2004 (iater referred to as the Compliance Remedy). 2. I have previously submitted affidavits herein indicating that I have a two Bachelors degrees, one in General Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Masters degree in Education Administration fro:rn U ALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years .. 3. I have been regularly monitoring program evaluation compliance before and especially since the court's order of June 30, 2004. My monitoring has involved the following activities: 1 Attachment 4 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program  .:. evaiuations; b) conversations with PRE staff , the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE's quarterly reports regarding the compliai.,ce remedy; d) review ofLRSD's board agendas and minutes; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I.have regularly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM; what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, focused and ' ' deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my work, I have had an occasion to review district publications which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional ' ' deveiopment in the ar.ea of program assessments and evaluations has 'hot been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is demonstrated, for example, by the district's professional development calendar for the year's 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006, approximately three weeks before the end of the second school year addressed in the compliance remedy [and almost two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], even for those 2 Attachment 5 dates, it does not mention the number of staff who received professional development with ~ respect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district's curriculum: This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court expected (Page 62, Footnote39 of the Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questionnaire postponed) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse\" to either ~upplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction programs. LRSD Compliance Ryport March 1, 2006 at 3 .. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE's use. [Interview with Dr. DeJarnette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's requirement that the district have a PRE department i..11 the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program assessment/evaluation process (Page 68, of the Compliance Remedy). 8. Various factors suggest that the vision of the current administration of the LRSD de-emphasizes the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE reported directly to the Superintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would realize the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court. In March 2005, Dr. . Brooks assigned Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Olivine Roberts, to supervise PRE. Thereafter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major focus .. These responsibilities included the preparation school improvement plans for a large 3 Attachment 6 number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as part of the school improvemeii.t effort. I understand PRE's major focus to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying .out of required assessments and evaluations, and the embedding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. 9. In the two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation, Dr. Olivine Roberts has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LRSD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Broo~ has made -i1th respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. Another example of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the_2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation consisted, for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. During the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active pa..rticipation by other district staff who had the responsibility of actually implementing the programs being evaluated. 11. A third example of PRE' s diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The Testing Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham, left the district prior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contract diminished from 11 months to 10 months as a result of the district's \"reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testing Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. A.i-thur Olds).[Compliance Report March 1, 2006] He resigned a.i-\"t:er approximately 3 months on the job.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position  has not been filled. It is my understanding that one of PRE's statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4 Attachment 7 been assigned the added responsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for job vacancies, the Testing Coordinator position has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) of the LRSD. The purpose of the meeting was for PRE staff to update Joshua and the ODM regarding the status of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the necessary test data for the Step 2 evaluations due on October 1, 2006. PRE Director, Dr. DeJarnette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data would be such that an extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she would provide the necessary information to the LRSD counsel for the filing of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1,. 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process into its curriculum and instruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in formulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2.7.1_. Based upon this communication and information contained in paragraphs 5,6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PRE staff members and the ODM representative, Gene Jones, that because the district was not in -compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its curriculum and instruction programs as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has communicated similar reservations to the LRSD's  PRE staff. 5 Attachment 8 14. Following informing Dr. DeJarnette, PRE Director, that Joshua would invoke the court's att~ntion, the district's three top administrators, Dr. Roy Brooks, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met vvith l\\tfr. Jones thereafter. It is noteworthy that they did not include PRE Director D_eJarnette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly asked that Joshua be fully involved iri. these discussions, the district chose to involve only ODM. 15. I am of the view that the LRSD has continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30, 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example, it appears to me that Dr. DeJamette is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She has indicated as rri.uch during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD h~ no definitive plan for the use of \"assessments\" being generated by the Compass Learning programs. Furthermore, the school district's administration has not acted in keeping Joshua and the court informed through timely reports, of the necessity for more time, and for . modifi(?~tion of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluations which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's failure t? provide the necessary data. Affiant saith nothing further.  6 Attachment 9 7 Attachment 10 November 3, 20Q6 Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Board of Directors Little Rock School District 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Mitchell: Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 In preparation for the session you have requested regarding compliance status, PRE has written the accompanying summary of our experience during the past two years. Since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions, this unusual delivery should insure that our thoughts are delivered for this session with some time for thorough review prior to the meeting. One of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts 'was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006). The version delivered to the Superintendent's office for the Board's review at the August agenda meeting is Appendix A of the accompanying document. The version submitted to ODM (Appendix B) omitted nearly all of section Band much of section C, (pp. 3-6 of PRE's version). On these pages PRE described obstacles to the District's \"embedding\" and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs. The description demonstrated the District's critical, earnest effort at achieving this responsibility required by the Court; and it provided a basis for actions leading to the District's full compliance. Its omission from the update allows a reader's false impression that the District has progressed further than it in fact has. Another reason for submitting this document to you is the probable absence by two of our department's members on November 9 due to previously scheduled leave. If the board desires, they might join the discussion via a telephone connection. Our department engaged enthusiastically when we began two years ago to carry out the compliance remedy, and we sustained our energy since then. Due to this effort and its results, the District can demonstrate its sincere engagement in removing barriers and Attachment 11 introducing procedures which will establish trustworthy assessments as usual procedures. We ar.~ therefore eager to d.is_!?uss these matters with the Board. P: .....-.'-..-~- Karen DeJarnette Director xc: Board of Directors Mr. Heller Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua intervenors Attachment 12 - ------- -------------- Compli~nce History 2004 - 2006 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department November 3, 2006 Attachment 13 PRE' s Compliance History 2004-2006 Background The Compliance Remedy of June 30, 2004 issued by the U.S. District Court (USDC) established the main tasks and orientation for the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE). The Remedy's requirements included the following: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE, which LRSD initially accomplished by hiring an additional PhD-level statistician as director and adding two master-level statisticians 2. Eight \"step-2\" evaluations of LRSD programs, which external evaluators have undertaken under PRE's oversight 3. Embedding assessment into the operations ofLRSD, which PRE started with a new assessment policy (approved by Board of Directors), first draft of a LRSD portfolio (with three of five types of desired information), and a plan for a data warehouse which a leading vendor represented could be implemented by summer 2006 with corrected data 4. Eight quarterly updates by PRE to ODM, which PRE prepared in time for Board consideration and approvals 5. Cooperation (non-adversarial relations) with Joshua by LRSD, which has increasingly occurred between Joshua and PRE 6. Compliance Report by LRSD; which it submitted October 16 when due. Difficulties with compliance There have been multiple challenges to complying with these requirements: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE , While LRSD initially boosted PRE staff, PRE's resources subsequently dwindled: a. Reorganization in 2005 eliminated both PRE's secretary and its test coordinator assistant, so PRE became the only department with professional staff who enjoy no secretarial support. b: LRSD in 2005 decreased the test coordinator to 11 months (rather than 12), and the seasoned test coordinator resigned. LRSD next reduced the position to nine months then restored it to 12 again. PRE went without a full-time person for more than 12 months (with a half FTE for a few months). Many test infractions-unprecedented in recent LRSD history-occurred during that period, due probably to inadequate staff. Investigations by the state will likely continue throughout this school year with threats to some employees' certifications. 2. Eight evaluations by external experts External evaluators have .undertaken the eight required evaluations but discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. a. Not surprising, no policy and no comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. Very competent people input and process data for LRSD, but they work without a coordinated plan which seeks out errors, corrects them, and guards use and integrity of LRSD information. b. The extent of data errors is unknown, so results based on LRSD information have uncertain accuracy and validity. c. In the October 2006 compliance report, filed with the USDC, LRSD disclosed that it has begun efforts to monitor more closely for errors new information entering the Pagel of5 Attachment 14 LRSD data base. However, PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. d. LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data. 3. Embedding assessments-in LRSD operations For supporting LRSD's obligation to embed assessment, PRE began planning a \"data warehouse\" late in 2004 with nationally eminent experts in school information and launched additional assessments not mandated by the Compliance Remedy. a. LRSD rejected PRE's plans, which would have had the data warehouse functioning by the due date of the Compliance Report required by the Court. b. Instead, LRSD chose a firm which develops data warehouses for retail commercial applications. That firm's software, Crystal Objects, was implemented in schools in Orange County, Florida, which do not assess programs as LRSD has committed to do. c. When the vendor will finish enough of its \"data cube!' to support PRE's data needs is unknown, although it is partially ready and easily usable in its incomplete state. d. LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data base but not in its design. A simple example is PRE's ongoing request, starting in January 2006, for tagging student and teacher records (allowing LRSD to identify their participation in key programs and track their progress later). LRSD has not tagged records. e. LRSD has also undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally. For example, LRSD refused PRE' s scientifically valid surveys of stakeholder opinions, which are important information for the dis.trict portfolio. f. With the aid of a consultant and encouragement from a state ACSIP coordinator, PRE positioned LRSD to lead the state's school districts in responding to Arkansas' newrequirement for a wellness priority in its annual ACSIPs. Yet, LRSD opposed  this project without reason. g. Thus, during the past two years, LRSD has impeded compliance with embedding  assessment in itsoperations. 4. Eighth quarterly update In its final quarterly update, PRE noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and their threat to sound decisions based on such info1mation. a. LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version (Appendix A) from the Board at its scheduled agenda meeting, when the Board would have normally considered it, and eliminated this and other parts from PRE's final update without the Board's knowledge. (Appendix B has the revised version submitted to ODM and Joshua.) b. Unaware of any changes and apparently without reading the revised update, Board members approved the revised quarterly update at its regular meeting. c. However, PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the Board for its review and discussion. So ODM and Joshua know that LRSD altered PRE's update, but the Board may not know it. 5. Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua During the 2004-05 year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not very cooperative--consistent with the history of the two parties. a. However, during the next school year, the \"chill\" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw on one hand, while PRE experienced less and less responsiveness from LRSD counsel on the other hand. b. A directive from LRSD's counsel not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel seemed at odds with USDC's 2004 remedy, but PRE's plea to LRSD and its Page 2 of 5 Attachment 15 counsel for clarification of this directive went unanswered. c. Moreover, LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions, of which PRE notified Joshua, ODM, LRSD, and its counsel. d. In these circumstances, PRE felt estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua: e. With encouragement from ODM, PRE shared openly with ODM its efforts and discussed them. 6. Compliance report While LRSD counsel submitted on its due date the compliance report mandated by USDC's 2004 remedy, the report contained significant errors. a. After PRE's prompt notice (with documentation) of the report's errors (Appendix C), counsel corrected some of them and submitted a revised report to USDC. 7. Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials Quite regrettably, the relation between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. a. The superintendent threatened her dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. b. Informatiop from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. c. Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without her knowledge. d. LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. e. She engaged a law firm for advice in the absence of LRSD's legal counsel. f. She filed a grievance through LRSD's Human Resources Department. The grievance alleged (and documented) interference on the part ofLRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy and from interviews at the time of her hiring. She expressed her fear of possible penalties by the USDC as a result of noncompliance by LRSD. g. Violating its.policy for prompt attempts to resolve grievances, LRSD has neither tried remediation nor informed its Board of the situation. Recommendations Several possibilities for resolution of these difficulties include the following. A Restoration of administrative support and addition of test coordinators, based on a review of responsibilities: i. An administrative assistant will expedite much processing of department business, inciuding preparing reports and processing surveys.  ii. Testing seems to require at least a full-time administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators.  iii. These needs ~ould be substantiated and clarified by an expert audit. B. Comprehensive study of LRSD data accuracy and implementation of policy and procedures for managing LRSD information and guarding its accuracy, use, and fidelity: i. Since LRSD does not seem to employ data system experts, it may need to hire consultants, who should be knowledgeable about public school data requirements from cybernetic, legal, organizational, community, and possibly other viewpoints. ii. The comprehensive system intended here is not the same as data processing, which the Computer Information Services Department performs very well. This Page 3 of5 Attachment 16 department understandably has consistently denied responsibility for quality of  the information it' processes. -  iii. Data input has been well coordinated by a single employee without sufficient resources to check and correct new data.  iv. Blaming any department or employee for incorrect data is inappropriate. The failure has been in not addressing information issues globally. C. More resources devoted to completing the data warehouse: i. The current difficulty of assembling data (as well as its unknown validity) hampers the capacity to assess programs efficiently and confidently. Therefore, finishing and testing the ambitious construction of LRSD's data warehouse should proceed quickly. ii. Of equal importance is estimating error rates in previously collected data and proceeding systematically with correcting it as indicated by investigation. iii. The data warehouse should include the additional information needed by PRE for assessments, portfolio, ACSIPs, and other functions. iv. If the application now under construction proves inadequate, LRSD should reconsider PRE's vendor or another which satisfies current and anticipated needs. _ D. Protection of PRE and LRSD from senior administrators' actions: i. Because assessing LRSD's programs is parallel to auditing its finances, the Board will benefit from direct communication with and directi_on of PRE, similar to the internal auditor's. ii.Accordingly, the Board would directly detennine PRE's budget. iii_ LRSD's senior officials have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy with this essential function of faithfully communicating expert opinion to the Board. iv. Their behavior has also rendered the Board at risk of non-compliance. v. The Board could protect itself from such behavior by replacing senior officials. E. Transparency: i. While its operations have grown more open over the past decades, LRSD must maintain and increase its accountability to all stakeholders regardless of historical conflicts, political alignments, personal conflicts, and other influences. ii. Its Board may set an example of enthusiastic compliance and insist on like practices throughout the organization. Posturing and abuse of regulations are not consistent with transparency. iii. A question which seems not to have been asked often enough, \"Do we want to teach our students this kind of behavior?\" Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1 7 : \\l~ Summary of Compliance and Recommendations USDC requirements Compliance Status Recommendations LRSD hired another PhD-level evaluator as director and two masters-level Rejuvenate PRE. statisticians but ended a support position and failed to hire a full-time test Hire an administrative assistant and coordinator for more than_ a year. Unprecedented numbers oftest vio_lations two assistant test coordinators. occurred during that period. External evaluators undertook all eight, finding many errors in dat_a from Review needs for comprehensive data PRE oversee eight management. Implement a policy and step-2 evaluations. LRSD and encountering delays in access to \"high-stakes\" test results. . procedures with sufficient resources. Board approved new assessment policy written by PRE. Complete currently partially complete PRE produced a draft district \"portfolio\" with three of five intended kinds of information. data warehouse, with more resources if Embed assessments PRE began plans for a \"data warehouse'.' to support :frequent assessments, necessary. Test and further develop in LR.SD operations. but LRSD substituted an inferior alternative. warehouse for usability. LRSD stopped PRE's stakeholder surveys, intended for the portfolio, and PRE report directly to Board (parallel plans for wellness data. with internal auditor). PRE write eight . PRE wrote each in time for the Board's consideration and approval, but PRE report directly to Board (parallel quarterly updates. LRSD deleted critical comments about LRSD information in the eighth. with internal auditor) . LR.SD cooperate with LRSD maintained its adversarial relations with Joshua, while PRE gradually Reform LRSD's effo1ts toward Joshua. became cooperative. transparency. LRSD submit LRSD submitted on due date, October 16, 2006, with significant errors Reform LRSD's efforts toward compliance report. which it corrected the following week. transparency. ...... 00 Page 5 of 5 - - - - - - - - --------------- JOSHUA COMMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S DRAFT EVALUATIONS One purpose of Section 2. 7 .1 is to assess [ or evaluate] programs to determine whether they work to \"[improve] African American achievement .. \" In the eight court-required evaluations, the principal method for determining such effectiveness of programs is to consider changes in the test scores of students served, compared to similar students not in the programs . Other information provided about the programs evaluated is more subjective ( the opinions of principals, teachers, students and parents about the programs). . The evaluations recognize the importance of descriptions of the programs and the extent ofimplementation. E.g., Read 180 evaluation at 3; 21 st Century Community Learning Centers _ Evaluation at 5. There are some shortcomings in this regard. The value of the evaluations would be greatly enhanced if these matters were addressed. It has been noted previously that without such information there is a limited basis for attributing the observed pattern of student outcomes to the program.being evaluated.  Read 180 The problem is most clear with regard to the Read 180 evaluation. There is no one place in the evaluation where a comprehensive description of the program is found. Thus, there is no basis for a reader to consider v..rhether the content of this program would, logically, be expected to improve a student's scores on either the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, or the Arkansas Benchmark examinations or both. An answer to this question in the light of a strong program description, by a person(s) knowledgeable about the skills and knowledge addressed in the two varieties of standardized tests , would be most helpful. Attachment 19 One problem with the Read 180 program description appears on page 50. The text reads: \"The Read 18 0 program was equally used to replace or to supplement Standard English courses.\" This would see1:1 to mean that in one-half of the 10 participating schools ( at 12, 10 schools in the study), Read 180 operates as what could be termed a \"pull out\" program, replacing the regular curriculum. In the other five, it seemingly supplements the regular program. It is hard to understand the latter answer given the time involved in the Read 180 program. The exposure of students to the regular curriculum content (or lack thereof) is of great importance. We understand that the Arkansas Benchmark exams are designed to test mastery of that curriculum. If, in tact, Read 180 is a pull out program, the test result analysis suggests that exposure to the regular curriculum is a better option. Without a good description of the Read 180 program, however, one can't tell .if this outcome is due to a disconnect between Read 180 content and test content. In brief, we are unclear about these matters: is the Read 180 program a pull out program replacing the regular curriculum? Is it a supplemental program so that students receive both the regular curriculum and Read 180? How does the content of Read 180 compare with the regular curriculum and the content of the relevant tests? The Read 180 evaluation at page 89 states: \"The design employed to assess Read 180 effects, while quite rigorous, cannot rule out the possibility of selection effects because students were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions.\" We understand this to mean that despite the overall success of the matched pair approach, statistical.ly, the method of selecting students might have placed weaker students in the Read 180 program. The discussion of how students were selected is very terse. [Draft at 50; one 3-line sentence] It is also problematical. It begins [at 2 Attachment 20 I I I I I I I I I 50] \"Students were primarily selected on the basis of Benchmark scores (77%) . .. \" We understarid that there were other.students with the same scores in each school. Thus some other selection criteria were seemingly employed. The matter of the selection criteria requires more attention due to the caution about \"selection effects.\" 21st CCLC A dominant feature of this evaluation is the content showing that in most schools student participation was insufficient to allow strong conclusions on the program's effectiveness in improving African American achievement as shown by test scores. [Evaluation at 68-76] Beyond this, the evaluation could be strengthened with regard to description of the content of the program at each school, particularly as it related to content which could be expected to contribute directly to improved test scores. 1 The initial description of program content is very general. It identifies a slate of possible activities and then states: \"Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population.\" [At 1] There is additional description of program content at pages 45-47. However, it appears to be insufficient to allow a judgment of whether students ' skills and test outcomes could be e;xpected to grow due to the content of the program, it attendance were adequate. There is here no description of program content at Southwest Middle School where somewhat more than one-half of the participants were \"substantially served.\" [At 69] The impact of the program at Southwest [at 72, 75] must be read in this light. 1 . Participation might have indirect effects on achievement, if, for example, it lead to positive feelings on individual worth, or to good feelings about school, leading in turn to better attendance, more attention in the classroom, greater diligence regarding homework, etc. 3 Attachment 21 ., f\\lOV 14 uo IL:4.UP Kooen 1-'ressman JORN\" ~r. 1rVALKER., P.A. ATTOR.L\"\\i'\"EYS AT L~ W . 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR...CU.NSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.,X (50 i) 3'7.i-4187 p.11 JOENW. WALKER OFCOUNSEI. SHA \\v-::{ CHILDS Via. Facsimile - 447-7609 December 1, 2005 ROBERT McHEl'l\"R.Y, ? .A 3210 ? .. BfDERSCN csOAI LlTTLE ROCK, A.R ..'Z ..\u0026gt;,NSAS 7221 ( ?HC-NE: (:50l ) 374-3425  ?A..:((501) J-;2-342~ E~i(A.Il : m:h,m-...ctr.:r1s-.vbcU .n~ Dr. Karen DeJ an1ette Director, PRE Little Rock School Disu-ict 80 West Mar.kham Little Rock, .AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJ a.mette: \\Ve note that tn your first quarterly report to the Court, you have identified seven persons including their positions. as members of the team of highly trained professionals for the PRE. Would you, therefore, please provide the following: l) the period of time each PRE staff person b.:;s served in their position; 2) whether any additional persons have been hired since June 30, 2005; 3) whetherthere have been any replacements since June 30, 2005; 4) whether any persons have left and the reasons therefor since June 30, 2005; 5) whether any vacated position was a result of an administrative decision to do,,;,,nsize PRE; and 6). whether there are currently any vacancies in PRE, if so, what position, Thank you for your attention to this request. Jv,rrN :j s c::: l\\'fr Gene Jones, ODivI Nrr. Chris Heiler Attachment 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION RECEIVED TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 NOV 3 0 2006 OfflCEOF IRtGRE6ATION IIONITOBING You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at I :30 p.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 By:~ jjJ}L b'l~ ChristophrHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones(cv,mwsgw.com siones@jlj.com j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 [~~ Chri; herHeller 2 RECEIVED NOV 3 o 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFflCEOF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Margie Powell, - Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. \\ Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ fJ,JL 1;, t;e,,.. Christopherelle . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com jolmwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray  U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922- 1994) BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P.A. E CLARX, JR., P.A. P. LEGGETT, P.A. WY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. )AMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSEU Ul, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELLZABETH ROBBEN Ml/RRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMlnt, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WlLUAM M. GRlmN Ill, P.A MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. WALTER M. EBn Ill, P.A. KEVlN A. CRASS, P.A. WILUAMA. WADDELi.JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. )AMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. UGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDN'ER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H, MOORE, P ,A, DA VtD M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JONANN C. CHILES, P.A. R.. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. DEITY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL HERRINGTON, P.A. VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Deposition Dear Joy: FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm.com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-3762147 3  25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 727034111 TELEPHONE 4711152011 November 30, 2006 J, MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. MAR VIN L. CHlLOERS K. COLEMAN WESTIIROOK, JR., P.A. AULSON J. CORNWELL P.A. ELLEN OWENS SMITH. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN, P.A. BRUCE B. TLDWEU, P.A. JOSEPH P. MCKAY, P.A. ALEXANDRA A. lFRAH, P.A. JAY T. TAYLOR. P.A. MARTIN A. KASTEN, P.A. BRYAN W. DIJJCE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHEUE ATOR. P.A. KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM LORENCE KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE STEVEN L BROOKS H, WAYNE YOUNG, JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KlMBERLY D. YOUNG JASON N. BRAMJ.ETT ORI.AN C. SMITH D. MICHAEL MOYERS SETH M. HAINES ERIN E. CULLUM KRISTOPHER B. KNOX KATHRYN A. KIRKPATRICK 1, ADAM WELLS LAt.TRA I. ASBURY Of COUNSll W1I.LlAM H. SUTTON, P.A. WILLLAM L TERRY WtLUAM L PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JIL, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S0l ,J70-1506 FAX S01-2H-Sl\"1 heller@ftc.ne:c RECEIVED J)e,v ) 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . I understand December 7, 2006 is a more convenient day for your deposition. We will change the date and time to December 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. Enclosed please find a deposition notice and subpoena for that day. Christopher Heller CJH/bk  ~Hclosw:--es oc w/enc. Notice: All counsel ofrec,oni IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Joy Springer on - Dece~ber 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 @.~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 30, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U, S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner CducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org November 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 'Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2006 in the above-referenced case.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 2eu4~ ~6JSmith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock-  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000  Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFD~EGREGffi~:~bNITORING 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 AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS .f.. 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 November 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_668","title":"Program evaluation emails","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-11/2007-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation emails"],"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/668"],"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\nPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc\nSent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@irsd.org\u0026gt; \"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia,Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail,com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:12 AM team06oct30A+c.doc A+ evaluation team notes These are draft notes from our conversation Wednesday. Please let me know any errors or omissions. Thanksi (I do not have an address for Donna Moore.) a Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 11/6/2006Page'll of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Cummings, Danyell \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:12 AM team06oct30A+c.doc A+ evaluation team notes These are draft notes from our conversation Wednesday. Please let me know any errors or omissions. ThanksI (I do not have an address for Donna Moore.) Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq received NOV - 6 2006 OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring 11/6/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;KPMITCHELL@PHILANDER.EDU\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rmdaugherty@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Fox, Melanie\" \u0026lt;Melanie.Fox@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;bkurrus@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Larry Berkley\" \u0026lt;LARRY@CARTI.com\u0026gt;\n\"Armstrong, Charles\" \u0026lt;Charles.Armstrong@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Curry, Dianne\" \u0026lt;Dianne.Curry@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Griffin, Beverly\" \u0026lt;Beverly.Griffin@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, November 03, 2006 12:04 PM document for board of directors meeting nov 9.pdf RE: Agenda Meeting November 9 Well be happy to meet with the board and answer any questions. However, both Maurecia Robinson and Jim Wohlleb are scheduled to take vacation days next week. Both will be out of town on the 9* but they might be available by phone. For the boards preparation, we have condensed our comments (in the attachment). From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:47 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: Agenda Meeting November 9 Please note. Thank you. Olivine Robeits, Ed.D. Associate Superintendent, Educational Services Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone: 501.447.3320 Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:40 PM To: Griffin, Beverly\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: 'Chris Heller'\nMitchell, Sadie\nBabbs, Junious Subject: Agenda Meeting November 9 Olivine: Would you please notify Dr. DeJarnette that the board has requested a compliance remedy update at the November 9 agenda meeting? This presentation should also involve other members of the PRE department. Everyone in the department should be available that evening. 11/6/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent\nSubject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"To:\" \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, November 06, 2006 4:45 PM Magnet Meeting 'S . I Hello Team, Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will be here on November 8, 2006 at 1:30 P.M., to begin and discuss year two of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held in Room 18 at the IRC. I hope you will be able to attend. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. I have received confirmation for those who will not be able to attend\nbut I just wanted to remind everyone. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 11/7/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 07, 2006 9:22 AM FW\nindependent investigation From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:45 PM To: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nDejarnette, Karen\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWohlleb, Jim Cc: heller@fec.net\n'quattlebaum@qgtb.com' Subject: FW: independent investigation You will be contacted shortly by Steve Quattlebaum or Mike Shannon of the Quattlebaum Law Firm. Please provide them with your full cooperation. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 5:05 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: mshannon@qgtb.com\nSteve Quattlebaum Subject: independent investigation roy - now that we have engaged the quattlebaum firm to conduct an independent investigation of issues raised by pre in the \"compliance history\" we received on November 3, 2006, please let all of the Irsd employees who may be contacted by steve quattlebaum or mike shannon know that they should give them their full cooperation and that it is a high priority for Irsd to have these issues resolved as quickly as possible, thanks, ch 11/7/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:25 AM FW: pre meeting testerday From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: pre meeting testerday karen - just a reminder about the documents i requested at our meeting yesterday -1. the draft document you worked on w/ dr ross to develop a plan to meet the \"deeply embedded\" requirement\n2. a list of districts around the country comparable in size to Irsd which have research, evaluation or accountability departments similar to or larger than pre\n3. any documents you may have that reflect the opinion of anyone from odm about the meaning of any of the compliance remedy requirements\n4. the list of items that you believe should be contained in the data warehouse which you gave to hugh hattabaugh\nand 6. a list of school districts which use tetradata, please send documents as soon as you locate them rather than wait until you have all of them, thanks, ch 11/8/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:41 PM FW: pre meeting testerday From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:41 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: pre meeting testerday Chris, Here is an update on the items listed in your email: 1.1 could not locate the draft document. It was located on a temporary computer I used the first 3 weeks of my employment with LRSD and is not on the computer I received during my 4*i^ week here. It may not be very important though since in the early phase of that document Dr. Ross approved Vicki Bernhardt to assist PRE with the implementation of the comprehensive assessment process and the draft was not completed. After Ross' approval, we worked with Dr. Bernhardt to develop a scope of work which I provided to you again on Monday. 2. A list of districts with PRE departments can be compiled as soon as we have time to do so. As you know we have been overwhelmed with meetings this week including meetings with the Quattlebaum law firm that you and Dr. Brooks asked us to make time for. 3. I could not locate any documents from ODM. 4. I will forward an email I sent months ago to Mr. Hattabaugh that contained the list of data needed in the database. 6. I have asked Tetradata to provide a list of districts they work with and will forward it to you as soon as I receive it. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: pre meeting testerday 11/13/2006Page 2 of 2 karen - just a reminder about the documents i requested at our meeting yesterday -1. the draft document you worked on w/ dr ross to deveiop a plan to meet the \"deeply embedded\" requirement\n2. a list of districts around the country comparable in size to Irsd which have research, evaluation or accountability departments similar to or larger than pre\n3. any documents you may have that reflect the opinion of anyone from odm about the meaning of any of the compliance remedy requirements\n4. the list of items that you believe should be contained in the data warehouse which you gave to hugh hattabaugh\nand 6. a list of school districts which tetradata, please send documents as soon as you locate them rather than wait until you have ail of them, thanks, ch use 11/13/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:47 AM unitary status issues John - if you will let me know what issues you would like to discuss, i'll be happy to meet with you (and odm) in the morning, i'll be talking with my clients today about various aspects of our compliance, and will gather what information i can to respond to your concerns, i just called crep in memphis to check on the status of the pre-k literacy evaluation, which is due Wednesday, and learned that it will be close but they still expect to get it in on time, ch 11/9/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:01 AM FW\nromine From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:23 PM To: Williams, Ed\nDejarnette, Karen\nmaurecia.malcom@lrsd.org\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMitchell, Sadie Subject: romine i've reviewed the 1998 revised desegregation and education plan and don't see how the listing of designated magnet programs in the student assignment section of that document could form the basis for an assumption that none of those programs were school-wide programs, perhaps \"magnet program\" is a term of art in the field of education research which always means something other than a magnet school, if so, the technical meaning was not intended in the revised plan, also, the revised plan lists romine as an interdistrict school, but not as a school with a magnet program, reliance on the revised plan would not have led to the conclusion that romine is a magnet school, ch 11/9/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole. Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; Thursday. November 09. 2006 9:35 AM _ -x RE: Notes from year II Magnet evaluation ( r. ICd rrag tvat. ) Ed, Why didnt you send the notes to the entire team as we usually do? My feedback follows, I think the notes need to be amended in the following points: Section D (page 1) - Jeanne said she responded to questions from the board, but did not receive any feedback from the board. Section B (page 2) ~ These questions were not posed as possible research questions but as questions senior administrators or Board memtjers need to answer. Section D1. (page 2) - The discussion regarding tags included columnar and simple tags. My suggestion included IT department to proceed with whichever would be the most speedy and I noted the need to pull data we now have on tagged students (discipline, attendance, etc.) and to provide it to Jeanne as soon as possible. Four schools were named to test tags, not two. Mr. Hattabaugh was asked to provide a timeline for tags to be completed. Section D4 (page 2) -1 recommended for Jeanne to share revised or new protocols with the evaluation team members, not just Maureica. Thanks for taking notes during the meeting! I hope you receive feedback from others so all thoughts are included in the final draft. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:07 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nMitchell, Sadie\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\n'Chris Heller' Subject: Notes from year II Magnet evaluation To All: Attached is an inital draft of notes from yesterday's meeting. Please review and comment. Thanks Dr. Ed 11/9/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:46 PM FW: meeting? From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:46 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Subject: meeting? Dr. Brooks, I was informed by a Cabinet member that you announced to Cabinet on Monday that I was not present in the Cabinet meeting because I was in a meeting with Sandy Becker, the Districts internal auditor. I am not aware of any meeting with Sandy Becker. I was not in Cabinet because I was meeting with Chris Heller, Khayaam Eddings and the PRE team to discuss court-related issues. Please let me know why you said I was meeting with Sandy Becker. No one has ever mentioned a meeting with Sandy to me. Thanks for providing me with clarification on your announcement to Cabinet members. Karen 11/9/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:15 PM database revised.doc FW: From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:51 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: FW: A second email. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:11 AM To: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh, First, I'd like to say thanks for the meeting this morning. I was encouraged. For your files, I am enclosing a document that outlines the history of PRE's thinking and planning for the data warehouse. This document makes more specific the needs of PRE, I think. Karen 11/13/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen,Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:15 PM FW: PRE database needs From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:48 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: FW: PRE database needs Chris, This is one of two emails sent to Mr. Hattabaugh related to database needs. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 9:07 AM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhoilen, Mark Subject: PRE database needs Dr. Roberts and Mr. Hattabaugh, This is the list of PRE needs for the database being developed (based on June 7^^ Presentation): The database being developed seems to have four of the five needed areas defined: 1. Demographics 2. Student Learning 3. Perceptions 4. Financial A fifth area is not yet defined: 5. School Processes PRE really needs a database with School Processes data included. We also need all of the data within the four areas listed above to be tagged by School Processes so the data can be triangulated to conduct program assessment and evaluations. School Process data includes: Interventions (e.g. Reading Recovery, Special Education), Program Participation (e.g. Professional Development, Extra Curricular Activities), Iimovative Process (Team Teaching), Calendars (Year Round Education), Standards, and Curriculum Objectives In addition to the fifth data set, PRE will need statistical analysis tools with preloaded formulas to allow for time efficient analysis. If you would like additional information, please let me know. Karen 11/13/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 AM FW\nPlease proof From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 10:10 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\n'Chris Heller'\nBrooks, Roy G\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\n'smross@memphis.edu'\n'James Catterall' Subject: RE: Please proof Beverly, I think it should be written as follows. Four external evaluations were conducted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Drs. Steve Ross and James Catterall have submitted three of the four final draft evaluation reports presented for the Board's review and approval: Read 180 21st Century Learning Centers A+ The initial draft of PreK Program evaluation has been submitted by the external evaluators however it has not been reviewed by the evaluation team. Cabinet, or Board of Directors at this time. After the Board of Directors approves each final evaluation report, evaluation teams will meet with the Director of PRE to evaluate the processes and products and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:58 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Please proof LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 11/13/2006Page 2 of 2 A DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 16, 2006 5:30:00 PM Board of Directors Roy G. Brooks, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Four External Evaluations A BACKGROUND: Four external evaluations were conducted in accordance with the District Court's 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Drs. Steve Ross and James Catterall have submitted three of the four draft evaluation reports presented for the Board's review and approval: Read 180 21st Century Learning Centers Pre-Kindergarten.A The A+ Program evaluation has not been submitted by the external evaluators. After the Board of Directors approves each program evaluation, teams will meet with the Director of PRE to evalulate the processes and products and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. RATIONALE: The Court's remedy requires LRSD to approve all step-2 evaluations. At the time of the November 16th board meeting three evaluations have been completed: FUNDING: N/A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve the three external evaluations provided at this time. PREPARED BY: Dr. Karen DeJamette 11/13/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:35 PM a+ final.pdf\nletter reA+.doc FW: A+ report From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:35 PM To: Griffin, Beveriy\n'Chris Heller' Cc: 'James Catterall'\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: A+ report Beverly and Chris, I received the enclosed A+ report today from Dr. Catterall. I removed one page from the report and enclosed a letter of explanation. Please send the report and letter on to board members so they may review the report before Thursdays board meeting. Thanks, Karen 11/15/2006Page 1 oi 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucia.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;: \"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Menking. Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller. Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:29 PM RE: Magnet Team Notes from 11/8 Meeting Ed. A reminder: all of the notes from evaluation team meetings also go to ODM and JOSHUA. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:16 PM To: (Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu)\nBrigette Williams (brigette@abpg.com)\nDonna Creer (donnacreer@magnetschool.com)\nHobbs, Felicia\nJeanne Dre^us (jpdrey@aol.com)\nMenking, Mary\nMiller, Leticia\nMitchell, Sadie\nMorgan, Nancy\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nCummings, Danyell Subject: Magnet Team Notes from 11/8 Meeting Magnet Team Members: The attached file are the notes from the 11/8/06 meeting. If need be, please reply with your comments. Thanks Dr. Ed 11/14/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabriel mail .com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:21 PM Meeting Notes Nov 9 06.doc Re: Magnet Team Notes from 11/8 Meeting Dear Team Members, I put together input from my notes that I thought would be helpful to have included in the Magnet Team Notes of 11/08/06. Be sure and e-mail me if you have any problems opening the attachment or have questions or thoughts about the content All the best. Jeanne (Dreyfus) 11/15/2006Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Page 1 of 1 \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrieimail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings. Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;aw/grehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Wednesday. November 15. 2006 8:24 AM Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Dear members of the evaluation team for pre-K literacy. Dr. Ross informed us to expect delivery of his reports initial draft evaluation report by today. We will forward it to you when it arrives. Please let me know ASAP\n1. Can you meet to discuss it in the next few days (within a week)? 2. Should we deliver a printed copy (in case you usually have difficulty accessing large attachments to e-mail messages)? Thanks very much for serving on this important team. Jim Wohlleb. Statistician Planning. Research. \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock. AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 11/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;'brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:39 PM meeting.ics Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting When: Friday. December 01, 2006 12:30 PM-2:30 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US \u0026amp; Canada). Where: IRC Conference Room The next Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting is scheduled for December 1, 2006 from 12:30-2:30 in the Conference Room at the IRC. Please schedule this date on your calendar to attend. Thank you, Maurecia Robinson 11/15/2006Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting Wednesday, November 8% 2006 IRC Room 18,1:30 p.m. Lead by: Jeanne Dreyfus Those present: Ed Williams, Chris Cole, Nancy Morgan, Gene Jones, Maurecia Robinson, Hugh Hatabaugh, Mary Menking, Jeanne Dreyfus, Felicia Hobbs, Sadie Mitchell, Joy Springer, John Walker, Charles Bolden, Donna Creer, Chris Heller, and Karen DeJamette Review of Feedback on Year One Evaluation Report Descriptive in nature. A total of 17 schools (i.e.. Stipulation, MSAP, \u0026amp; Program), in which 38% (10,200) of the student body attend. A. What are the schools and programs all about? 1. Sustainability 2. Community support 3. Standard based Instruction B. Goals of Magnet Schools / Programs 1. Diversity 2. Equity 3. Academic excellence C. Impact of Magnet schools/Programs 1. 2. 3. Achievement by all students and by race De-isolation Achievement is the result of multiple variables a. b. c. d. e. f. Instruction Mixture of activities Attendance Mobility Graduation rate Magnet seal D. Where are we? 1. Year one report submitted in September to the District and accepted by the Board in October. 2. Have responded to questions from the Board.Year two Design A. Schools to include: Proceed with all schools, except clarify the status of Romine. B. Research questions: Additional questions that could be proposed. C. Year Two evaluation team: Maurecia Robinson will recruit additional Principals and parents from the non-stipulation magnet schools. D. Data Needs 1. Demographics a. b. c. d. e. 2. 3. 4. Columnar tagging will insure that data is captured historically, but the speediness of tagging should also be considered. Magnet columnar tags are developed and set-up in the as400. A columnar tag field test will be conducted at Mabelvale MS and McClellan HS. Protocol will flow from Mr. Hattabaugh thru Junious Babbs to building Principals to school level personnel If needed, appropriate personnel from Information services (IS) will provide training to school level persoimel 5. Process: Changes in magnet status and level of resources Student learning: Formative and summative data Perceptions: Interviews, observations, questionnaires, and focus groups to be conducted with any changes in protocol from year one to be reported to the Magnet Team and Team Leader Maurecia Robinson. Financial a. Budget allocation formula. b. Specific magnet expenditures. c. How are budgets derived, processed, and changes made.Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:22 PM depositions margie - now that i have received the Joshua objections to our compliance report, i believe that i will have to depose you and gene Jones in order to prepare for the hearing, i would like to do this during the first week of December, if possible, it will take less than a day to do both depositions, please let me know when you and gene can be available (the depositions do not have to be on the same day), and i'll work with mr walker to establish a schedule, thanks, ch 11/16/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:03 AM 21 stCCLC-evaluation-11 -14-FINAL.doc FW: 21st CCLC Report I can also provide hard copies of the report if the electronic files are too large to download. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:49 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\n'Chris Heller' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\n'Steven M Ross (smross)' Subject: FW: 21st CCLC Report Beverly and Chris, I am forwarding CREPs 21 CCLC report. Their research brief for this report should arrive today. I will send it along as soon as I receive it. The research brief should set on top of the final technical report. Please pass along to board members for tomorrows meeting. Thanks, Karen From: Aaron McDonald [mailto:ajmcdnld@memphis.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:16 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: 'Heidi Kenaga (hkenaga)'\njbates2@memphis.edu\nWilliams, Ed Subject: 21st CCLC Report Karen, Attached is the final 21 CCLC report. The Research Brief is undergoing one more review, so I will send that document to you tomorrow. Best, Aaron McDonald Center for Research in Educational Policy 11/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, November 15, 2006 11:06 AM 21st CCLC ResearchBrief.doc FW: 21st CCLC Research Brief /'/-\n/ci/ J Add this research brief to the final technical draft already sent. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:42 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\n'Chris Heller' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\n'Steven M Ross (smross)' Subject: FW: 21st CCLC Research Brief Beverly and Chris, This email includes the research brief for the 21stCCLC technical report sent earlier this morning. Karen From: Aaron McDonald [mailto:ajmcdnld@memphis.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:15 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed\n'Heidi Kenaga (hkenaga)'\njbates2@memphis.edu Subject: 21st CCLC Research Brief Karen, Attached is the 21 CCLC Research Brief as a follow-up to the full report that I sent yesterday. The hardcopies of the READ 180 and 21 CCLC reports will be sent to you via FedEx today (they should arrive tomorrow). We are also still planning on sending the draft Pre-K report today via email. Please let me know if you need anything else in the interim. Best, Aaron McDonald 11/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \u0026lt; J pd rey@aol .com \u0026gt; \u0026lt;Mattie.Ruth.Tipton@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.orgDanyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday. November 16, 2006 4:25 PM Re: FW: Magnet Tags I went back to my notes from the meeting regarding the questions you have. I do have notes of another team member, not Dr. Dejarnette, making an observation.about my doing a study .. .\"on those students who elected to come to these schools from outside of the regular attendance zone so they could participate in the magnet program\" However, that is not the case I am doing a broader study of the magnet schools and magnet programs and first need to know who is a magnet student in each of the 17 schools in my studying, regardless of their attendance zone or district of origin. In the case of these two schools, what they often call the \"Wheel\" magnet component is part of the schools' magnet programs. And, since it is the 6th and 9th grade classes that participate in the \"Wheels\" or something like them, I will need the Sth (Mabelvale) and 9th (McClellan) grade magnet students tagged as well as the 7th and Sth grade magnet students at Mabelvale and the 10th, 11th and 12th grade magnet students at McClellan High School. (This is not to say that I am not going to need data on their zone or district of origin later when I go into depth on difference aspect of the schools and programs.) Hope this helps. Please know that I really appreciate what you are doing. All the best. Jeanne (Dreyfus). 11/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Mattie.Ruth.Tipton@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sent: Subject: \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd,org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; com\u0026gt;\nThursday, November 16. 2006 5:13 PM Re: Your inquiries Sorry, team. Some of the addresses bounced back on me becuase of my typos. So, this is a second try at sending this e-mail. Jeanne Dear Ms. Tipton, I went back to my notes from the meeting regarding the questions you have. I do have notes of another team member, not Dr. Dejarnette, making an observation.about my doing a study.. .\"on those students who elected to come to these schools from outside of the regular attendance zone so they could participate in the magnet program\" However, that is not the case I am doing a broader study of the magnet schools and magnet programs and first need to know who is a magnet student in each of the 17 schools in my studying, regardless of their attendance zone or district of origin. In the case of these two schools, what they often call the \"Wheel\" magnet component is part of the schools' magnet programs. And, since it is the 6th and 9th grade classes that participate in the \"Wheels\" or something like them, I will need the 6th (Mabelvale) and 9th (McClellan) grade magnet students tagged as well as the 7th and Sth grade magnet students at Mabelvale and the 10th, 11th and 12th grade magnet students at McClellan High School. (This is not to say that I am not going to need data on their zone or district of origin later when I go into depth on difference aspect of the schools and programs.) Hope this helps. Please know that I really appreciate what you are doing. All the best. Jeanne (Dreyfus). 11/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@irsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:51 PM Pre-Kdraft06nov16.doc RE\nPre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Meeting within a week doesnt seem feasible. Can we all live with early afternoon on Friday, December 1, say 1:30? The 322 page evaluation report has arrived. Ill distribute printed copies to the few people who requested them. Thanks for your help and support. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:25 AM To: Nugent, Glenda\nMccraw, Helen\nCole, Chris\nMorgan, Nancy\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nFiliatreau, Ann\nFreeman, Ann\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\n'James Catterall'\nRoberts, Olivine\nLaura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)\nMichelle Ellison Cc: Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\nJohn W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)\nJoy Springer - John Walker\nCummings, Danyell\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nAnna Grehan - U Memphis\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\nAaron J McDonald (ajmcdnld@memphis.edu)\n'fpayton@memphis.edu' Subject: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Dear members of the evaluation team for pre-K literacy, Dr. Ross informed us to expect delivery of his reports initial draft evaluation report by today. We will forazard it to you when it arrives. Please let me know ASAP: 1. Can you meet to discuss it in the next few days (within a week)? 2. Should we deliver a printed copy (in case you usually have difficulty accessing large attachments to e-mail messages)? Thanks very much for serving on this important team. 11/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday, November 17, 2006 9:32 AM AERAconference presentation.doc FW: presentation at national conference I meant to include both of you on this email. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:53 AM To: Griffin, Beverly Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\n'awgrehan@memphis.edu'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nCummings, Danyell\n'Steven Ross'\n'James Catterall'\nJeanne Dreyfus (jpdrey@aol.com)\n'Bernhardt, Vickie' Subject: presentation at national conference Hi Beverly, Hopefully this announcement will be included in a snapshot to the Board of Directors and in the districts newsletter to employees. The enclosed document shares accomplishments of the Center for Research in Education Policy (Dr. Steven Ross/University of Memphis) and the PRE Department related to last years evaluation of the Reading Recovery program. Karen 11/17/2006Evaluators of Reading Recovery Will Present Results at International Conference with Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Results from the evaluation of Reading Recovery, a program in many elementary schools of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) which identifies slow readers and boosts their reading skills, will be presented at the next annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in April 2007. Dr. Anna Grehan, a researcher at the Center for Research on Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis, led the evaluation, which the LRSD authorized as part of its compliance with the 2004 order of the US District Court. Experts from CREP, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Georgia State University, and Ohio State University and the LRSD Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department worked together. Jim Wohlleb of the PRE Department coordinated the evaluation and will attend the conference. Dr. Grehan and her colleagues observed Reading Recovery sessions, questioned parents and school staff, and used information from standardized tests. Evaluators found that the District implemented the program well, and the participating students generally improved their skills. Compared to another group who did not take part in Reading Recovery, students who completed the program performed better on several measures but not as well on two measures. All groups of students, including African Americans, improved similarly after completing the 12 to 20 lessons of the program. The web address https://umdrive.memphis.edu:443/xvthoswfs/webui/ xv-6374700 docstorel-t OGMTQ72K has the full report. AERA, founded in 1916, is the most prominent international professional organization whose primary goal is advancing educational research and its practical application. AERAs 25,000 members are educators, administrators, directors of research, test experts, counselors, evaluators, graduate students, and behavioral scientists. More information can be found at http://www.aera.net/, the web site of AERA.Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, November 17, 2006 7:11 PM quattlebaum report According to this weeks snapshot from the Superintendent to the Board of Directors, the Quattiebaum Report shouid be received on Tuesday and a special board meeting will be held on November 30^ beginning at 5p.m. 11/20/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;'brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mcdonald. Dorothy\" \u0026lt;Dorothy.Mcdonald@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ross. Suzanne\" \u0026lt;Suzanne.Ross@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brendabarker77@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Babbs. Junious\" \u0026lt;Junious.Babbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Wednesday. November 29. 2006 4:05 PM Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting Agenda.doc\nYear II Evaluation Questions.doc: Magnet Equitable Ac..pdf\nMagnet Parents Revi..pdf Magnet Team Meeting: Agenda and Protocol tPvJ, Hello Everyone, In the attachments you will find the following\nAgenda for the Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting, Opening Discussion Questions for the Year II Evaluation, and the Draft Data Collection Tools. One is the Equitable Access Observation Protocol and the other is the Parent Phone Interview Protocol', both are pdf files. Please review for the Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting scheduled for December 1, 2006 at 12:30 P.M. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 11/30/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:20 PM Reminder: evaluation team for pre-kindergarten literacy The evaluation team meets tomorrow, Friday, December 1 at 2 PM to review the draft report by the external evaluators. We will convene in the conference room at the IRC (3001 S Pulaski). External evaluators will participate by longdistance conference call. Please let me know of any questions or concerns. Thanks very much for participating. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:25 AM To: Nugent, Glenda\nMccraw, Helen\nCole, Chris\nMorgan, Nancy\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nFiliatreau, Ann\nFreeman, Ann\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\n'James Catterall'\nRoberts, Olivine\nLaura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)\nMichelle Ellison Cc: Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\nJohn W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)\nJoy Springer - John Walker\nCummings, Danyell\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nAnna Grehan - U Memphis\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\nAaron J McDonald (ajmcdnld@memphis.edu)\n'fpayton@memphis.edu' Subject: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Dear members of the evaluation team for pre-K literacy. Dr. Ross informed us to expect delivery of his report's initial draft evaluation report by today. We will forward it to you when it arrives. Please let me know ASAP: 1. Can you meet to discuss it in the next few days (within a week)? 2. Should we deliver a printed copy (in case you usually have difficulty accessing large attachments to e-mail messages)? Thanks very much for serving on this important team. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician 11/30/20069 Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy,Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:16 AM 06dec1 preKteamJW.doc RE: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Here are notes from last Fridays session of the evaluation team. Please note they are incomplete, since I didnt capture everything everyone said. Please help me out! Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 12/5/2006Little Rock School District (LRSD) Pre-K Literacy Evaluation Team Review of Evaluation Report Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Friday, December 01, 2006 2 PM Participating: CREP: Grehan Grehan (Evaluation Director), Lynn Harrison, Aaron McDonald Joshua: Joy Springer and Corey Thomas Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): Gene Jones Old Dominion University: John Nunnery (whom the group in the conference room could not hear) LRSD: Sheneka Alexander, Chris Cole, Angela Doyne, Kevin Crawford, Ann Freeman, Sadie Mitchell, Nancy Morgan, Glenda Nugent, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, and Ed Williams District counsel Chris Heller [entered at 2:43 PM] [Ed Williams began dialing participants about 2:30 PM but experienced trouble linking everyone. Apparently, phone conferences on this phone system are limited to three parties. Mitchell offered her mobile phone, and Walker Nunnery participated through it.] Williams started with an invitation to Grehan for a brief summary. Grehan: Evaluations focus was to evaluate effectiveness of African American (AA) students achievement. Lynn will tell findings of qualitative instruments. Harrison: There were only a few negative comments from teachers. Positive responses came from parents. Evaluators interviewed 10 principals. In April, 17 classroom observations: Positive environments, good classroom management, but more uniformity and more literacy links needed. Grehan: Achievement results-3 assessments. Most students reached proficiency by spring on all 54 indicators. PreK result-effect sizes (ES) for Qualls were moderate. AA preK students performed higher than AA non-preK students. [Grehan repeated results above for Catterall when he joined after difficulty finding him.] Student achievement: There was a significant difference in performance of preK and a negative relation between preK \u0026amp; risk of special education needs. Students who enrolled in preK were more likely to remain on grade level through their LRSD careers. According to ITBS, preK experiences had significant effect up to 10 years after participation and more effect on performance of AA students. Catterall: What do you know about who gets into preK and who doesnt? There are probably some systematic differences. Guess preK experience brings positive results, but they are probably related to the traits of students who enter Roberts their families. Nugent: LRSD offers universal access. Majority of preK students are low-income andqualify for ABC funding. Springer: Did transportation matter? Grehan: A recommendation. Walker: There might be selection bias, but the students mirror the communitys/districts composition. Nugent: DHS has additional requirements for transport preK students, so LRSD opts not to transport them. Grehan: You cant put pre-K students on bus with older children without teachers (1:10 ratio). Catterall: Transportation ... Springer: Where is program deseription? Grehan: It was not included, because ours was not an evaluation of the program itself. We can include one which the District provides. Springer: What is meant by general literacy effectiveness? Grehan: We evaluated literacy for pre-K students. Roberts: Noted on page 14. Corey: Is goal for students to reach proficiency or to reach measurable improvement? Heller: Nugent: Purpose is to prepare or K with readiness skills. PreK doesnt teach reading. : We address interaction, social skills, Nugent: We embed literacy in those domains. Thomas: Someone mentioned proficiency. Grehan: Some teachers might talk about Ann F: Each period they collect data from e student. With that data teachers instruct around individual student needs. They collect it at least 3 times (fall, winter, \u0026amp; spring), so its consistent. By the 3\"*, they usually show proficiency (always consistent in a given skill/domain). Thomas: Out of AA students, what proportion reaches proficiency based on this definition? Ed: This is given by domain (page 96/). Thomas: Goals? Arm: Always-every day-strive for 100%. Catterall: Looking back at proposal of CREP, its a traditional evaluation. An earlier question, about describing program and its elements-some of this is evident from results. Program should be well described in report. Nugent et al: Well supply it. Roberts: Which to describe-total preK program or its literacy part? Heller: We should describe both. Nugent: Are you asking for one with bullets? Grehan: PreK program has changed considerably. We need to document last years. Ed: Describe the year evaluated, not this year. Jim: This is possibly a difficult answer, since evaluation included past 10 years. Springer: Any documentation from earlier years (back 10 years)?Ed: Move to recommendations: Grehan: is some type of more professional development (PD), so teachers engage in more interactions during their learning center times. Teachers do not engage enough in oral language etc. We also recommend more staff. Only one person in LRSD supports the program. It should have more than one. A monitoring system, too, is needed to provide feedback. Robinson: Not enough literacy PD? Grehan: We didnt see evidence of PD. Little literacy was incorporated in play time. Roberts: Would you amend your recommendation accordingly? Staff says they get much PD. Springer: Maybe you need more monitoring. Grehan: We wouldnt have known if PD was directed toward literacy. We assume that. Focus more on implementation. Nugent: State requires early child education training, and all receive that. Also, Tuesday teas are an occasion for... Catterall: Its not clear whether PD didnt include something, or whether the teachers didnt implement it. Robinson: Some teachers expressed need or more PD. Nugent: Maybe they didnt complete it prior to the questionnaires, but they have all had PD. Plans this year include paraprofessionals to have same. Roberts: Can we hear the recommendation again? Grehan: LRSD believes that teachers have received adequate PD, but CREP observed a lack of implementation. [There was general agreement about this.] Are there any controls to assure effective implementation? There seems to be a gap. Instructional coaches do this. There are coaches in every building. Grehan: 2\"'^ recommendation-LRSD investigate present mix of preK \u0026amp; K assessment tools so theyre friendlier to teachers and they can use results. Also, a person in PRE should become an expert so he/she can monitor these assessments. Nugent: Teachers uniformly use of Early Screening Inventory (ESI) and Work Sampling (WS). Ann and I monitor them 3 times per year. If not completed conectly, we prompt teachers. Grehan: There wasnt much evidence that teachers used the data to inform their teaching. The difficulty of getting data implied that its not available at the district level. Ann: Teachers can pull up their own WS data. Jim: There were several data sources for this evaluation. PRE converted paper records of ESI kept by every teacher into a data file in Excel (probably the first such data file for LRSD). The teachers sent them to PRE. So ESI data is available to teachers for their own students. LRSD received Qualls scores in the fall in printed format, but PRE could not get it in electronic format in the spring. After weeks of discussion. Riverside relented and retrieved the data and supplied it in an Excel file (at a high price). Again, teachers and the district had Qualls results, but they were not in a format usable by evaluators.Work Sampling information was supplied by Pearson which was retrievable by teachers. Roberts: Grehan: ESI data was not available at the district level. Springer: Grehan: Not evident in evaluators observations that the teachers used ESI. Roberts: Teachers used this data while they werent observed by evaluators. Grehan: Page 87. Springer: There were problems with data collection, so 1 understand what youre saying. Thomas: What were you getting at with data manipulation? Grehan: Many providers have interfaces, e.g., DIBELS. There is an Oregon website used by many. There are systems available that are not used. DIBELS is for kindergarten (not preK). Thomas: What led to your comment? Grehan: Jim verbalized it. It took months to get the data. There are so many programs e.g., Riverside. Heller: QELI was added later to the design. It was unusual circumstances which created this situation. Grehan: Nugent: All of our tools are statewide, except one. Ed: Wheres the issue? Grehan: Page 88, approaches to assessment. Catterall: DIBELS is administered in K or first grade, so its not diagnostic or 4 V2 - 5 year-old students. Is this the kind of data you want or rather data with fast turnaround? E.g., reassess in January. Recommend maybe seek the kind of test which can yield results fast. [CH left at 3:48 PM.] Roberts: Please repeat recommendation. Grehan: The recommendation is that there be someone who is a preK specialist in LRSD who can receive data and interpret it. Robinson: Roberts: There is someone who helps teachers interpret and use data. Springer: Are we having a personnel discussion? If so, then we should move on. Ann: Its already in place to do that (me). Springer: Then that needs to be better explained in report. Grehan: Recommendation 3 is offer preK for everybody. Were not providing preK to all eligible children. Parents struggle to get their children to school. Parents not only want communication, but they want strong academic program for their children. They want preK to be a strong literacy program. Comment: They want work sheets, but we dont do them any more.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:54 AM LRSD Pre-K Report 12.6.06.doc\nExecutive Summary.doc Pre-K Literacy Report To All: There are two attached files (i.e., executive summary and full report), the former is six pages and the latter is 330 pages long. Per the team meeting this past Friday, the program description has been added as Appendix E. Please respond if you did not get both documents. Ed Williams 12/7/2006 Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Cole, Chris\" \u0026lt;Chris.Cole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Filiatreau, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Filiatreau@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Cummings, Danyell\" \u0026lt;Danyell.Cummings@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Anna Grehan - U Memphis\" \u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;fpayton@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:13 AM 06dec1preKteam.doc RE: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Here are notes from last Fridays session of the evaluation team edited by our department. Please let me know of any further editing. Thanks very much for everyones participation and interest. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:17 AM To: Nugent, Glenda\nMccraw, Helen\nCole, Chris\nMorgan, Nancy\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nFiliatreau, Ann\nFreeman, Ann\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\n'James Catterall'\nRoberts, Olivine\n'Laura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)'\n'Michelle Ellison' Cc: 'Maijorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)'\n'John W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\nCummings, Danyell\nDejarnette, Karen\n'dejarn@aol.com'\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Anna Grehan - U Memphis'\n'lwharrsn@memphis.edu'\n'Aaron J McDonald (ajmcdnld@memphis.edu)'\n'fpayton@memphis.edu' Subject: RE: Pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation for LRSD Here are notes from last Fridays session of the evaluation team. Please note they are incomplete, since I didnt capture everything everyone said. Please help me out! Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 12/7/2006Little Rock School District (LRSD) Pre-K Literacy Evaluation Team Review of Evaluation Report Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Friday, December 01, 2006 2 PM Participating: CREP: Anna Grehan (Evaluation Director), Lynn Harrison, Aaron McDonald Joshua: Joy Springer and Corey Thomas Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM): Gene Jones Old Dominion University: John Nunnery (whom the group in the conference room could not hear) LRSD: Sheneka Alexander, Chris Cole, Angela Doyne, Kevin Crawford, Ann Freeman, Sadie Mitchell, Nancy Morgan, Glenda Nugent, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, and Ed Williams District counsel Chris Heller [entered at 2:43 PM] [Williams began dialing participants about 2:30 PM but experienced trouble linking everyone. Apparently, phone conferences on this phone system are limited to three parties. Mitchell offered her mobile phone, and John Nunnery participated through it.] Williams started with an invitation to Grehan for a brief summary. Grehan: Evaluations focus was to evaluate effectiveness of Afiican American (AA) students achievement. Lynn will tell findings of qualitative instruments. Harrison: There were only a few negative comments from teachers. Positive responses came from parents. Evaluators interviewed 10 principals. In April, 17 classroom observations: Positive environments, good classroom management, but more uniformity and more literacy links needed. Grehan: Achievement results-3 assessments. Most students reached proficiency by spring on all 54 indicators. PreK result-effect sizes (ES) for Qualls were moderate. AA preK students performed higher than AA non-preK students. [Grehan repeated results above for Catterall when he joined after difficulty finding him.] Student achievement: There was a significant difference in performance of preK students, and students who formerly enrolled in preK were less often needed special education. Students who enrolled in preK were more likely to remain on grade level through their LRSD careers. According to TTBS, preK experiences had significant effect up to 10 years after participation and more effect on performance of AA students. Catterall: What do you know about who gets into preK and who doesnt? There are probably some systematic differences. Guess preK experience brings positive results, but they are probably related to the traits of students who enter or of their families. Nugent: LRSD offers universal access. Majority of preK students are low-income and qualify for ABC funding. Springer: Did transportation matter? Grehan: A recommendation. There might be selection bias, but the students mirror the communifys/districts composition. Nugent: DHS has additional requirements for transport preK students, so LRSD opts not to transport them. Grehan: You cant put pre-K students on bus with older children without teachers (1:10 ratio). Catterall: Transportation ... Springer: Where is the program description? Grehan: It was not included, because ours was not an evaluation of the program itself. We can include one which the District provides. Springer: What is meant by general literacy effectiveness? Grehan: We evaluated literacy for pre-K students. Roberts: Noted on page 14. Thomas: Is goal for students to reach proficiency or to reach measurable improvement? Heller: Nugent: Purpose is to prepare for kindergarten with readiness skills. PreK doesnt teach reading. We address interaction, social skills ... Nugent: We embed literacy in those domains. Thomas: Someone mentioned proficiency. Grehan: Some teachers might talk about Freeman: Each period they collect data from each student. With that data teachers instruct around individual student needs. They collect it at least 3 times (fall, winter, \u0026amp; spring), so its consistent. By the 3'^^, they usually show proficiency (always consistent in a given skill/domain). Thomas: Out of AA students, what proportion reaches proficiency based on this definition? Williams: This is given by domain (page 96/). Thomas: Goals? Freeman: Always-every day-strive for 100%. Catterall: Looking back at proposal of CREP, its a traditional evaluation. An earlier question, about describing program and its elements-some of this is evident from results. Program should be well described in report. Nugent et ai. Well supply it. Roberts: Which to describe-total preK program or its literacy part? Heller: We should describe both. Nugent: Are you asking for one with bullets? Grehan: PreK program has changed considerably. We need to document last years. Williams: Describe the year evaluated, not this year. Wohlleb: This is possibly a difficult answer, since evaluation included past 10 years. Springer: Any documentation from earlier years (back 10 years)?Williams: Move to recommendations\nGrehan: is some type of more professional development (PD), so teachers engage in more interactions during their learning center times. Teachers do not engage enough in oral language etc. We also recommend more staff. Only one person in LRSD supports the program. It should have more than one. A monitoring system, too, is needed to provide feedback. Robinson: Not enough literacy PD? Grehan: We didnt see evidence of PD. Little literacy was incorporated in play time. Roberts: Would you amend your recommendation accordingly? Staff says they get much PD. Springer: Maybe you need more monitoring. Grehan\nWe wouldnt have known if PD was directed toward literacy. We assume that. Focus more on implementation. Nugent: State requires early child education training, and all receive that. Also, Tuesday teas are an occasion for ... Catterall: Its not clear whether PD didnt include something, or whether the teachers didnt implement it. Robinson: Some teachers expressed need or more PD. Nugent: Maybe they didnt complete it prior to the questionnaires, but they have all had PD. Plans this year include paraprofessionals to have same. Roberts: Can we hear the recommendation again? Grehan: LRSD believes that teachers have received adequate PD, but CREP observed a lack of implementation. [There was general agreement about this.] Are there any controls to assure effective implementation? There seems to be a gap. Instructional coaches do this. There are coaches in every building. Grehan\n2'* recommendation-LRSD investigate present mix of preK \u0026amp; K assessment tools so theyre friendlier to teachers and they can use results. Also, a person in PRE should become an expert so he/she can monitor these assessments. Nugent: Teachers uniformly use of Early Screening Inventory (ESI) and Work Sampling (WS). Ann and I monitor them 3 times per year. If not completed correctly, we prompt teachers. Grehan: There wasnt much evidence that teachers used the data to inform their teaching. The difficulty of getting data implied that its not available at the district level. Freeman: Teachers can pull up their own WS data. Wohlleb\nThere were several data sources for this evaluation. PRE converted paper records of ESI kept by every teacher into a data file in Excel (probably the first such data file for LRSD). The teachers sent them to PRE. So ESI data is available to teachers for their own students. LRSD received Qualls scores in the fall in printed format, but PRE could not get it in electronic format in the spring. After weeks of discussion. Riverside relented and retrieved the data and supplied it in an Excel file (at a high price). Again, teachers and the district had Qualls results, but they were not in a format usable by evaluators. Work Sampling information was supplied by Pearson which was retrievable by teachers. Roberts: Grehan: ESI data was not available at the district level. Springer\nGrehan: Not evident in evaluators observations that the teachers used ESI. Roberts: Teachers used this data while they werent observed by evaluators. Grehan\nPage 87. Springer: There were problems with data collection, so I understand what youre saying. Thomas: What were you getting at with data manipulation? Grehan\nMany providers have interfaces, e.g., DIBELS. There is an Oregon website used by many. There are systems available that are not used. DIBELS is for kindergarten (not preK). Thomas: What led to your comment? Grehan: Jim verbalized it. It took months to get the data. There are so many programs e.g., Riverside. Heller: QELI was added later to the design. It was unusual circumstances which created this situation. Grehan: Nugent: All of our tools are statewide, except one. Williams: Wheres the issue? Grehan: Page 88, approaches to assessment. Catterall: DIBELS is administered in K or first grade, so its not diagnostic or 4 'A - 5 year-old students. Is this the kind of data you want or rather data with fast turnaround? E.g., reassess in January. Recommend maybe seek the kind of test which can yield results fast. [Heller left at 3:48 PM.] Roberts: Please repeat recommendation. Grehan\nThe recommendation is that there be someone who is a preK specialist in LRSD who can receive data and interpret it. Robinson: Roberts: There is someone who helps teachers interpret and use data. Springer\nAre we having a personnel discussion? If so, then we should move on. Ann: Its already in place to do that (me). Springer: Then that needs to be better explained in report. Grehan: Recommendation 3 is offer preK for everybody. Were not providing preK to all eligible children. Parents struggle to get their children to school. Parents not only want communication, but they want strong academic program for their children. They want preK to be a strong literacy program. Comment\nThey want work sheets, but we dont do them any more.Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:11 AM Re-Schedule of the Prekindergarten literacy evaluation meeting To All\nThree of the four teachers have a conflict this Friday. As a result, we are re-scheduling the meeting for after Winter break. Would you please respond to this e-mail as to available days and time in January 2007. Thanks Ed Williams 12/13/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktin2iel@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rose.harris@ocse.state.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;msjakfine@hotmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dnunnley1@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;drwilliams2@uams.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;knewby150@comcast.net\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Woole, Ricky\" \u0026lt;Ricky.Woole@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Smithson, Laura\" \u0026lt;Laura.Smithson@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wynne, Cristen\" \u0026lt;Cristen.Wynne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;helter@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, December 11,2006 2:58 PM Year 2 Evaluations: A meeting to review external evaluator recommendations To All: The Superintendent's conference room has been reserved for this Friday, December 15th to hold meetings on the four year 2 evaluations. The purpose is to discuss the recommendations made by the external evaluators. Meeting times by evaluation are: 9 -10 / Prekindergarten Literacy 10-11 / A+ 11 -12/Read 180 12 -1 / 21st Century The aforementioned times are estimates as time will be taken to adequately discuss all of the recommendations. The room is reserved well into the afternoon. The conference room is located on the top floor of the District's main administration building. Please call me, 447-3386, if you have questions or concerns. See you soon Ed Williams 12/11/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;'brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mcdonald, Dorothy\" \u0026lt;Dorothy.Mcdonald@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ross, Suzanne\" \u0026lt;Suzanne.Ross@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brendabarker77@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Babbs. Junious\" \u0026lt;Junious.Babbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Swinney. Joyce\" \u0026lt;Joyce.Swinney@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; Tuesday. December 19, 2006 9:20 AM Year II Principals Survey 12 06.doc FW: Principal's Survey 12 06 Please see the note below from Dr. Dreyfus on the Year II Principals Surveys. Thank you, Maurecia From: Jpdrey@aol.com [mailto:Jpdrey@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:25 AM To: Robinson, Maurecia Subject: Re: Principal's Survey 12 06 Dear Maurecia, Please send this principal's suvery off today, December 19th, 2006, to the entire magnet evaluation team for comments. I would need their input, if any, back by January 11th. Thank you. Jeanne 12/19/2006Little Rock School District Magnet School and Magnet Program Evaluation Year II - 2006 - 2007 Principal's Survey As part of our continuing study of the magnet schools and magnet programs in 2006 -2077,1 will be sending you short surveys on particular topics throughout the year. The information you have provided in the past has been invaluable in understanding how the magnet schools and programs work and their challenges and success. This one-page survey focuses on three areas - magnet professional development, Campus Leadership Teams and impediments and aids to program implementation. Name School 1. Professional Development. If you can, please list and briefly describe three magnet- related professional developments that your or your teachers participated in during 2005- 2006 and/or this current year. Professional Development + Number Participated Theme/Program Relationship to Magnet 2. In some detail, please describe the role that your Campus Leadership Team plays in your school.3. What do you find impedes and promotes full implementation of your magnet program. Please be specific. Promotes Impedes 1. 2. 3. Please choose one of the above (an aid or an impediment) that you believe is especially important to the welfare of your program and write a little bit more about it.VIA EMAIL January 10.2007 Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Little Rock School Board 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 received JAN 10 2006 desegregS monitoring Re: Dr. Karen Dejarnette Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am writing as the attorney for Dr. Karen DeJamette. I read with dismay today the comments of Superintendent Roy Brooks regarding his decision to delay the actual return to work of Dr. DeJamette following the Boards decision not to uphold his recommendation of termination. While Dr. DeJamette has no particular problem with such an administrative decision (and I understand that the Board may well have an issue with it), she decidedly will not abide his inflammatory comments about her having caused strife, dissension, and trouble within her department and staff. These comments are untrue and formed no part of any of the numerous bases relied upon by Brooks in his recommendation, nor were they otherwise addressed at the hearing. These comments are defamatory to Dr. DeJamette, as they cast her in a very unfavorable public light and are potentially injurious to her professional working relationships across the District and the community. Part of Dr. DeJarnettes decision to have a private hearing was to protect the interests of the District and the Board as various delicate matters are addressed in detail. If Superintendent Brooks persists in these sorts of statements, however. Dr. DeJamette will have no choice but to, and will not hesitate to, publicly defend herself against these untrue and maliciously calculated accusations. I call upon you and the Board to put a stop to further untrue public comments by Superintendent Brooks about Dr. DeJamette. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, John L. Burnett JLB:js cc: Superintendent Roy Brooks, via E-mail Leon Johnson, via E-mailPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n.\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Glasgow, Dennis\" \u0026lt;Dennis.Glasgow@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:47 PM January Date for the Prekindergarten literacy evaluation meeting To All: See e-mail below but this is a reminder of the meeting this Friday. Ed Williams From: Williams, Ed Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 3:08 PM To: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nNugent, Glenda\nMorgan, Nancy\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Martha\nAlexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Michelle Ellison (mellison@fsainc.org)'\n'Laura Lewis (laura@bnbstudio.com)'\n'Chris Heller (heller@fec.net)'\nMaijorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\n(gjones@aristotle.net) Subject: January Date for the Prekindergarten literacy evaluation meeting To All: I got good feedback from many. I have scheduled the Prekindergarten literacy evalaution team meeting to discuss the external evaluator recommendsations and modifications for Friday, January 12th at 3PM in the 3rd floor conference room at the main administration building. Ed Williams 1/10/2007Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n'Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Sent: Attach: Subject: '  ..............  ~ I  \u0026lt; w Iiisy will) 'Wllll.f \u0026gt;VI 111^ OU . VI y j  WMVl lO, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray, Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:04 PM A+ Recomendations Meeting.doc A+ Recommendations To all: Attached are the notes from the A+ recommendations meeting. I am sending them to those who attend this meeting and after your feedback will send them to all members and other stakeholders. Talk to you soon Ed Williams 1/10/2007A+ Recommendations Meeting: December IS***, 2006 Present: Ed Williams, Margie Powell, Olivine Roberts, Sadie Mitchell, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, Hugh Hattabaugh, Danny Fletcher, Chris Heller, and Katina Ray Hire a full time art teacher. Duties to include coordinating the A+ program at Woodruff Elementary\nworking with faculty and administrative staff at Woodruff to integrate arts into the Math and Literacy curriculum\ntrain new teachers\nprovide ongoing support to all teachers and instructional aides\nmodel appropriate teaching to all teachers and instructional aides\nplan A+ activities for during and after school activities. Determine the cost of materials, supplies, and consumable items needed to implement A+ at Woodruff and add this cost as a line item on the school's budget. An external consultant will be hired to provide A+ professional development to Woodruff teachers and instructional aides. This consultant will be interviewed prior to hiring to insure that the integration of arts into the Math and Literacy curriculum is paramount. Stipends will be paid to teachers and instructional aides to encourage attendance at professional development activities either after school or on weekends. Woodruff faculty and administrative staff will connect A+ activities during school to after school activities. Woodruff faculty and staff will increase efforts to inform parents about A+.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent\nAttach: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:15 PM Read 180 Recommendations Meeting.doc Read 180 recommendation notes To all: Attached are the notes from the Read 180 recommendations meeting. I am sending them to those who attend this meeting and after your feedback will send them to all members and other stakeholders. Talk to you soon Ed Williams 1/10/2007Read 180 Recommendations Meeting: December 15% 2006 Present\nEd Williams, Margie Powell, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, Hugh Hattabaugh, Chris Heller, Karen Shofher, Nona Whitaker, and Suzie Davis Increase the computer flag of time-on-task from 15 to 20 minutes. The District's Department of Computer Information Services will determine the computer hardware requirements for the new Read 180 software and insure that all computers used in the Read 180 program meet those software requirements. Curriculum audits will be performed, beginning in early 2007, to monitor the use of Read 180 reports by teachers and the use of strategies recommended by Read 180. Curriculum coaches will instruct teachers on the use of the Read 180 reports and the use of Read 180 instructional strategies. Building Principals are responsible for monitoring the use of Read 180 reports by teachers, the utilization of strategies recommended, and implementing Read 180 for achieving improved academic achievement. Read 180 professional development will focus on the utilization of Read 180 strategies. Voyager should recruit the lowest performing students, as Read 180 does not serve this population as well as Voyager.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh. Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Blaylock, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Blaylock@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wynne, Cristen\" \u0026lt;Cristen.Wynne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Bacon, John\" \u0026lt;John.Bacon@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:18 PM 21st Century Recommendations Meeting.doc 21st Centruy recommendations meeing To all: Attached are the notes from the 21st Century recommendations meeting. I am sending them to those who attend this meeting and after your feedback will send them to all members and other stakeholders. Talk to you soon Ed Williams 1/10/200721st Century Recommendations Meeting\nDecember 15*^, 2006 Present: Ed Williams, Margie Powell, Olivine Roberts, Maurecia Robinson, Jim Wohlleb, Hugh Hattabaugh, Chris Heller, Marvin Burton, Ann Blaylock, Linda Young, Cristen Wynne, and John Bacon. Contracts will be implemented to increase student attendance towards the minimum 30 hours and parental involvement. Contracts will reflect rewards \u0026amp; incentives for program participation, as well as consequences for lack of participation. For appropriate students, Academic Improvement Plans (AIP's) will include 21st Century as an intervention. All students completing the minimum 30 hours will be tagged. Schools will identify and recruit all students and in particular those students who are not proficient on the Benchmark tests. The District will continue the strong relationship already established with the Arkansas Department of Educational 21 Century coordinator.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Scott Richardson\" \u0026lt;Scott.Richardson@arkansasag.gov\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday, January 12, 2007 7:52 AM LRSD Depositions and Heairngs Chris, In preparation for the hearings this month, I would like to meet and interview Dr. DeJamette regarding her testimony. I would like to do this on Tuesday, January 16, 2006. Please let me hear from you. 1/12/2007Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Crawford, Kevin\" \u0026lt;Kevin.Crawford@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Glasgow, Dennis\" \u0026lt;Dennis.Glasgow@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Summer\" \u0026lt;Summer.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpoweli@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;roddycaroll@uams.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:41 AM teamRecs07jan12.doc\nteamDisc07jan12.doc pre-K literacy evaluation Here are recommendations with backup notes from last Fridays review of evaluators recommendations. Ill be happy to edit them. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 1/17/2007 Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Crawford, Kevin\" \u0026lt;Kevin.Crawford@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Glasgow, Dennis\" \u0026lt;Dennis.Glasgow@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;-  \"Nugent, Glenda\" \u0026lt;Glenda.Nugent@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Summer\" \u0026lt;Summer.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpoweil@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;roddycaroll@uams.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Friday, February 09, 2007 3:06 PM teamRecs07jan 12.doc RE: pre-K literacy evaluation Attached are recommendations from the team meeting last month. My delay in sending them was partly to some members wanting more time. However, after not hearing any further comments. Im sending them with the few changes offered so far. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 11:08 AM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nCrawford, Kevin\nDavis, Suzi\nDejarnette, Karen\n'Dejarn@aol.com'\nDoyne, Angela\nGlasgow, Dennis\nMorgan, Nancy\nNugent, Glenda\nPurtle, Sarah\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nYoung, Summer Cc: 'Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)'\n'Carol Roddy (roddycaroll@uams.edu)'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\n'John W Walker Esq (johnwalkeratty@aol.com)' Subject: RE: pre-K literacy evaluation By the end of the day, Id like to send the recommendations, if you intend to comment on them, please let me know today. Thanks for participating in this evaluation! Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:41 AM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nCrawford, Kevin\nDavis, Suzi\nDoyne, Angela\nGlasgow, Dennis\nMorgan, Nancy\nNugent, Glenda\nPurtle, Sarah\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nYoung, Summer Cc: Marjorie Powell (mqpowell@odmemail.com)\nCarol Roddy (roddycaroll@uams.edu)\nJoy Springer - John 2/12/2007Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, February 05, 2007 12:50 PM FW: FW: upcoming meetings Consider the invitations recanted... From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:47 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Subject: FW: FW: upcoming meetings In light of the below email, please recant the invitations extended to Joshua and ODM. Thank you. Olivine Roberts, Ed.D. .Associate Superintendent, Educational Service,s Little Rock School District 3001 S, Pulaski St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Phone\n501.447.3320 Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:38 PM To: Hattabaugh, Hugh Cc: Milhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: FW: upcoming meetings i've spoken with olivine about this, there is no reason for odm and Joshua to participate in or observe every meeting we have within the district regarding the data warehouse, school portfolios or anything else that might be related to the compliance remedy, it may be helpful to advise Joshua and odm about important decisions related to program evaluations and assessments, but i know of no requirement to allow them to sit in meetings of Irsd administrators, we established a compliance team to implement the revised plan in 1998 and we declined Joshua's request to attend compliance team meetings. Judge wilson will decide whether or not we were in compliance with the 2004 remedy as of January 2007. if so, we will continue to improve our ability to assess and evaluate programs because its important to our students that we do that, if not, Judge wilson will probably issue a new compliance remedy, in the meantime, we're not required to invite Joshua and odm to meetings of irsd staff, ch \u0026gt; \"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 2/2/2007 2:54 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:10 AM To: 'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\n'jspringer@gabrielmail.com' Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: upcoming meetings Hello ODM and Joshua: You may want to attend two meetings upcoming scheduled for next week related to deeply embedding the assessment process: 1. Mark has set a meeting to discuss perceptual data to be housed in the warehouse for Tuesday, Feb. 6*^ at 9:30a.m. at the admin, building and 2. Olivine has set a meeting to discuss school portfolios for Monday, the 12^ from 1-3:30 at the IRC 2/5/2007Page 2 of 2 conference room. Hope all is well with you! Karen 2/5/2007Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;dejarnette.karen@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;katherine.mitchell@lrsd.ord\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;roberts.olivine@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, February 05, 2007 5:40 PM Meetings related to Compliance Remedy Chris, I understand that you do not think that members of Joshua and ODM should participate \"in or observe\" district meetings related to the data warehouse or portfolios. Why don't we have a discussion about this subject in a public meeting. By copy of this email, I am asking her what she thinks about this. In the meantime, I have asked Ms. Springer to be present at the meeting on tomorrow morning. John W. Walker 2/6/2007Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:14 AM canceled meeting.doc: perceptual data handouts.pdf meeting this morning Jim, Maurecia, Joy Springer and I arrived in the third floor conference a few minutes before 9. Carol (Marks secretary) arrived shortly after and said the meeting was canceled at the last minute because Mark was in another meeting and could not attend. I told her the four of us would go ahead and discuss PREs needs in relation to perceptual data. We looked through the enclosed handouts and discussed briefly. After I returned to my office I received the enclosed cancellation notice. Hopefully we will meet sometime soon to further discuss the warehouse and our needs to include more than just student demographics and standardized test scores. I cannot imagine why the District would not want ODM and Joshua to observe a meeting about the data warehouse, doesnt seem top secret to me. 2/6/2007L Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent\nTo\nCc: Dejarnette, Karen Friday, February 09, 2007 12:27 PM Roberts, Olivine Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim Subject\norganizational problems Dr. Roberts. Maurecia requested a meeting this morning to discuss direction she received from Dr. Brooks yesterday afternoon involving Ed. These directions from Dr. Brooks conflicted with earlier directions from me. We met with Ed this morning to resolve the difficulties informally until Anita interrupted to summons Ed to your office to talk with Dr. Brooks. I concluded that Maurecia's complaints have merit and to resolve it I have assigned the Measuring the Vision project to Jim. I would like to discuss this and other matters referred to in the letter delivered on February 7,2007. Thank you. Karen Karen Dejarnette Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department 2/9/2007Linda Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Quenan Ellis\" \u0026lt;QEIIis@holtlunsford.com\u0026gt; \"Linda\" \u0026lt;lfbryant@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, February 12, 2007 10:49 AM Building Access Cards Hey Linda! Man! I hate to bug you with this, but Ive been ORDERED  to get the after-hours security access system updated. Would you please get me a list of names and numbers, including basement parking remote numbers, of any and all ODM employees that have after-hours access? I HATE being a pain in the butt! Would you do this for me? I would appreciate it a bunch! Quenan Ellis HOLT LUNSFORD COMMERCIAL (501)801-0208 2/12/2007Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \u0026lt;Dejarn@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday. February 13, 2007 9:58 AM meeting mon Monday Hello Margie and Gene, I have not been feeling well and stayed home yesterday and today. But, I wanted to update you on the meeting held yesterday to discuss current working conditions of the PRE department. All PRE staff attended except me. Dr. Roberts advised PRE staff that Dr. Brooks may undermine the department in any way he chooses since he is the Superintendent. According to Jim and Maurecia, Dr. Brooks entered the room while the meeting was underway and stated that you can get all the attorneys and tape recorders you want\" while focusing eye contact on Jim Wohlleb. Jim asked if Dr. Brooks was talking to him. Dr. Brooks added everyone should be about the business of taking care of the children, not concerned with adult issues. He left the room only to reenter a few minutes later. This time he summoned Jim to his office and Jim followed. While in Dr. Brooks office. Dr. Brooks said he noticed that Jim became agitated and asked what can 1 do to help you? Jim explained that it agitated him to hear Dr. Brooks speak as if he is the only one who cares about the kids and Jim asked him to refrain from such comments. The majority of PRE staff feel dismayed. Three weeks after the hearing when board members and everyone else in the court room heard all the stories about how the PRE Department has been undermined, the majority of PRE staff feel our working conditions remain the samethat our work efforts are undermined by an incomplete database and continued lack of professional interaction by the Superintendent with PRE staff members. It seems evident that Dr. Brooks does not wish to have a professional working relationship with the PRE department. But PRE does not know what we can do about this. The Board members and the Superintendent are the only ones who can change the situation. And the Board learned exactly what has been going on during the hearing a couple of weeks ago but so far have not felt prompted to change anything. Will keep you posted. Karen 2/13/2007page i or i Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:52 AM Magnet Study Fall Quarter Report.pdf magnet evaluation team meeting next Tuesday Hi Margie and Gene. Im feeling a bit better and back at my desk. Heres Jeannes quarterly report on the magnet study, received it today. A team meeting has been set for next Tuesday, the 20^ at 8:30a.m. We will discuss the report then. Hope you can make it. Karen 2/14/2007Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\" \u0026lt;'Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu'\u0026gt;\n\"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb. Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;: \"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Miller. Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking. Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs. Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell. Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"gjones@aristotle.net\" \u0026lt;'gjones@aristotle.net'\u0026gt;\n\"brigette@abpg.com\" \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com'\u0026gt;\n\"mqpowell@odmemail.com\" \u0026lt;'mqpowell@odmemail.com'\u0026gt;\n\"donnacreer@magnetschool.com\" \u0026lt;'donnacreer@magnetschool.com'\u0026gt;\n\"Babbs. Junious\" \u0026lt;Junious.Babbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ross. Suzanne\" \u0026lt;Suzanne.Ross@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mcdonald. Dorothy\" \u0026lt;Dorothy.Mcdonald@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Rousseau. Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Rousseau@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:28 AM meeting.ics Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting When: Tuesday. February 20. 2007 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US \u0026amp; Canada). Where: Room 18 - IRC The next Magnet Evaluation Team Meeting is scheduled for February 20. 2007 from 8:30-9:30 in Room 18 at the IRC. Please schedule this date on your calendar to attend. Thank you. Maurecia Robinson 1/30/2007\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1148","title":"Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006-10-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1148"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Revised Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress of LRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have lrnowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December l, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21 ). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June l, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March I, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. - 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October l, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K - Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties (docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and - monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com i ohnwalkeratty@aol .com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 -----------------~-------------- Career ObJe\\ltlve: Pro!ouionaJ Experimce: 2004-Preseot 1998-Prolont Education: May,2005 Dccombor, 1998 May, 1997 Proteulonally .Related AclJvitla: Danyell Crutchneld Cummlnt1 5 Ben HOi\u0026amp;JI Cove Llttle Rockt ArkaDSU 72210 (501) 407.8497 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven ac\u0026amp;demic and professiODll experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for srowth and an opportunif)' to contribute to 1. prosroslivo cducatiooal onviron:mCllt. High Schools That Wotk Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Engliah Tc~hcr ]. A. Fair Symllll Magnet Hiib School Littlo Rock, Arlcanw 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priocip\u0026amp;I Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supetviuoo, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Maler ofBducation, Secondary EdUC\u0026amp;tio11, University of Arbmu at Little Roca: Bachelor of Arts, .English, Univerdty of Arkansas at Little ~k Actina Assistant Prinolpal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakcboldcr Southern Regional \u0026amp;lucation Board Literacy Team mcrnbcr Teacher of the Year Educational Spcclallst Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ---- _.. -------- . .-.- ---- ----. -.- -- -------. Refueuca: Linda YO\\IJlg Gntnta Coordinator (501) 447.3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Blcmentary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 wod: {501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cauley, Ed.D A.5sistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Megnot High School (S-01) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)~66-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 22 of 30 ---- ---------------------- Career ObJe~tlve: Pr.Cealonal ~erienco: 2004-Present 1998-PRKnt Edll(:ttlon: May,2005 Dectmbor, 1998 May, 1997 Prufeulcmally Rt1atcd ActMtlu: Dallyell Crutchfield Cummlup 5 Bea Hogan Cove LUtle Rock, Arwuu 7l210 (501) 407--8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional cicpcricnce lo obcain a challenging position as 1111 administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contn'butc to a pl'OjTClsaive educational cnvlromncnt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Syalcrrui Magnet Hlgb School Little ~0k. Arb.mu 72210 Randy Ruthcdord, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Syskins Magnet Hi\u0026amp;h School Littlo Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford. Priucipal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supemsiotl, University of Arkansas at Little Rook Mas1CII\" ofBducatioa. S:onduy Ea.ioation, U'nivonity of Arlcaasu al Uttlc Rook Bachelor of Art\u0026amp;, English, University of Arlcansa.s at Little Rocle Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southcm Regional Bducatloo Board Ltter,cy Team rnomber Teacher of' the Year Bduoatlonal Spcclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ ........ ----- llaferences: Linda Young Grants Coordinator {501) 447-3372 work {501) 22S-S439 home JmBrooks Principal David O'Dodd Elc:mcntary (,501) 447-4300 WOJX (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax. Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 4473S82 work (501)407.0817 homo Sharon Cauloy, Bd.D Aasistant Principal J.A. Falr S)'ltClllS Ma,snct High School (SOI) 44M700 \"t. 1710 work (SOI) 666-621_6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofBI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services...Orlented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation chaJlenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for ScalabiUty and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, illM AfX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an entelJ)rise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With Bl content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability ls a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation, and scale on a single machin~r clusters of machines-while maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterpris~ covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platform .,..~~cal~ c,~ 81 :-::~~m-e_e_tt h_e_n_ccd_s_o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_e_R_oc_k_S_ch_oo_l D_is_tn_c_t_to_d_a_y_an_d_t_o_m_o_rr_o_w_. __~ (. I._ _B EXHJ-BIT--\"] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reportln2 allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful infonnation to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application-  Query aad Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBL This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. Jn-\u0026lt;iepth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards. and alerting. This is provided through Perfozmance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Perfonnance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: lRSDBITooll l'c,Zo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerl'ul report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly fonnatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexi'ble application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time aod trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken Jinks, formula errors. and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An l.RSDB/Too/1 Pq,Jo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connectiqns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fowidation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Fowidation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based infonnation. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Dirootory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Toob Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data fowidation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring infonnation, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntelllgence Businen Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in tbe leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perfonn. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, acd relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platfonn LRSDBlTooll Pa,, S o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as we11 as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best.of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For examplei native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom .functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed anaJysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration UISD Bl Tooh Pq,60/1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill .from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of Wlderlying data and metadata structures. LRSDB/Toob Pqlo/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR-rRECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD' s curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 - assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 - programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part ofLRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) fonnal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 0 of 30 - to prepare those evaluations. 21 . In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 - evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 - describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update\np. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier(@.ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 . P~e 20 of _ 30 .. Career Objective: Prefe1sional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present Education: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 ProfessJonaJly Related Activities: DanyeJI Crutchfield Cummlnp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rocle, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little R(ick, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher oflhe Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 22 of 30 ---------- .. ---------- .. - - - Career Objective: Profeaional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prescnt Education: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyell Crutchfield Cumminp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rocle, Arkan11u 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (S0l) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional ~eriencc to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opporhmity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator ]. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 WOJX (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SOl) 407-08l7 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal ].A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501)447-1700ext. 1710 work {501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalabilitv and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real-world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform -sc-a-le_s_t_o_m_e_e_t_th_e_n__eed_ s - of_t_h_e_L-itt_l_e_R_o_c_k_S_c_h_oo_l_D_i_s_tn-c_t-to_d_a_y_an_d-to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ---l. .i _ _'B _H.IBIT--J LRSD BI Tools .., ~ ., Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a nonnalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, whkh houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSD Bl Tools Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading\nPrompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Config\nuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependencv Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Desig\nn and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An LRSD Bl Tools Page 3 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Securitv Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Page 4 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This aliows you to easily ro11 changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to talce advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp,mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAF Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Tocls Page 6 o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD 81 Tools Page 7 o/7\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1208","title":"Little Rock School District's Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006-10-16"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District's Compliance Report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1208"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR-rRECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 - Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September I, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of L9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 - assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 - Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 - programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 0 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented m schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 - describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update\np. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. 1bree of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to - and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties (docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us si ones(a),mwsgw .com sjones@ilj .com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 .. P~e 20 of,,30 Career Objective: Professional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present Educadon: May,2005 December, ! 998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyel) Crutchfield Cummlnp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools TI1at Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Docum-en-t 40-50- -Filed 10/16/2006 ~~~-~ ?.! .~ ( 30 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~-~~ge 22 o!}0_ Career Objective: Professional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present EducatJon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyell Crutchfield Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional e~1jeriencc to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools TI1at Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock. Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of See-0ndary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 References: ----------- -- ------ Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal ].A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-{\n216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects 'provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platforn1 recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM A.IX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise-- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and p erfonnance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. 'i ----------------~ LRSD Bl Tools if! EXHIBIT B .._ ____ .,, Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, w]ch houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSD Bl Tools Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT ean centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependencv Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly .find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An LRSD Bf Tools Page3 ofl Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based infonnation. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is  then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Page 4 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page 5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAF cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click oftbe mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7 .x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Tools Page 6 of l Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to dril1 from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Tools Page 7 o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 mea: QtRBATIUIOmomJIS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT . For its Revised Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Leaming, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Leaming Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to . the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a pennanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis.trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program - Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: ( 1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally eval~ated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21 ). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (I) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. - 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the  LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006.  40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K - Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and - monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@ili.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 ---------------------\"-------- Career ObJ~ttvo: Pni!euioaal Experience: 2004-Preseat 1998-Pmont Education: Danyell Crutchne1d CuDUDin,s 5 Ben HOiAJl Con Little Rockt Ar.tamu 72210 (501) 407-Sm (501) 4-47-1737 To utillf.O proven academic and profeseiOJW experience to ob(ain a ch1Uoogi11g positiou u 1n adminillrator that will allow fCt' growth and an opportunity to contribute to 1. prop,ivo cducatiooal onvironmezit. High Schools That Wo(. Coordinator J. A. Fair Systcma Magnet High School Little R.ock, Arb.aw 72210 Randy Ruthrnord. Principal EnsJiahTc~ber J. A. Fair Sy,toim Magnet Hiib School LitlioRQclc,.Arbnsas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priocip\u0026amp;l May. 2005 Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and SupcmU\u0026gt;D, University of Arlcansas at Little Rock Dccombor, 1993 Muter of Education, Sccondaey Education, University of ArbDsas at Uttlo Rock May, 1997 Bachcl of .Arts, English, Univc:raity of ArlcaDsu at Litt.le ~ Profwlonally Relaud Actlvitia: Actina Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education S1Udioldcr Southem Regional Bducali011 Boazd Ut.eracy Team mombcr Teacher oft.be Year Ed~ational Spcc!al!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 Refemlca\nLinda Young Grants Cooldinator (501) 447-3372 work (SOl) 225-5439 home Jill Broob Principal David O'Dodd Blcmcntary (501)447-4300 work (SO l) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Heari?lg . (501} 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cauley, Ed.D ~istant Principal  J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High Scbcol (501) 447-1700 ext 1710 work (501) 6-66-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 22 of 30 Da11.yell Crutchfield Cummlnp 5 Bea Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arwuu 71210 (501} 407-8097 (501) '47.1737 Caretr ObJe~Uve: Pr.CeatonaJ Experimco: 2004-Present .Ed1tettlon: To utll!zo proven academic and jX'Ofossional experience lo obcain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contn1Jutc to a prosn,slive cdul\national onvlromncnt, High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Fair Syatems Magnet High School Little ~ok. Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthcrlbtd, Principal English Teach J. A. Fair S)'l~ms Magnet HiiJi School LittloRo\u0026lt;:k,Ar.kallsu 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priucipal May, 2005 Educational Specialist, ducational Administration and SUpcrviaiOl,I, University of Arbnsas at Little Rock D'\"mbcr, 1998 , Master oflldUClltioa, \u0026amp;condaty Education, trniVaity of Arkaasu al Little Rode May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, lroleu.tonally Related ActMtlu: University of Arlcansas at Little Rocle Acting Assistant Principal Section .504 Coordinator Counc:il of Secondary Education Stakcholdct Southom Regional Eduutioo Board Literacy Team JllOl11ber Teacher of the Year Bduoatio.aal Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 llc!eraic:es: Linda Young Grants Coordinator {501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home rn1 Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elcmcnwy (501) 447-4300 woJk (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501)407-0817 homo Sharon Cauley, B\u0026lt;ID Assiatant Principal J.A. Fair Systeots Ma,snct High Schoo! (S01)447-1700en 1710 worlc (SOI) 666-Ql6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platfonn that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common seIYices to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Perfonnance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and H!gll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise--wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet. BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objcx:ts Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines-while maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platform -~-~-~-,-~-m_ec_t_th_e_n_eed_s_o_f_th_e_Ll__tt1_e_R_o_ck_S_ch_oo_l D-is_tn_c_t t_o_da_y_an_d-to_m_o_rr_o_w_. __ ,.(_i _ ~EXH-IBIT __ ,,] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of tl!,e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful infoIU1ation to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application.  Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world SUIIldard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBITDOIJ l'll#,11o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly fonnatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexil\u0026gt;le application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and rep_ort design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what featw-es are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic a.nd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new IITML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF foxmat, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Cootlguratioo The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a. report is nm. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly .find bro.ken links, formula cnors., and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An UfSD Bl TooJ1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Entc:rprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granu1ar Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to sec a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in tho Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or colwnn-level filters azid map these filters to users or U$Cl' groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can th.en choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you oan allow users to refresh it on demazid. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report wider an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will' also return only the data the user is entitled 10 see. L1ISD Bl Tools Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting. and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthc same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store COillIIl?nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabiJities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze infonnation in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. CLAP lntelllgence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements ofboth information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort. filter, create calculations on the fly, and perfonn speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, aod relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platfonn LRSDBfTools Pq,Sofl Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional databa.so servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IDM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For exampl~ native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAF server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP scrva, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live: to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP work.books may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web, Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration UISD Bl T* Pq16of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be ma.de available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore-summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. J.IISD8/Toou Pqa7o/7\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_89","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/89"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\n I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED NOV 3 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for October 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on October 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .EducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org October 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED NOV 3 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of october 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. l\nt~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED NOV 3 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 Based OD thainformatio!ivaUable'.af.s.egtembe[30\n2006, the ADE calcy_latecltlie State Found~tion ,-.-unding for\nEY 06/07, sy6ject to oeriodic aaii,,.., -~ ~: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing , as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 06/07, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. Fl NANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 tA.t February 3 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 October 31 , 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet 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 Sentember 2006 oai:2e[WQ[k was generated for the first oayment in the 06LQ] schoQI year for the Mag pet and M-to-M transportation oroQram1 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 October 31 , 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. Fl NANCIAL 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 October 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 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 October 31 , 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 1 O, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team , the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance wifh 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 ~reliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to final ize plans for the July 15, 19'97 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits werFJ made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted , and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SA T-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m . at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 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 October 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregati0n 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 fund ing by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check leg islation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Will ie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 The information for th is 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 October 31 , 2006 The information for th is 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 October 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the ind ividual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan , the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 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 October 31 , 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would : (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed , the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized . On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board_ of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11 , 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11 , 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed . Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed , and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE admini$trative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed , and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI . REMEDIATION (Continued) A Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited . Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, techn ical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted . 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning , using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop wili be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing . Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. The fol lowing training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning .\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training . There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended . On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading . On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31 , 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training . The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample  model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP}, a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training . The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 59 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of October 31, 2006 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, co-sponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACT AAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The w\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_1769","title":"Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1769"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["44 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    U,/63/2666 10: 51 5016045321 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 40481 Filed 10/02/2006 PAGE 01 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATiiERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District states: ~1\\-\u0026lt;9t00 F~ PLAINTIFF oEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for 2005-06 school year. The progress of those evaluations !las been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 15, 2006. ' 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21st Century Community Learning Centers and Read 180, were previously delayed due to the unavailability of Benchmark Examination results, but it now appears that those evaluations will be filed by the current due date of October 15~ 2006. Sec email from lt,/t,::l/ 2f:l06 10; 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 02 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 2 of 4 Aaron McDonald, attached as Exhibit A. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Lileracy, requires data from the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), which has also been delayed. NORMES, which contracts with the Arkansas Department of Education to store and facilitate access to test data, originally projected posting the QELI data in early July. The NORMES data proved not to be sufficiently detailed to meet the evaluators' needs for the Pre-K Literacy Evaluation, and LRSD has contracted with Riverside Publishing to provide that data. PRE is now in the process of working with Riverside in an effort to get usable QELI data to CREP within the next few days. 4. Dr. Ross, in an email which was provided to the Court on September 29, 2006, says that CREP \"will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete [ the PreK Literacy] Report by November 15th .\" 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to insure the delivery of a useful Pre-K Literacy Program Evaluation which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions ' about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. 6. Mr. Walker's letter to the Court of September 26, 2006 indicates that he understands the need for the requested extension, but counsel for LRSD was unable to 2 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 3 of 4 contact him today to confirm that. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of time within which it must file the draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program to and. including November 15, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 2, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.qr.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj .com johnwaJkeratty@aol_.com 3 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 4 of 4 and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J, Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201  Isl Christopher Heller 4 l t:l/ t:J;j/ :Lt:lt:lb l !:I: 51 5016045321 US0C PAGE 05 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 1 ~ 1 of 4 Chris Heller - .RE: three evatuatfoas From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Chris, \u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphls.edu\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;HELLER@fcc.net\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 9:16 AM RE: three evaluations \u0026lt;dslawson@memphis.edu\u0026gt; ~ a follow-up to our phone conversation on Friday, I wanted to let you know that we are-planning on sending the drett READ 180 and 21.t CCLC reports to the dlsbid on the 1st\". The 21 st CCLC sd1ool that had attendance data anomallee will be excluded from the anafyaia. We are still In the procesa of revleWtng the PreK deta wttt, Jim Wohlleb. Beatrrd, Aaron McOoneld ......... ____________ .....-____ -_______ l'l'Offll Steven M Ross (sml'0$S) Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:39 PM To: Chris Heller Cc: Aaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmatnld) - subject: RE: three evaluations Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, 'IN 38152-3340 file://C:\\Document5%20and%20Settina\\Brendak\\Local%20Settinas\\Temo\\GWl00002;H... 10/1./2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURJAECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarto/,lY Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously. filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua  Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; tq ,have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a . highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 ' ' by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September l, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the . Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year.. Id. As part .of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hmng a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.'~ The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating . a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting - within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the ' . . LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LR.SD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross .and Catterall. 19. LR.SD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LR.SD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LR.SD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated ;. during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross - assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight fonnal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-q6 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be fonnally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2. 7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. Sept~mber 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools . throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step  2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. fu each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate . number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements ofparagraphE of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the -eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary ofLRSD's commitments to the modifications - recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance.Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM . and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of.the_ eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update; p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive  program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. The~e quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December l, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LR.SD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 - LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status .. of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided - them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for  the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance wjth extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluatiohs for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised .Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD' s substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 m accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Clrristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com iohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: .. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 - JudgeJ.ThomasRay U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 .\u0026lt;?_t 3Q _ . Career Objective: Prefeuional Experience: 1998-Prcaent Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Prof ess.lonally Related Activities: Danyell CrutchfleJd Cummlnp S Ben Hopn Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 7221G (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progrcssi ve educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Ens]iah Tcacbor !. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervi:iion, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R.Qck Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator CoW1cil of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225--$439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (,Ol) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)666-621_6 home Filed 10/16/2006 ~~1:1 .. ~ ?..! . .O.I. ~0 . ____Ca_se_ _4:8_2-_cv-_00 866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~ge 22 ~!}0_ _ ,. .. _______ , . ., .. _ , _________ , Career Objective: Profeuioul Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prcscnt Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Profea,Jonally Related ActMdes: Danyell CrutcbReld Cumminp 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkanau 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environmmt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master ofEducatioo, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R~k Acting Assistant Principal Section S04 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 P_9ge g~_qf 30 . References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (S0l) 447 ... 300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SO 1) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (S01) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 81 Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the  flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and -~s compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines- . while maintaining high performance.  Proven Reliability This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. I. EXHIBIT I ______-.; ;;__i 13----~ LRSD BI Tools ....!,____ .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which hot1ses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided fo the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise - Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key  Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications.   The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBIToou Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users ( e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. Tiris greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles  Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An lRSD Bl Tools Pnge J o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a .Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is   then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Pag~4of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs.  CLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp\u0026lt;;mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive. Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that  .recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless.  . Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Too/3 Page6of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intellj,gence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology pro:Vides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Toois Page 7 o/7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 2 o 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4048) is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD's draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT JUDGE New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger \u0026amp;-kansas Attorney General ' s Office Wi,tlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P. Th ompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewel lyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts . gov A:~~age-Id :\u0026lt;767706@ared . uscourts.gov\u0026gt; ~ bject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pul aski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Extend Time \" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid l ater charges , download a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 10/19/2006 at 9 : 55 AM CDT and filed on 10/18/2006 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . a red . us courts. gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl ?2 6052 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume nt Number : 4053 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the d ocument : http : //ecf . ared. uscourts . gov/cgi-bin /show_case_ doc?4053 , 26052 , , MAGIC ,,, 2005489 Docket Text: ORDER granting [4048] Motion to Extend Time ; LR$D ' s draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m. , Wednesday, November 15 , 2006 . Signed by Judge William R. Wi lson Jr. on 10/18/06 . (mkf, ) The following documen t (s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a a lectronic document Stamp : - STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date= l 0/19/2006] [FileNumber=767705-0] [b3ec8779c91ae546773eb22665c07b6afe5b 95858074548ablf66cdblb0e7c7bcafb4796bdlde8a 537ae2ba51becd736a5c7340c96eeef5323b45b8d3lb59545]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R . Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast . net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark . hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, a ngela . dover@arkan sasag.gov Christopher J. He ller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net ; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw . com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate . jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj . com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net , nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast . net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabriel mail.com -4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund , Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 Qffl:Eff llUBATIONIO'-IU\"\"\"maG-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINEKNIGHT,ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT  For its Re;,visectC0mpliance'Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio,  have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the r~sponsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. . I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding fo 1 th,e PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed . the :resting Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, . 2p96 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he . approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded :i coII1prehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to 'supP.ort its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14; The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis_trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 _Qll;arterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of' planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit . B, to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD 's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluat~d by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key  2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated _ during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally. F-Y~uated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December L: 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluatio:q.s must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-Americ~ students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See Jun~, 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the reConm,iended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE ..  . notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June I, and September I of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006; June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided t11:~m to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 ~choo~ year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006.   40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 schooi year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to aJ?:d including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send' .. \" notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: - Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 Career ObJecttve: Pnd'euJonaJ Experience: 2004-PIOSCD! 1998-Proent Edacadon: Danyell Crufchffeld CuDIIDIDil S Bm Hopn Cove Little Rock. ArbDIU 7211G {501) 407-8497 (501) 447-1737 To utillzo proven academic and profoaiOJW oxpienco to obtain a . : , chUcrnging po1itioa as an admiailltrator that will allow fer growth and an opportuni1)' to contribute to . proareqivo educatiooal environmcm. High Schools That Wo'fk Ccordinafor J. A. Fair Sytcml Magnet Higb School Little Rock. Arbmas 72210 Randy Rlahc,dord, Principal Bqliah Tcadior 1. A. Fair Symim Masaet Hi\u0026amp;h Sohool Little .Rookt Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthafo:d, Principel May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educ.atiou.l Administration and Supcmion, University of .Amnsas at Little Rock Docomba', 199! Muter of Education, Scoondary Edue\u0026amp;tioo. Univel'lfty of Aibmal at Utde Ro\" May, 1997 Bichel of Ans, English, Univc:rafty of Arlamsu at Little Rook ProtN.lloPally .R.elattcl .Acdvitfa: Actina Aasiatant 'Principal Scetioa 504 Coordinator Council ofSecondaey Edacatlon Slakcbolder Southern Realoaal Education Board U\u0026amp;eracy Team mombcr Teacher oftbe Year Bdu(lational Spul!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ----- -------- ..  --- --. -. - Refcreuca: Linda Young Granta Coo.rdilultor (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-$439 home Till Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Bl.cmcutary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Hearillg . (SO]) 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cawcy, EdJ\u0026gt; Assistant Prin0ipal  1.A. Fair Syscems Magnet High School (SOl) 447-1700 ~ 1710 work (501)6~6-6216 homo Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 . Page 22 of 30 -------- \"------~----------- Educailon: DaayeU Crutchfilld Cummlap 5 Bea Hogan Cove Llttle Rock, Aruu,u 72210 (501) 407--8897 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and p-ofossional cxpericncc lo obcain a   ' challenging position u an administrator that will allow (or growth and an opportunity to contnl,utc w a pl'OjJ'Cluivc educational onvinimncut. High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Pair Sy1lcms Mapet Hlgb School Little Jlgok, Arb.mu 72210 Randy Rutherford. Principal EnsJish Tcachet J. A. Fair Syn:ms Magnet Bish School Littlo Rode, Arwsu 12210 Randy Ruthcrford,_Priuclpal May, 2005 Educational Spec!llist, Educational Administration and SUpezviaio,; University of Arbnsa1 at Little R.oclc D'\"mber, 1998 , M..t ofBducatioa, Sooonday ROJCation, Univonlty of Arbasas at Little Rook May, Im Bachelor of Art,, Bnglllh, l'rvleu!onaDy Rtlated ActMtlu: University of Arkansai at Little Rode ActiJJa Auismit Prillcipll Section 504 Comlioator Couocil of Secondary Education S1akcboldet Southom Regional Bducatioa Board Lkenlcy Team member Teacher oflhe Year BduoadOllll Spoclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ .. ,, .. ---- llercraca: LindaY01111g Gram Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 homo mi Brooks PrincJpal David O'Dodd Elementary (-'01) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Bt0adnlx, Bd,D Student Hearinl (501) 447.3532 work (501)4-07.0817 homo SbaroD Cauley, Bd.I) Aasiatant .Principal J.A. Fair S)'ICcml ~ot High School (501)4471700 c:xt. 1710 W0C'k (SOI) 666-621.6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The Bl Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofB[ tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability aod Hlgll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, mM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platfonn, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability .is a key issue. Business Objccta Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters ofmachineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platfomi _:_:_~_/'/i_~_m_ee_t_th_e_n_ced__o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_c_R_oc_k_S_c_hoo_l_D_is_tn_c_t-to_da_y_an_d_to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ___,.( _I _B _EXHI_M _r ) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system arc a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Nonnalized Data This data. securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority ofti,.e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligenco products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporttnz aUows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objccta Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required .knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is pcrfonncd using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Perfonnance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. CrystaJ Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LBSDB/To1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can dciign within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexil\u0026gt;le application development: Developers can leverage crossplatform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports arc easily published to the web, for better busip.ess decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be e,cported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powa-ful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic apd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain natic prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily ma1ce their own document modifications. Report Ewort Copflguntlon . The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula cm\u0026gt;rs, and dependency i,sues. Thia greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Buslness Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data soun:es and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level secwity processes. An LIISD Bl Tool# Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional sc:rvicc in Crystal Enterprise, Busim:ss Views aUow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by ~ulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business Viow in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Conncctipns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fo1D1dation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily ro-use various components of .one Busmcss View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can acrve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rocle School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that arc NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of diff ercnt reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters aIJd map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report de.sign based on a Business View will respect tho underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator e-0ntext) and then filter the report every time a user views it All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. UISDBITPou Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-conswning and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, cluipging fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthe same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store ~nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects .Enterprise InfoVfew Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infoID1ation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web lntelllgence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And reque\u0026amp;ts to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users tum educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved. and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root cawes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntellf gence Busin=is Objects OLAP Intelligaice is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced amlysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform I.RSD II Tool, Pq,So/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP . The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis QI.AP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to selcct-dimep.sions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OL.AP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rieb Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering. highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an 1D1cluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hlde specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of.breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, WM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbasc 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Dlstn'\"bution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and worldlows, Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to B.usJoess Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workoook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perfomi advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powezful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Emloratlon LJISD BJ TOIIU Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that usen can navigate and exj:)lore-.summariz.ed infoonation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelli~t navigation without the need to understand the complexities of widerlying data and metadata structures. LRSDBJTooJ, l'qa7o/7 uFILi=o -.-, E4sret DISrRt~ co   .: IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT AA~SAs -} EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER  DCT27 2CQ; .: JA~ M By~\u0026lt;~~~~.gL,,_ ~AINTIFF\"2:Jge',i, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC'') for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2005-2006 school ~ear and proposed budget for the 2006-2007 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 28, 2006 ( attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the MRC's final budget for the 2005-2006 school year and proposed 2006-2007 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this~ay of October, 2006. A1~  -:::::::;;2.-\u0026lt;---- ~ DISTRICT JUDGE 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} September 28, 2006 The Honorable W11Iiam R. Wllson. Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I Dear Judge Wtlson: On September 26, 2006, Marte Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the actual expenditures for 2005-06, as well as the proposed budget for the 2006-07 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 2) and was presented to MRC members for their review on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of 6-0, approved the final budget (actual expenditures) for the 2005-06 school year but are withholding their vote for approval of the proposed 2006-07 budget until all parties have been given the opportunity to review the proposed budget. The Magnet Review Committee has scheduled their next meeting for October 17, 2006 to vote on the proposed budget at that time. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Court for approval: FINAL 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $28,849,578 .00, was based on a per-pupil expenditure of$7,468.00, calculated from a projected three quarter average enrollment of 3,862.90 students. Once the actual attendance (3,831.12) and expenditure ($29,224,702.00) numbers were determined, the final per pupil amount was calculated to be $7,628.00, which was $160.00 more than originally budgeted. This increased cost is primarily attributable to the adjustments in the school funding formula as a result of the recent Lakeview decision. A Funding By Source schedule is shown on Page 2 of the attachment presenting the costs allocated to each of the four ( 4) parties. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable William R. Wilson. Jr. September 28, 2006 The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2005-2006 finalized budget in the amount of $29,224,702.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $7,628.00, attached herewith. Even though the budget Draft 2 contains figures for the proposed 2006-2007 budget, the Magnet Review Committee is not asking the Court's approval at this time. The proposed 2~2007 budget will be submitted to the Court after representatives ftom each party bring their recommendations to the Magnet Review Committee meeting on October 17, 2006.   .. , 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. Sincerely, ~~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sJ Attachment: Final 2005-2006 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget Actual Expenditures (Draft 2) -..oc: Office ofDesegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee '.:- : ;;:~r~;..;1~:[~~~:m ~~~:~v~r:~ti:m 1:r:~~ !~~~~~m~: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $577,006 $590,057 6.0 $605,528 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $704,187 $719,586 10.0 $739,257 03 Soecialists 40.2 $2,060,208 $2,095,071 40.2 $2,178,546 04 Counselors 13.5 $745,758 $755,548 13.5 $819,990 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $333,386 $342,566 6.5 $369,766 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $135,929 $138,721 3.0 $147,146 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Forei~in Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.9 $442,679 $452,002 7.9 $506,912 10 Soecial Education 15.5 $621,519 $624,198 16.5 $700,071 11 Gifted 5.4 $296,023 $302,527 6.4 $353,735 12 Classroom 202.9 $9 892,360 $10,105,508 201 .9 $10,247,836 13 Substitutes o.o $293,000 $347,950 0.0 $310,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $729,204 $782,522 15.0 $772,934 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 325.9 $16,831,258 $17,256,256 326:9 $17,751,721 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $621,784 $640,002 21.4 $686,358 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $273,520 $280,670 6.0 $292,918 17 Custodians 28.9 $572,555 $576,668 28.9 $612,444 18 Information Seivices 1.0 $65 554 $66,547 1.0 $68,780 19 Paraorofessionals-Other 4.0 $176,869 $182,943 3.0 $163,884 20 Other-Aides 26.0 $490,064 $474,617 28.2 $560,984 21 FrinoeBenefits(20 \"' $0 $5,189,424 '''''' \"'  $5,830,809 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 87.3 $7,744,958 $7,410,871 88.5 $8,216,177 TOTAL(10-20l ,    ,,,, ,,, $24576,216 $24,667,128  $25967,898 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ' -- .,., $ 589 700 $ 719,885 .,., ., \" ,, , ' $798 500 SERVICES 1-2::::3:-+.:T:-\"ra\"'\"v\"\"'e:-\"I- -------fiii.:. i.'m- \"m:~: /  $ 40,000 $ 46,655 ' .. , ., , ., . $35,500 po) 24 Maintenance Aareements . ~ - _:, $0 $0 , --~ ,. .... , $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ' CAPITAL OUTLAY (50} OTHER (60) 25 Other '  ' $ 285 368 $ 259,970 '-' \" ,, :: ' $237, 130 TOTAL(30) 26 Princioal's Office 27 Regular Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL(40) 30 Equioment 31 Buildina Reoalr etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other -. . $ 915,068 $ 1 026510 \"\"'':'\"''\" $ 1071,130 ;:~ : !~:E~ : a:::E ltll s::~:~ ., ._,, ,, ''  $ 24,273 $ 27,819  .\";w. '. $ 28,873 \"'\" $ 881,653$ 916,962 ''.:' . . , .... '. $ 749,125  , \" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 :--,. ' ' $ 57 200 ,  . , . , '' '' $0 $0 .,  , ... , '' '\" . $0 ., ....... ... , ., $0 $0 .,,. ,, $0 '.\"''\" .: , \";\" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 : $ 57,200  : . ,.,, , $ 7,800 $ 3,390 , $ 4,856 .. ,., '  . - . $0 $0 ' '  \"., ....... ' $0 TOTAL (60) '' .,., \"'  ,,.,, $ 7,800 $ 3,390 \"\" \"\" \"'  $ 4,856 TOTAL (30-60) =-~,~t- ~r ~i  - $ 1,874,836 $ 2 161 988 S 1,882,311 TOTAL (10-60} 413.1 $ 26,451,052 $ 26,829,116 415.3 $ 27,850,209 ro.TAL LINE ITEMs ttl~~~!~=~irAU\\llt~l~Ji,fJ:: - ri,: 1111~~:;i:~;:: i1:;:it1:iJ;: 1:;;;,;, ,.,  :?::;::: r: mi~~i:,i MAGBK07A ~i,i~ijf~ttt'hJ,~f,',f~J iftte.1Q~1stl ~if #fJf4t~Iit;l~:tl~ ij~f : .' :~~~:.:, ,,,. ,'ij ~rb:fi;iai,Vk~ii~~~I~tm4ll~l~t~~-i~ 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07 Stipends $29,600 $52 951 $41,250 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $2,194,000 $2 227,287 $2,312,522 Vocational $32,800 $32,712 $32,800 Athletics $101,626 $60,936 $65,799 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $13,201 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1,500 $1.500 Soecial Education $4,000 $4,000 ~ .000 Curriculum $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 )00()()()( )()()()00( Total Line Items $2,398,526 $2,395,586 $2 492,871 Rii.!;:_ : .:~t~~~-i li~P~t -_' .. : .}  ..:~ ~!~ ,862.90 3 3,831.00 E~~J~'.B~'.~~i~!$(1!~liji ~1~.t~~~'f.\\i~r, rb':iiM~af.lJt,11i): f~Ji:ieffi'~ ~l~ $'.!i~m'.Billl.:!J,~tt1~:if~~~!~i)]@!)~. 2005-06 2005-06 2006--07 Slate of Arkansas $14 424 069 $14,611,930 $15,171,275 LRSD $9,248,057 $9,260,815 $9,614,975 PCSSD $3 443,532 $3,567,768 $3,704,342 NLRSD $1 733,920 $1,784,189 $1,852,488 Total Costs $28,849,578 $29,224,702 $30,343,080 MAGBK07A - t0~~1J~ l~l~~t(~S~h}fm! O!t~t~fsll.t:i~ (i'.,i${%\\:.t; 1!:l';b,,6~~ ~~~i~{ij)pt(l~}\\,fmfi _ ;.,p.r.~ei~t1ik~i~~~iw JWt~~~a~Ht.;}:a,, ~tf'~I::~ r~~~ffiJ.tiojii1:iJtttJ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,186 $ 95 068 1.0 S 97,930 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 70,837 $ 72,120 1-0 $ 74,401 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 405 782 $ 419,228 8.0 $ 434,292 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 107,304 S 109,708 2.0 S 115,886 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $ 59,967 S 67,117 1.5 $ 70,377 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational . 0.0 0.0 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $ 51,587 $ 52,678 1.0 $ 11 Gifted 77,720 $ 78,956 1.4 $ 12 Classroom 937,752 $ 949,474 21 .5 $ 13 Substitutes $ 38,000 s \"45,797 0.0 $ 14 other-KinderQarten 246,467 $ 254,281 5.0 S TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $2,088,601 $2, 144 426 42.4 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 82,152 $ 84,582 3.0 $ STAFF 16 Nurses 41,328 $ 42,204 1.0 $ 17 Custodians 75,503 $ 74,193 4.0 $ 18 Jnfonnation SeMoes 10,928 $ 11 ,093 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-other $0 $0 I 0.0 20 other-Aides 97,165 $ 92,145 5.2 $ 21 708,611 $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 13.2 $1 ,015,687 $1,009,939 13. TOTAL(10-20) '\" ,,,. $3,104,289 $3,154,365 ., ... , ._,._, 58,500 $ 7,000 $ $0 PURCHASED Z2 Utilities  .. $$ 69,185 ,, \" .,. ,~ $ SERVICES 23 Travel 14,276  ,.,. ,. \"  $ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 .,, ...... '.\"'.  25 other . . : _. $ 30,013 $ 29,566 ., .,,, '  - $ TOTAL(30) ' , ' $ 95,513 $ 113,027 _,,., ,, ., $ i--,-MA-:-:-::TE=R.,.,IAL,..,..,,S,.., ..,...,26=-t::p,-ri,..nci\"\"'i-p,a\"\"'r,..s-=o\"'ffi:-ce-\"-''--~----m! $0 ;, '\"~\":'. : . SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom \" . -~ $ (40) i-;2~8+M;;;edw,;i;.;;a:;;,_;;==~----f,, ~;r.,;,-t: '. $ 29 other '.' :', ... . '\"' $ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc: 32 other TOTAL(SO) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) .,,,.,,.,-,: :': : ', $ __ ,,; ._,.,,,., $ ,.: ; P'V ;.,, . . ~ ....... ..  .. ,. -; .. , ... ,,,, $ :ii,;,}~ $ ,, ,.,,., ,, '. $ 55.6 $0 77,500 7,500 3,125 88,125 8,500 $0 $0 8,500 1,000 $0 1,000 $193,138 $3,297,427 $293,462 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77,766 '\" '.:'/\"? '' $ 4,915 . ,, $ 4,206 ,_::: .... :. $ 86,888 \"  \"   $ 2,747 '.  ::''.' $ $0 : ,:: ' ' '' $0 .... ,, -\",, ,; 2,747 .: .. : ' __ ' $ 680 , , . '.',' ' $ $0 ::\"'~ -~, 680 :~:'.'. ' \" ,,,. $ $203,342  ' ,... ,. '. ' $3,357,707 55.8 $298,017 ,,,, ................ ,,., 55,473 82,401 912,879 45,000 282,919 $2,171,558 89,904 44,784 81,606 11,466 $0 102,011 739,450 $1,069,220 $3,240 778 75 800 5000 $0 20,113 100,913 $0 87,057 5,500 3,827 96,384 6,000 $0 $0 6,000 1,000 $0 1,000 $204,297 $3,445,075 $314,693 ~ ~~l~*r,{l~~fifi';t.'t{~,,~m~1t 2005-06 2005--06 2006--07 Stipends $4,250 $5,336 $8,750 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $283,903 $269,788 $300,610 Vocational $0 $0 . $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $133 $134 $134 Plant Services $4141 $1,716 $4,160 Reading $85 $65 $85 Science SO $0 SO Enqlish $194 $195 $195 Special Education $518 $520 $520 Curriculum $259 $260 $260 )00()()()( XXXlOOC Total Line Items $293,462 $298,017 $314,693 655 724 $3,759,769 - ~ -ffC!~~$jI 1:tit~~1ff'l)${11JirmwR IJtil'~llU@J~m,;:~;f))i ]1!'.~ ~ i. ii~~}~'M1rrt~~~ - WF;tTs~ ri \\7,~~~~ri;,'p~~t{1I1tmmt~iiU\\tm,f\u0026gt;f~ 'i'*~i1:~ ~g~P,ffi~mi$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,172 $ 96,557 1.0 $ 97,781 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 329,753 $ 291,812 6.8 $ 330,833 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 53,465 $ 56,201 1.0 $ 57 448 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 61,583 $ 63 000 1.0 $ 64,947 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 0.0 o.o 08 FOfeign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 0.0 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 68,322 $ 69 765 1.5 S 73,956 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 55 932 1-0 $ 57,557 12 Classroom 16.2 $ 728,828 $ 719,117 152 $ 703,820 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28000 $ 27,763 0.0 $ 25000 14 Other-Kinder\u0026lt;1arten 2.0 $ 105,715 $ 106 393 98,338 TOTAL CERTIFIED SAL.ARY 30.5 $1,523 399 $1486541 $1,509,680 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 30,736 $ 27 792 1.4 $ 33,016 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 34 548 $ 36,886 1.0 $ 39,046 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 67,314 $ 68,316 3.0 $ 70,869 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,928 $ 11,093 0.2 $ 11,466 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.3 $ 60,630 $ 65,456 4.3 $ 62,761 21 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 9.9 $714,972 $676,423 9.9 $730,034 TOTAL (10-20\\ ... ,. $2,238 372 $2,162,963 ,, ' : ' _ $2,239,714 PURCHASED 22 Utllities ... . :: .  $ 34 000 $ 47,642 '\" ' \" ,,.,.. $ 49,000 SERVICES 23 Trawl ~:.:;,..,_,. $ 7 000 $ 12 457 ' ,, $ 5,000 (30} 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ' :iciii'' $0 $0 ,, H-.-: $0 25 MATERIALS, 26 ~:::: . ~:Ill. .~:;: ~ : :  ' \" $ 35 8~~ $ 40 :,~ . ::' :~ ,,, ' $ 36,:S Other .....  ' $ l-,----c==.,,...,...,,,.,_.,....,,..,,4,,,-,--,---,,-.:.'f.,:::O,:..:TA..::L:..J(..::;30;;,Jl\\:._ _ -m_ :: Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 (40) 28 29 CAPITAL 30 OUTLAY 31 Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) $ 2,500 $ 1 604 \"' \" ~'. ' ,...  $ 2,500 $ 1,953 $ 2581 \" '\"' _.,,. $ 3,174 $ 40,253 $ 45,091 . . .  $ 42,262 EQuipment '..: ' ,,. $ 16,904 $ 141288 ' \"\" ,,  , $ 11,500 Building Repair, etc. .,.,,  /'! ,, . $0 $0 i ' ~ ~ 1 .~ $0 {50) 32 OTHER 33 (60) 34 ---=-,.,....,..=---.---+Oth-,----er---=T_O_TA_L_(._50__.1)~..-.-.,1\". ...... ....- -.. $$ 16,~ $ 141,2: ~ ~'~ $ 11,5: Dues and Fees 1,000 $ 499 '.'.::.~ .. \u0026gt; $ 500 Other . . ... . $0 $0    :':' : $0 TOTAL(60) ,.,  , \"  s 1,000$ 499 , .. ,, .,.,  , $ 500 TOTAL (30-60) ' : ..  ' $127,057 $269,824 ' ... .. ,, ,~ $132,000 TOTAL (10-60) 40.4 $2,365,429 $2,432,788 39.4 $2,371,714 TOTALUNEITE    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_160","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":["2006-10-01"],"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","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/160"],"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\nr ~~-o7 ~ ~ -d ---7LA~h/:S ~~j- Hcd ~~v 7\u0026lt;4~~fl Ho,n r\u0026lt;~~o ~,.(/'.a ~/\u0026gt;? .LR~u d\n. ao 7\u0026lt;'~D _:505.5 7.0 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCRE EPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED TO (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 44 44 44 DISTRICT: 2 DAYS PRESENT TRANSPORTED 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 DAYS PRESENT NON-TRANSPORTED 85.20 0.00 21452. 85 4 DAYS ABSENT 2.80 0.00 791.15 QUARTERN O. 1 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 1. 94 0.00 487.58 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 2.00 0.00 505.55 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 489.52 507.55 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002050 COUNTY:P ULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: AMBOYE LEMENTARQ UARTERN O. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: l M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BELWOOD ELEMENT QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 7 ADA ADM 2+3/1 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 2 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BOONE PARK ELEM QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 o.oo 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 o.oo 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 3 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CRESTWOOD ELEME QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 4 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002056 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: GLENVIEW ELEMEN 1 2 3 4 5 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED ABSENT 2/1 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 QUARTER NO. 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR HORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 5 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002057 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS EL QUARTERN O. 1 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 6 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002058 COUNTY\nPULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOODE LEMEN QUARTERN O. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 44.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 1.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 1.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 1.00 1.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 7 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002059 COUNTY:P ULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR STREET M QUARTERN O. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 252.50 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 11.50 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 5.74 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 6.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 5.74 6.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 8 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELE QUARTER NO. 1 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.50 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.50 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.99 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 1.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.99 1.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 9 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002061 COUNTY:P OLASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELE QUARTERN O. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 10 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELE QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 11 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002064 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEME QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.00 4 DAYS ABSENT o.oo 0.00 1.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 1.98 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 2.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 1.98 2.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 12 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEME QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 512.50 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 15.50 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 11. 65 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 12.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 11.65 12.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 13 , M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002067 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: REDWOOPDR E-SCH QUARTERN O. 1 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 14 .. M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002069 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 15 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCRE EPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002070 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOMD IDDLE QUARTERN O. 1 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5098.50 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 181. so 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 115.88 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 120.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 115.88 120.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 16 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002075 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL QUARTER NO. l NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TO M TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7404.25 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 239.75 5 ADT 2/1 o.oo 0.00 0.00 6 7 ADA ADM 2+3/1 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 168.28 0.00 0.00 173.73 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 168.28 173.73 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 17 M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002076 COUNTY:P ULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL QUARTERN O. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 2 3 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.20 0.00 8008.60 4 DAYS ABSENT 2.80 0.00 341.40 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 1. 94 0.00 182.01 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 2.00 0.00 189.77 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 183.95 191.77 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 18 M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM SCHOOL STUDENTS IN GRADES K-12) LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDL QUARTER NO. 1 NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.05 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.05 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.05 0.05 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTED AS TRANSPORTED INCLUDE RESIDENT STUDENTS RESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR MORE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 19 ... M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLYA TTENDANCREE PORT FY 2006/07 (FOR CALCULATINGA DT, ADA, AND ADMO F M TOM SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002702 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS RECEIVED (BY M TOM TRANSFER) 7701 LITTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: RIDGEROADC HART QUARTERN O. 1 1 DAYS 2 DAYS 3 DAYS PRESENT IN PRESENT NON-QTR TRANSPORTED TRANSPORTED 44 44 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 DAYS ABSENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 ADT 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 ADM 2+3+4/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TOM RECEIVED: 0.00 0.00 0.00 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANSPORTEDIN CLUDER ESIDENT STUDENTSR ESIDING TWOR OUTEM ILES OR MOREF ROMT HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 20 ,STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 001 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 10 11 218 203 6 6 0 0 116 135 705 10 9 8 202 148 6 8 117 129 629 11 11 11 150 139 2 l S l 133 602 12 7 7 118 90 8 2 0 104 125 464 TOT AL FOR: CENTRAL 37 37 688 580 22 20 4 2 488 522 2,400 /, ?? /,,5?~ ,/ 0 ~i}/4 ---------- 002-HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 3 2 187 195 20 34 0 0 16 19 476 10 2 156 146 13 29 0 0 13 11 371 11 3 134 86 16 17 0 11 15 284 12 2 2 81 70 8 s 0 0 9 14 191 TOT AL FOR: HALL 8 8 558 497 57 85 0 49 59 1,322 ) /.,0:5:5 J~? /OY .Jr?c- 003 - MANN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL -------- 06 4 s 80 76 9 6 2 0 67 57 306 07 3 92 60 4 2 0 0 72 53 294 08 7 95 so 10 3 0 77 46 290 TOTAL FOR: MANN M/S 19 9 267 186 23 II 2 216 156 890 ~~3 C.6 d??'-:\nL .\n)/,A 005 - P ARKVIEW GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL -------- 09 2 91 62 7 11 0 0 72 49 299 IO 4 2 74 61 7 s 2 67 58 281 II 7 3 78 60 8 4 0 0 78 46 284 12 2 2 74 51 s 2 56 47 245 TOTAL FOR: PARKVIEW 18 9 317 234 27 25 3 3 273 200 1,109 5~/ ff'5 ~73 ::50\n:. ) ---- LRSD INFORMATJON SERVJCES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page I of 15 . STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 006-BOOKER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ----- 01 0 0 21 38 0 2 0 27 23 112 02 0 0 26 27 2 0 33 17 107 03 0 0 25 25 4 0 0 0 22 16 92 04 0 0 26 35 2 2 0 0 32 19 116 05 2 27 33 4 2 0 0 21 23 I 13 K 0 0 25 22 3 0 20 20 92 TOTAL FOR: BOOKER 2 150 180 12 11 2 155 118 632 3i3 ~'7 _\nrJ8 ~/4 007 - DU BAR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 107 101 9 12 0 0 20 45 294 07 4 102 105 5 II 0 0 33 47 308 08 0 72 103 5 3 0 28 30 243 ) TOTAL FOR: DUNBAR M/S 5 281 309 19 26 0 81 122 845 -:9 c:9:\n)- ~8 7c,2 008 - FAIR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ~rV 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I l)~t1f {., 09 0 0 156 164 10 8 0 0 II 13 362 ?/ t JO 0 2 139 138 4 4 0 0 JO 22 319 II 133 89 2 6 0 9 19 261 12 0 0 88 79 0 0 8 II 188 TOTAL FOR: FAIR 3 516 471 16 18 2 38 65 1,131 /r.:3 37/2 009 - FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM F NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 2 103 82 4 3 22 20 238 07 3 0 89 84 4 7 0 0 13 17 217 08 0 105 94 3 8 2 0 23 26 262 TOT AL FOR: FORST HTS MIS 3 3 297 260 11 18 3 58 63 717 ..~... : _\n1/ /\n2/ 7Y4 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 2 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 010 - PUL HTS MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ---- ---- -- --- ---- --- 06 3 65 70 3 0 42 58 244 07 67 81 0 48 44 245 08 0 0 62 63 0 0 47 59 233 TOTAL FOR: PUL HTS MIS 2 4 194 214 3 4 2 137 161 722 -Of /(p 5(78' 9? 7,, 012 - MCCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ----- -------. 09 0 108 120 4 6 0 0 6 2 247 10 0 105 99 3 7 0 0 7 7 229 11 0 0 90 74 8 0 0 4 8 185 12 0 90 55 0 2 7 158 TOTAL FOR: MCCLELLA 2 393 348 16 14 2 0 19 24 819 ?..J// c#O -V.$3 ?c- 7,, ) 013 - HENDERSN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ------ 06 113 97 9 9 0 0 6 9 245 07 3 115 125 15 9 0 19 17 305 08 3 111 94 12 0 0 19 9 257 TOTAL FOR: HENDERSN MIS 3 7 339 316 36 26 0 44 35 807 ~~5 73 79 21/rl 015 - CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 98 113 26 31 0 0 9 282 07 0 103 99 20 2'.\u0026gt; 0 0 2 6 256 08 0 0 95 85 23 23 0 4 233 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR MIS 2 296 297 69 79 0 7 19 771 a\"l:3 /~~ a? ?7/4 -- - ----------- 016- MABEL M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ------- ---------- .. 06 0 2 97 101 6 6 0 0 12 12 236 07 0 0 93 93 5 5 0 0 9 19 224 08 0 0 92 80 3 3 0 0 14 10 202 ) TOTAL FOR: MABEL MIS 0 2 282 274 14 14 0 0 35 41 662 ~.::sc\n:: .\n30 7~ g/\n: --------- ----------- ----------------- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 3 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF UM NF NM WF WM TOTAL - --- --- --- ------- 01 0 34 16 2 2 0 0 4 60 02 0 0 26 27 2 0 0 3 60 03 0 18 23 4 2 0 0 3 0 51 04 0 22 19 3 2 0 0 2 50 05 0 0 22 25 2 4 0 0 3 0 56 K 2 0 27 24 2 0 0 4 61 p 0 9 17 2 2 0 6 39 TOTAL FOR: BALE s ISS ISi 16 IS 0 2 18 II 377 3_\n),A ~ ~'J 018- BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 2 29 23 0 3 0 0 2 2 61 02 0 33 28 2 0 0 4 70 ) 03 19 16 0 0 0 0 4 42 04 0 0 11 22 0 0 4 40 05 0 II 21 2 4 0 0 3 0 42 K 0 0 34 30 0 4 0 0 3 72 p 0 16 13 0 0 0 2 3 36 TOTAL FOR: BRADY 6 IS3 IS3 s 14 0 0 16 IS 363 g-y/'. .::3 dt:- ~ 020 - MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF IIM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 30 4 0 0 6 7 70 02 0 23 17 0 3 0 0 3 54 03 0 20 24 2 4 2 0 8 8 69 04 0 0 25 16 3 0 0 5 9 59 05 0 20 21 2 4 0 0 5 7 60 K 2 16 12 2 5 0 0 9 8 55 p 12 12 4 0 0 3 39 TOTAL FOR: MCDERMOT s 3 138 132 9 27 2 0 45 4S 406 .:::,(7C' ..,. . C-7% - LRSD INFORMATIO SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 4 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 021 -CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ---- 01 0 2 18 27 4 2 0 9 15 78 02 3 26 21 0 0 0 0 21 19 91 03 2 17 32 2 0 0 12 19 86 04 0 26 24 2 0 17 18 90 05 2 3 19 31 5 0 0 II 21 93 K 2 21 19 0 0 18 16 79 p 0 9 2 2 0 0 0 2 3 19 TOTAL FOR: CARVER 9 10 136 156 12 9 2 90 111 536 ~?~ ..J/3\ni =-V0 022 - BASEL! E GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 5 8 0 0 55 02 0 0 18 22 4 6 0 0 52 03 2 0 14 20 6 5 0 0 3 52 04 0 0 20 13 6 2 0 0 0 3 44 05 0 0 17 13 4 0 0 39 K 0 0 12 13 2 10 0 0 39 p 0 12 14 4 7 0 0 0 39 TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 3 0 115 111 28 42 0 II 9 320 __,,., lo ft ii- ~o ? 023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL p 8 3 40 37 38 46 176 TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 8 3 40 37 38 46 176 7? ?f-\u0026gt;, #::: LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 5 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 024 - FORST PK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ------ ---- 01 3 2 0 0 0 0 24 35 66 02 0 6 0 0 30 30 70 03 2 0 8 2 0 0 0 26 30 69 04 0 2 5 6 0 0 0 23 21 58 05 0 0 4 6 2 0 0 17 16 46 K 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 31 21 62 p 2 0 0 0 0 16 18 39 TOTAL FOR: FORST PK 4 7 33 21 2 2 2 167 171 410 -5 1:J 33s\n~\n.., 025 - FRANKLIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 39 27 0 0 0 0 2 69 02 0 0 30 31 0 0 0 0 0 2 63 ) 03 0 0 36 13 0 0 0 0 0 50 04 0 0 24 30 0 0 0 0 0 55 05 0 0 29 27 0 0 0 0 2 59 K 0 0 31 40 0 0 0 0 3 75 p 0 0 25 27 0 0 0 3 0 56 TOTAL FOR: FRANKLIN 0 0 214 195 0 0 7 9 427 -f'c:7, ,\n..,, /\u0026amp; 9~?c 027 - GIBBS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 9 14 0 0 2 9 9 45 02 2 10 14 0 0 0 0 7 12 46 03 0 0 II 14 0 0 0 7 II 46 04 13 IO 0 0 0 8 IO 44 05 3 15 IO 0 2 0 0 7 II 49 K 4 0 12 8 2 0 0 5 8 40 p 3 16 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 34 TOTAL FOR: GIBBS 12 6 86 79 6 4 0 2 45 64 304 /\n.,,-~ ..\n1 le/ -'/\n- LRSD I FORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 6 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 028- CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL --- -- --- 01 0 0 35 35 7 19 0 0 0 2 98 02 0 0 24 31 10 4 0 0 2 2 73 03 0 0 22 34 II 7 0 2 2 79 04 0 0 38 37 7 13 0 4 4 104 05 0 0 30 30 13 6 0 0 0 80 K 0 0 29 34 9 18 0 0 3 6 99 p 0 0 31 27 7 8 0 0 4 3 80 TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 0 0 209 228 64 75 2 0 15 20 613 ,\n/97 I 4 ?llo 029 - WEST HlL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 24 0 2 0 0 4 44 02 0 0 17 14 0 0 0 2 2 36 ) 03 0 0 18 16 2 0 0 s 47 04 0 0 23 19 2 0 0 6 0 SI OS 0 0 19 10 0 0 4 36 K 0 0 13 IS 3 0 0 0 7 2 40 p 0 0 II 5 0 0 0 2 20 TOTAL FOR: WEST HIL 0 0 114 103 10 5 0 0 29 13 274 ::5)../'i /Q J/._\n2 77,?. ------ 030 - JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 II 6 0 0 0 0 25 30 74 02 0 0 II 4 0 0 0 25 24 65 03 0 8 13 0 0 0 0 23 23 68 04 0 0 15 12 0 0 0 0 13 20 60 OS IO 8 0 0 0 24 IS 60 K 0 0 7 0 0 0 24 29 64 p 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 12 16 38 TOTAL FOR: JEFFRSN 3 2 64 53 3 0 0 146 157 429 111 / ~03 ~7? .. ----- -- --- -------- - ---- -- ---- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 7 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 032 - DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 8 10 5 4 0 0 4 4 35 02 0 11 11 7 0 0 2 4 37 03 0 0 8 20 4 4 0 0 6 4 46 04 0 15 10 4 7 0 0 2 4 43 05 0 0 7 21 3 0 0 4 7 43 K 0 0 14 24 6 0 0 8 6 63 p 0 0 8 14 3 4 0 0 4 4 37 TOTAL FOR: DODD 2 0 71 110 32 26 0 0 30 33 304 e,C ~3 C-e\u0026gt;/4 033 - MEADCLIF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 25 25 2 4 0 0 9 4 69 02 0 0 22 31 2 7 0 0 5 4 71 ) 03 0 0 21 11 3 3 0 0 3 45 04 0 0 17 26 2 0 0 54 05 0 21 14 3 0 0 0 2 46 K 0 0 18 22 2 8 0 0 6 58 p 0 0 21 18 2 8 0 0 2 4 55 TOTAL FOR: MEADCLIF 0 145 147 16 35 0 0 28 26 398 _.xt\"l.\nl ~.:1.- 5 ?3/. ----- 035 - ML KING GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 32 38 0 0 7 12 93 02 0 30 36 3 0 0 0 10 10 90 03 0 31 28 0 0 0 15 10 86 04 2 35 30 0 0 12 18 100 05 0 0 26 24 0 0 0 13 71 K 0 29 42 0 0 0 11 10 94 p 4 0 38 22 0 0 0 7 77 TOTAL FOR: ML KJ G 8 4 221 220 4 3 4 0 75 72 611 -r-rr ::9.3 13/'7 ?3/. ---- -- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 8 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 036 - ROCKFELR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 23 32 0 0 4 3 64 02 0 0 36 23 0 0 3 65 03 0 24 26 0 0 6 6 65 04 0 0 33 27 0 0 0 6 5 72 05 0 0 26 23 0 0 0 0 7 7 63 K 0 0 24 23 2 0 0 5 2 57 p 37 35 0 0 0 13 17 105 TOTALFOR:ROCKFELR 2 203 189 5 5 0 44 41 491 -3 :).\n.,_/ 0 yo?. 037 - GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 21 19 2 2 0 0 46 02 0 0 23 19 3 2 0 0 0 0 47 ) 03 0 0 14 26 0 0 2 0 44 04 0 0 30 24 0 0 0 0 2 0 56 05 0 0 19 18 0 4 0 0 0 3 44 K 0 0 10 23 0 3 0 0 38 p 0 0 25 26 2 4 0 0 0 58 TOTAL FOR: GEYER SP 0 0 142 155 8 16 0 6 5 333 ~9 --::.'5 Y\"l\n:. - --- 038- PUL HT E GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 9 6 0 0 0 0 13 18 49 02 2 2 6 8 0 0 0 0 15 12 45 03 0 2 II 17 0 0 0 8 II 50 04 0 14 15 0 0 0 0 II 12 53 05 0 II 14 0 0 0 0 13 16 55 K 4 0 9 13 0 0 0 10 14 51 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 II 20 ) TOTAL FOR: PUL HT E 7 8 61 74 0 0 77 94 323 /~~ /? /?/ --\n,G/4 - - LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 9 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 040-ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ------ 01 0 21 27 4 4 0 0 0 2 59 02 0 0 27 21 7 7 0 0 64 03 0 0 17 18 4 3 0 0 0 45 04 0 0 17 23 2 3 0 0 2 0 47 05 0 0 24 22 4 0 0 4 58 K 0 0 33 17 0 6 0 0 2 59 p 0 0 28 21 3 3 0 3 60 TOTAL FOR: ROMINE 0 167 149 21 30 0 12 11 392 3 f/?. _..., ~ ..?3 041 - STEPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 36 43 0 0 0 0 2 82 02 0 0 30 35 2 0 0 0 0 68 ) 03 0 0 41 34 2 0 0 0 0 78 04 0 0 45 27 2 0 0 0 0 75 05 0 0 34 34 4 0 0 0 0 75 K 0 0 34 24 0 2 0 0 0 2 62 p 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 0 2 29 TOT AL FOR: STEPHENS 0 0 230 213 10 6 0 0 3 7 469 /c,.. W? 042 - W ASHNGTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 55 55 2 2 0 0 3 I 19 02 0 46 43 0 0 98 03 0 57 45 2 5 0 0 5 I 18 04 0 39 56 3 0 0 2 3 105 05 0 0 45 48 2 0 0 0 6 102 K 0 0 56 47 2 0 0 0 6 6 117 p 0 0 25 39 4 0 0 6 2 77 TOTAL FOR: WASl-tNGTN 3 323 333 16 10 0 0 24 26 736 t, r- .,\n~Z\u0026gt; cf 7?., LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page IO of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 043 - WILLIAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 20 14 0 2 0 0 10 11 63 02 0 3 21 11 2 0 0 0 18 12 67 03 4 5 27 15 3 0 0 0 16 11 81 04 5 10 21 25 3 0 0 0 9 21 94 05 5 25 24 0 0 0 23 13 96 K 2 2 14 16 0 0 0 0 18 60 TOTAL FOR: WILLIAMS 17 30 128 105 9 2 0 0 94 76 461 ~~3 c:s~ /?O c=?//4 044-WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 17 27 2 2 0 0 51 02 0 0 22 22 2 0 0 0 48 03 0 0 18 24 4 0 0 2 50 ) 04 0 0 14 22 0 0 2 41 05 0 14 14 2 0 2 38 K 0 0 25 29 3 4 0 0 63 p 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 2 19 TOTAL FOR: WILSON 117 146 13 12 2 0 7 II 310 d?l-, 3 d/ Id' ~) ------ 045 -WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 02 0 0 16 13 0 0 0 32 03 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 0 2 36 04 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 0 2 4 38 05 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 2 35 K 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 3 39 p 0 0 19 13 0 0 2 37 TOTAL FOR: WOODRUFF 0 0 IOI IIS 4 8 13 244 ) ~It\n, 7 di-I 8??. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 11 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL - - 01 0 0 20 27 5 2 0 3 6 64 02 0 0 17 26 4 2 0 2 9 61 03 0 0 15 33 5 0 0 0 7 3 63 04 0 0 21 28 3 0 0 3 3 59 05 0 0 18 17 3 0 0 5 6 50 K 0 0 21 23 3 4 0 4 61 p 0 0 9 14 3 0 3 34 TOT AL FOR: MABEL EL 0 0 121 168 22 15 2 2 28 34 392 ,\n1 ~ ~ 7/?- 047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 3 4 35 30 4 13 0 0 16 20 125 02 2 0 32 29 5 4 0 0 15 14 101 ) 03 3 26 35 5 3 2 0 19 6 100 04 4 3 26 25 5 2 3 0 12 12 92 05 0 5 24 26 2 6 0 0 II 12 86 K 4 8 32 39 4 6 0 0 16 24 I 33 p 3 2 8 6 0 0 6 12 39 TOTAL FOR: TERRY 19 23 183 190 25 35 5 95 100 676 ~,s?o ~ I j' 048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 16 6 2 2 0 0 50 45 123 02 3 21 II 0 50 43 132 03 2 5 19 0 3 0 32 40 103 04 4 12 19 2 0 31 36 107 05 2 10 14 2 0 0 0 38 36 103 K 6 12 22 0 0 49 56 148 p 0 0 2 6 2 0 0 0 16 14 40 TOTAL FOR: FULBRJGH 18 6 78 97 9 8 3 266 270 756 /?6 ~5 ~~? ~~/4 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 12 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 25 23 3 4 0 0 II 10 79 02 0 2 37 26 6 0 II 8 92 03 3 0 17 31 s 4 10 II 83 04 0 32 24 2 2 0 0 8 IO 79 OS 2 18 34 0 0 7 15 79 K 0 22 28 3 0 0 7 18 80 p 2 9 10 3 0 0 0 9 3 37 TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 9 7 160 176 18 18 2 63 75 529 ~ 5~ ~/.\n051- WAKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 30 39 10 10 0 0 3 0 92 02 0 0 32 31 7 10 0 0 3 84 ) 03 0 0 26 36 14 0 0 83 04 0 0 29 24 14 0 0 4 77 OS 0 0 16 24 6 7 0 0 0 0 53 K 0 0 32 28 10 9 0 0 2 82 TOTAL FOR: WAKEFIEL 0 0 165 182 52 55 0 12 4 471 7-/?. 3J./\nn.f' -- ----- --- 052- WATSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ----- 01 0 35 41 3 0 0 3 4 92 02 0 0 49 40 s 0 0 0 3 98 03 0 0 22 38 3 6 0 0 71 04 0 0 22 41 5 4 0 0 4 0 76 OS 0 0 36 25 2 2 0 0 0 2 67 K 0 0 48 60 3 3 0 0 0 s 119 p 0 0 20 16 2 0 0 0 40 TOTAL FOR: WATSON 0 232 261 21 24 0 0 9 15 563 -1/9~ 7'y ~-/ gg/o -- - --- - LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 13 of 15 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT ) FINAL 703 - FELDER ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL ------ 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 10 ~- -f 09 0 0 4 21 0 0 0 0 27 ,p,~~, IO 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9\nJo.J, 11 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 r/-\" ~,u~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 I, 12 0 2 4 J.-1 ,o TOTAL FOR: FELDER ALC 0 0 14 45 0 2 0 0 2 2 65 -?.!\u0026gt; 711 -SW LEARN AC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 07 0 0 8 35 0 0 0 0 2 46 08 0 0 1\\p-( 29 0 0 0 0 -1/l 46 1-1~ )\n)- 1~0 09 0 0 34 67 3 0 0 0 106 10 0 28 53 0 2 0 0 4 89 11 0 0 14 19 0 0 0 2 37 12 0 0 ~3r3 0 oCf 0 0 '1 0 16 8 d-,-1/ 9~l0 TOTAL FOR: SW LEARN AC 0 108 216 2 7 0 6 7 348 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 14 of 15 ) ) STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 725 - ALT AGCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL TOTAL FOR: ALT AGCY 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 6 6 2 10 6 6 8 0 4 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 22 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2 5 2 28 38 12 767 -ACC LP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL TOTAL FOR: ACC LP 11 12 GRAND TOTAL:\n,,. /vr-c... Al ... /~''/ 0 0 0 6 10 0 22 16 52 66 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 92 8 4 0 0 /\n7.,\n1.. 237 211 9110 903-1 775 867 D O ,.,\nJ./!j D ,\nl.. f o _\n).\n) l, 3 ~ ,I.\n)..,, 48 r, C\u0026gt; 35 0 I 0 4 7 7 10 /7 3151 3226 .). ~c, ::\n,8 _,..:, 18 46 137 201 26,691 ~5 154, ~ --r\noP/ --n.,/ -1'5 ~I~/ ~l,170 ~ I I \u0026gt;5'7\n)3 %lo 3 ~1 ~/~{.,\nI?\n991 -- . -- .... . .. ----------------~ --- --------- - LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 Page 15 of 15 ) ) /e,\"r-..J rfl.,oolL- ,-/,~ dt?c.. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2006 ENROLLMENT BY GRADE REPORT WITHOUT METRO FINAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 02 0 - 0 e:\u0026gt; I 5 24 696 740 65 100 0 0 -  2 6 251 277 -/~ 2176 - f O O O O  I - +' - ! 674 69 67 4 3 273 247 2095 ----,:\n--.,_,~---,--9--\u0026amp;--o--19--._,_, ---3------s~--\u0026gt; ..,c../jj= 03 23 13 611 708 89 62 9 3 247 246 -c\u0026gt;-o....,,__~-+-, -.~5,\n__-~G~--,'- 0 0 .\n2 .3 04 17 23 680 717 65 68 8 3 225 245 ~ t: ~ -2r: e\u0026gt; e:i 2Z' 05 18 22 612 2011 2051 -,,v -- ---0- -----~o~-=-'\nJ---e)-_--J.--)-_------ ,~-\n-~ 1-- ~\n~ ~ ~ 1 07 12 K p GRAND TOTAL: ~o\"s1 *\u0026lt; J,'1\"1 ~(.)0 'B/11() l\"la91 II 12 0 26 D 15 0 678 D 726 0 61 99 2 3 I 274 280 25 12 456 432 45 51 237 _0 , 211 9110 0 . ,...\nt:\u0026gt; 'A 9C7 775 867 r ._\nt. -I -...1 77\"/ 89.J3 ':?~3 3,~~5 h 1'19 111~~ ~9.Y~ t,~01 48 ~ 0 4 167 184 35 3151 3226 0 -:) -\nJ -I . . ~ a1~J 1379 26,691 ~-:5 -16(,. '-===-- ~t.. '3/70 ~1 o:/1i t,, l,\n)7-/ /~ 7\n24,. -3/\n\u0026gt;9 ~~1-5 -1~:3 t~~9 81_\ni, I~. 7-'II ~, /tp(p c:?l,17CJ (, (,?. 11/. ti?. 70~ -rf7, I \u0026amp;\nr,7. 1f - ,i::J oom ~p. -I- -p,rp,,. 1)../ 0 -=jjr-/ ~ f\" ,. ~ ,,-n,p II' .,, Ji -a-\"\" ' COMr.UTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 23, 2006 { + Page I of/I - /- j ~ ,... J -fh- t\u0026gt;,J-. --\ns,\n:. .., j\"\"' (J~r, \"\"' ' o \"',~-1 o w Ir , -, -,-\n/-:, 1 N -11, o , , /. d~u SCHOOL CAPACITIES - 2006-2007 HIGH SCHOOL CAPACITY CENTRAL 2276 J.A. FAIR 1200 HALL 1754 MCCLELLAN 1440 PARKVIEW 1200 Subtotal 7870 MIDDLE CLOVERDALE 885 DUNBAR 888 FOREST HEIGHTS 780 HENDERSON 960 MABELVALE 681 MANN 900 PULASKI HEIGHTS 858 SOUTHWEST 912 Subtotal 6864 ELEMENTARY BALE 488 BASELINE 360 BOOKER 645 BRADY 528 CARVER 556 CHICOT 509 -- 'VV DODD 271 FAIR PARK ECC 304 FOREST PARK 400 FRANKLIN 532 FULBRIGHT 565 GEYER SPRINGS 358 GIBBS 472 JEFFERSON 471 KING 715 MABELVALE 443 MCDERMOTT 453 MEADOW CLIFF 358 OTTERCREEK 537 PULASKI HEIGHTS 350 ROCKEFELLER 481 ROMINE 507 STEPHENS 646 TERRY 575 WAKEFIELD 482 WASHINGTON 836 WATSON 591 WESTERN HILLS 320\nI WILLIAMS 585 WILSON 340 WOODRUFF 314 i Subtotal Elam. 15481 I Subtotal Mid. 6864 Subtotal H.S. 7870 Grand Total 30215 11/21/2006 Officeo f DesegregationM onitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Dr. Brenda Bowles, Executive Director for Equity and Pupil Services Pulaski County Special School District Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent North Little Rock School District Dr. Linda Watson, Director of Student Services Little Rock School District From: Horace Smith \u0026amp; Polly Ramer Date: October 16, 2006 Re: October 1 Enrollment Count We are in the process of preparing our annual enrollment and racial balance report. Please forward to our office the official October 1 enrollment count which each district submits to the ADE as soon as it is available. Also please include the building capacities for 2006-07. You may email this information to paramer@ asit/.):tle IMMo r fax it to 371-0100. ~/\"fl  ,.., If the information will not be available before the end of this month, please notify us immediately. Thanks. ~ / ,1J ol I,- J I ~ 9.c ,t I, 1'11 l,?,t.,,o 8/30/2006 SECONDARY SCHOOLS Aloha Academv* Fuller Middle / Jax Middle Bovs Jax Middle Girts Jax HiQh MaumelleM iddle Mills Hiah North Pulaski Hiah Northwood Mid Oak Grave Jr/Sr RobinsonM id RobinsonH ioh Svlvan Hills Mid Sylvan Hills High Total secondary: SECONDARY SCHOOLS Alpha Academy FullerM iddle Jax Middle Boys Jax Middle Girts Jax High Maumelle Middle Mills High North Pulaski High Northwood Mid Oak Grove Jr/Sr Robinson Mid Robinson High Sytvan Hills Mid Sylvan Hills High Total Secondary: Class Capacity (Revised) 200 l 1360 960 990 1360 1130 1050 1030 ' 1130 10 no 1080 1120 12,210 Class capacity {RltVlsed) 200 1360 980 990 1360 1130 1050 1030 1130 10 no 1080 1120 12,210 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Headcourt, 8th Dav Enrolment AL11ust 30, 2006 SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH TOTAL SS:ON0ARY Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 0 0 0 0 66 57 70 61 66 65 63 63 67 59 50 47 219 181 183 171 78 0 62 0 79 0 57 0 78 0 80 0 235 0 199 0 0 112 0 89 0 62 0 52 0 n 0 60 0 251 0 201 96 76 74 72 65 63 79 88 59 51 71 65 47 58 62 58 287 246 286 279 46 38 79 62 30 42 64 74 38 50 55 58 114 130 198 194 106 120 83 76 86 105 67 58 53 65 44 47 71 74 37 50 316 364 231 231 53 54 64 82 47 38 66 81 44 40 53 73 38 32 48 55 182 164 271 291 41 31 93 55 40 32 58 61 45 52 69 78 126 115 220 194 30 13 55 38 25 22 50 25 27 14 33 30 17 9 31 18 99 58 169 111 23 27 36 40 18 19 45 30 22 15 46 23 63 61 127 93 27 34 33 54 43 38 42 31 46 301 50 37 26 311 47 44 142 133 172 166 59 42 49 66 41 40 60 70 58 51 52 62 I 156 133 161 198 62 55 85 66 521 671 751 66 41 43 681 60 48 44 59 60 203 209 287 252 313 307 369 373 274 260 347 350 326 304 352 328 3741 3521 4141 388 3381 3331 3991 347 2701 2431 3191 312 2471 2461 264 283 2142 2045 2504 2381 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Headcount, 8th Dav Enrolment A1.11ust 30, 2006 SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH ELEVENTH TWELFTH TOTAL SECONDARY Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk NB TOT Blk % Non-Blac % TOTAL 123 131 254 131 126 257 146 97 243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 53% 354 47% 754 78 62 140 79 57 136 76 80 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 235 54% 199 46% 434 112 89 201 62 52 114 n 60 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 56% 201 44% 452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 146 318 146 165 313 110 136 248 103 118 221 533 49% 565 51% 1098 64 141 225 72 138 210 88 113 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244 38% 392 62% 636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 226 159 385 191 125 316 118 91 209 145 87 232 680 60% 462 40% 1142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 166 273 65 167 252 64 126 210 70 103 173 346 38% 562 62% 908 72 148 220 72 119 191 97 147 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241 37% 414 63% 655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 93 136 47 75 122 41 63 104 26 49 75 157 36% 280 64% 437 50 76 126 37 75 112 37 69 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 36% 220 64% 344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 67 148 81 73 154 76 87 163 57 91 146 275 45% 338 55% 613 101 115 216 81 130 211 107 114 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 45% 359 55% 648 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 151 268 119 141 260 64 128 212 92 119 211 412 43% 539 57% 951 620 762 1362 534 697 1231 630 680 1310 726 802 1528 671 746 1417 513 631 1144 493 567 1060 4,,.7 46 4,885 54% 9,072 Page 3 of 4 RECEIVED OCT1 9 2006 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING Notes: , Academy is reflected in the school of record's database and not induded as a sepp-e enrollment line. Pre-K counts are not included by the state for purposes of fiscal allocation. Office of Educational Accountability 813012006 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Adkins Arnold Dr Baker Bates Bavou Mete Cato Clinton Coll Sta Crvstal Hill Ouoree Harris Jax Elem Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood S11lvanH ills Tavlor Tolleson Total Elem: RECEIVED OCT1 g 2006 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTINOINTO RING Class PRE-K KINDERGARTEN Capacity Black Non-Black Black Non-Black JRevised) M F M F M F M F 526 34 31 15 31 453 5 4 14 9 5 4 22 17 428 0 0 0 0 6 8 22 27 863 11 9 7 7 30 17 26 19 697 1 0 6 10 3 1 37 31 800 4 6 9 11 10 11 17 15 840 16 16 22 19 26 31 35 32 439 0 0 0 0 13 8 15 4 870 11 10 8 8 27 25 37 32 498 0 0 0 0 16 10 18 18 906 13 19 2 1 22 19 5 1 850 0 0 0 0 29 23 20 14 711 4 15 11 9 13 10 19 14 372 0 0 0 0 7 1 25 25 626 12 8 19 22 2 3 20 18 553 6 6 15 13 14 8 26 31 554 0 0 0 0 11 4 33 29 6n 0 0 0 0 16 26 17 17 544 1 3 9 6 12 4 18 20 294 4 2 7 7 2 3 8 11 561 1 6 5 7 14 13 17 22 608 7 4 3 2 15 12 24 14 566 0 0 0 0 23 19 20 8 561 1 3 7 9 5 9 30 14 14795 131 142 159 171 321 289 511 433 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Headcount, 8th Day Enrolment ALllUSt 30, 2006 FIRST Second Third Fourth Fifth Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 9 2 12 16 12 4 15 13 10 3 13 5 10 9 6 5 4 7 11 6 7 9 33 25 7 9 41 23 3 10 39 31 11 5 21 33 8 9 20 22 21 15 19 20 23 15 19 21 22 13 24 19 24 21 11 20 13 18 23 22 2 2 32 29 2 0 30 32 0 1 29 30 0 0 41 26 2 2 37 29 10 12 26 14 7 7 22 21 12 11 22 8 8 7 15 19 9 9 18 20 24 40 32 19 26 31 24 26 26 27 24 19 24 30 23 22 18 20 15 22 14 11 6 2 9 10 1 3 14 13 17 14 11 15 18 8 10 7 21 14 20 35 47 42 29 33 41 37 30 28 38 25 32 30 36 25 29 30 25 33 11 11 22 19 11 9 17 13 10 11 13 13 11 14 16 16 10 8 10 9 26 8 6 9 10 13 3 7 13 24 3 6 20 19 5 2 20 14 5 6 30 28 16 23 33 21 22 20 33 24 20 15 33 25 28 15 39 16 25 9 9 9 16 19 9 9 12 12 10 14 12 10 10 13 13 11 8 13 9 8 7 6 29 19 7 8 27 14 5 7 15 18 6 6 23 19 3 8 18 15 6 3 21 20 5 3 15 17 4 4 22 8 2 6 9 6 5 3 12 10 17 11 29 33 11 10 21 24 7 9 23 22 13 15 26 14 7 18 21 25 16 8 37 30 14 12 33 22 9 5 26 29 11 10 29 28 13 11 20 33 21 22 15 19 17 16 11 24 17 13 15 23 21 15 16 12 14 13 12 19 6 5 15 25 8 4 20 22 2 10 12 21 9 9 18 23 10 7 18 18 2 2 13 12 3 5 10 7 1 2 7 7 3 4 4 6 4 4 5 4 11 16 23 18 17 16 20 23 11 15 30 18 18 7 13 11 20 8 17 26 14 4 19 20 12 8 17 17 9 22 17 20 8 10 15 18 13 20 15 21 24 13 23 17 22 23 10 20 22 26 13 15 16 12 16 11 23 21 10 12 12 9 24 17 12 8 12 11 9 5 15 11 8 10 19 10 7 5 13 13 319 281 515 467 306 272 443 429 279 297 449 387 309 292 421 358 289 271 380 396 Notes: 1 Academy is reflected in the school of record's database and not induded as a ser---te enrollment line. Pre-K counts are not included by the state for purposes of fiscal allocation. Page 1 of4 Sixth Total Elementarv Black Non-Black Black Non-Black M F M F M F M F 34 31 15 31 55 33 95 71 42 50 176 161 144 108 129 128 10 6 212 187 60 63 129 108 160 195 175 159 71 64 78 45 178 191 232 202 69 63 96 88 124 116 29 32 197 137 131 96 63 83 92 83 35 34 137 110 36 30 118 101 75 77 161 162 74 50 178 171 106 105 86 114 48 42 108 135 19 22 54 54 92 81 125 125 78 80 110 110 130 114 92 83 54 49 120 85 0 0 0 0 1,954 1,824 2,878 2,641 Office of Educational Accountability LEA: 6002050 PAGE: 1 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOYE LEMENTARYSC HOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ BLACK HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M I F I M I F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 521 41 121 211 131 11 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 531 51 121 211 Bl 41 31 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 2 ENROLLI 5 5 I B I B I 16 I 1 7 I 2 I 4 I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 70 I 9 I 71 26 I 27 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 581 111 91 171 151 21 31 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 471 101 61 171 111 21 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3351 471 541 1181 911 121 111 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002050 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 2 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOYE LEMENTARYSC HOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M I F I M BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F I M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 335 I 4 7 I 54 I 118 I 911 12 I 11 I 2 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Oi 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002050 PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBT Y SCHOOL PAGE: 1 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOYE LEMENTARYSC HOOL !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M I F BLACK M F SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 201 01 21 61 61 11 51 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /C3 LEA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 3 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BELWOODE LEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M I F I M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC I PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 291 61 01 151 71 01 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 22 I 5 I OI 5 I 121 0 I OI O I OI O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 391 51 21 191 121 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Oj 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 331 41 31 151 101 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 251 21 31 101 101 01 01 01 Oj 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 24 I 11 11 7 I 151 0 I OI OI O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI OI OI O I OI OI O I OI OI O I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Oj 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1 72 I 23 I 9 I 711 66 I 2 I OI 1 I O I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BELWOODE LEMENTARYSC HOOL PAGE: 4 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M BLACK I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 Oj 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1 72 I 231 91 711 661 21 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ******************************************************************************** LEA: 6002054 PAGE: 5 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYSC HOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RON: 10/16/2006 12:34 I GRADEi I TOTALI WHITE M I F I M BLACK F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F I M F M I F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 541 41 21 251 181 31 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 681 21 01 351 271 11 31 OJ 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 571 21 41 201 281 11 21 01 Oj 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 551 01 01 281 251 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 53 I 2 I 1 I 24 I 24 I 0 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 63 I 2 I 11 28 I 31 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 11 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3511 12 I 8 I 161 I 153 I 71 10 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 6 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYSC HOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M I F BLACK M ASIAN/ I AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F I M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI O I O I O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 DI 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3511 121 81 1611 1531 71 101 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBT Y SCHOOL PAGE: 2 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYSC HOOL !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M I F BLACK M I F SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M I F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 581 11 31 221 271 01 51 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 7 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: CRESTWOODEL EMENTARYSC HOOL !GRADEi I TOTALI WHITE M F I M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M I F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 691 241 331 71 41 01 01 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 751 331 291 41 Bl 01 01 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 161 71 91 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 69 I 25 I 23 I 8 I 12 I 1 I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 1 I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 481 181 161 51 Bi 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 561 241 231 Si 31 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I 11 0 I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 701 291 261 71 81 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 OJ 01 OJ 01 01 OJ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 3871 153! 1501 361 431 31 01 01 01 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 191 BJ 111 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: CRESTWOODEL EMENTARYSC HOOL PAGE: 8 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 I GRADEi I TOTALI I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ WHITE M BLACK HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I OI O I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3871 1531 1501 361 431 31 01 01 01 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 191 81 111 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ******************************************************************************** s LEA: 6002056 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 9 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLJALASKAN NTV M I F M I F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 381 41 21 131 181 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 281 2 I OI 151 10 I O I 11 0 I OI O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI OJ OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 311 41 31 91 151 01 01 OJ OJ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 221 31 21 91 81 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 231 21 21 101 91 OJ OJ 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 421 71 11 201 141 OJ 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ OJ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 OJ OJ OJ OJ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ OJ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 OJ 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1841 221 101 761 741 01 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002056 PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 10 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYSC HOOL JGRADEI JTOTALI WHITE M BLACK F M F I ASIAN/ JAM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLJ OJ 01 OJ OJ 01 OJ OJ 01 01 OJ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLJ OJ OJ OJ 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 OJ OJ 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 OJ OJ OJ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI OJ OJ 01 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I OJ 01 01 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 01 01 OJ ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1841 221 101 761 741 OJ 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I OJ OJ 01 01 01 OJ OJ OJ OJ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002056 COUNTY: PULASKI PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBTY SCHOOL PAGE: 3 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARSYC HOOL SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I GRADEi I TOTALI WHITE BLACK I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLJALASKAN NTV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M F M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 201 21 01 91 91 01 OJ 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** LEA: 6002057 PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 11 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARSYC HOOL !GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 711 271 201 111 101 11 01 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 1011 291 381 111 161 01 DI 01 71 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 231 71 131 01 01 01 01 DI 31 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 951 34 I 37 I 12 I 10 I 11 0 I 11 0 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 4 I 2 I 2 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 96 I 37 I 34 I 7 I 15 I 11 11 11 0 I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 921 321 281 151 121 21 11 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 31 21 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 DI 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 891 321 301 61 161 21 11 01 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 41 21 21 DI DI DI 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 DI 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI 01 DI 01 DI DI DI 01 01 01 DI 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 DI 01 DI 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5441 1911 1871 621 791 71 31 Si 101 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI 351 141 181 DI 01 01 01 01 31 DI 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002057 PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYSC HOOL PAGE: 12 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE BLACK I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5441 1911 1871 621 791 71 31 51 101 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 351 141 181 01 01 01 01 01 31 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEI S 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ******************************************************************************** ii LEA: 6002058 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOOEDL EMENTARYSC HOOL PAGE: 13 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F M I F I M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 571 201 151 151 51 01 11 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 741 231 291 111 81 11 11 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 14 I 5 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 731 161 331 91 121 11 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 741 171 331 71 121 11 21 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 2 I 4 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 831 261 291 121 111 21 11 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 68 I 20 I 20 I 14 I 111 0 I 3 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4291 1221 1591 681 591 51 101 51 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 231 91 141 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002058 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 14 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOOEDL EMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4291 1221 1591 681 591 Si 101 51 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 231 91 141 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 17 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RON: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCHD RIVE ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 481 41 21 211 201 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 521 41 31 251 191 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 551 21 21 231 281 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 551 51 21 301 181 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 5 6 I 2 I 1 I 2 8 I 2 4 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL[ 521 21 31 231 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICEI 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 318 I 191 131 150 I 133 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-~---+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 18 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCHD RIVE ELEMENTARYSC HOOL !GRADEi !TOTAL! BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ WHITE HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKANN TV M F M F I M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 DI 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI O I OI OI O I OI OI O I OI OI O I O ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I O I 0 I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI O I OI 0 I O I 0 I OI 0 I 0 I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I OI OI O I OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 0i 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 318 I 19 I 13 I 150 I 133 I 11 2 I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBTY SCHOOL PAGE: 4 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCHD RIVE ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M F BLACK M F SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M I F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 411 4 I 1 I 16 I 19 I 1 I OI O I OI OI 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002061 PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 19 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARSYC HOOL I GRADEi I TOTALI WHITE M F I M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 281 01 01 121 141 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 251 01 21 131 101 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 331 4 I OI 14 I 14 I OI 11 0 I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 341 11 01 171 131 21 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 301 11 11 161 111 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 DI 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 431 41 11 121 251 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 7 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1931  101 41 841 871 51 21 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01  01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002061 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYSC HOOL PAGE: 20 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 I GRADE! I TOTAL! WHITE M F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 J 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I OI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- s S ENROLLI O I OI O I 0 I OI O I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 1931 101 41 84! 871 51 21 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 0 I OI O I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I OI 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 193 1-/ LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBTY SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 21 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI M WHITE BLACK F I M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 721 71 71 201 231 81 61 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 751 61 61 281 191 91 71 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 67 I 8 I 6 I 23 I 14 I 7 I 8 I OI OI OI 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 701 51 61 171 221 131 71 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 731 41 41 301 231 31 91 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 541 71 41 211 151 51 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4111 371 331 1391 1161 451 391 11 01 01 1 ------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-.---+ ----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 22 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I OI OI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI O I O I OI O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4111 371 331 1391 1161 451 391 11 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBT Y SCHOOL PAGE: 5 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M F BLACK M F SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M I F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 40 I 3 I 1 I 11 I 12 I 5 I 8 I OI O I OI 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002064 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 23 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M I F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLJALASKAN NTV M F M F M I F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 541 91 111 171 Bi 41 51 OJ 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 62 I 14 I 10 I 15 I 13 I 3 I 7 I OI OI O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 571 131 101 151 111 41 41 OJ 01 OJ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I OJ 01 01 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 401 71 BJ 71 131 31 21 OJ OJ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 441 91 BJ 121 101 21 31 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLLI 4 9 I 13 I 9 I 8 I 10 I 7 I 2 I OI OI O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I OJ 01 OJ 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! OJ 01 01 01 01 01 OJ OJ OJ OJ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 OJ OJ OJ 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 7 ENROLLI OI OI O I OI OI OI O I O I OI O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3061 651 561 741 651 231 231 01 OJ OJ 0 ------+-----+-----+-.---+.----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 11 OJ 11 01 01 OJ 01 01 OJ OJ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002064 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARYSC HOOL PAGE: 24 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----~ ----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3061 651 561 741 651 231 231 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 0 I OI O I O I OI O I 0 I OI 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -v ?. LEA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 25 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M F I M BLACK F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F I M F M I F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 591 71 41 231 201 11 21 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 711 71 91 301 221 11 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 67 I 7 I 9 I 27 I 20 I O I 21 0 I 2 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 72 I 8 I 51 19 I 33 I 31 3 I 11 0 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 581 131 71 20 I 131 11 4 I OI O I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLLI 4 4 I 8 I 7 I 10 I 16 I 1 I 2 I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-.---+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3711 501 411 1291 1241 71 151 31 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+- .---+ .----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOB ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 26 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYSC HOOL I GRADEi I TOTALI WHITE M F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F I M F I M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI O I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 3711 501 411 1291 1241 71 151 31 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBTY SCHOOL PAGE: 6 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARSYC HOOL I GRADEi ITOTALI WHITE M F BLACK M F SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 401 41 71 111 141 11 21 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002067 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: REDWOOD PRE-SCHOOL PAGE: 27 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M I F BLACK M ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F I M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 Di 01 01 01 01 01 Di 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Di 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! Di 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Di 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 Di 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+--- -+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+--.---+ .----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002067 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: REDWOODPR E-SCHOOL PAGE: 28 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 !GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M BLACK I ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV F M F I M I F M F M I F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I DI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I D ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I DI 0 I DI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 01 01 Di 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Di 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 0 I OI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 0 I 0 I OI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I OI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I OI 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 DI 01 DI 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- LEA: 6002067 COUNTY: PULASKI PRESCHOOLE NROLLMENBT Y SCHOOL PAGE: 7 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: REDWOODPR E-SCHOOL I GRADEi !TOTAL! WHITE M F BLACK M I F SIS: rpt455 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:35 ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M I F M F I M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 2461 171 91 911 1161 101 31 01 Di 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- Po LEA: 6002069 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 29 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2006 RUN: 10/16/2006 12:34 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. SCHOOL I GRADEi I TOTALI WHITE M I F I M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M I F I M F I M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 591 11 01 271 311 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 661 01 11 251 391 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 561 01 01 251 301 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 4 9 I 11 11 28 I 191 0 I OI OI O I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 381 01 01 241 14I 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 431 11 01 191 231 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI O I OI O I OI OI O I O I OI O I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_444","title":"Evaluation Report: Timeline","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Evaluation Report: Timeline"],"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/444"],"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\nPage 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:50 PM Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nHELLER@fec.net Subject: timeline for evaluation reports As you know three of the draft evaluation reports were submitted yesterday to the court. Final drafts are to be submitted by November 17. I need your assistance to define a timeline for Board members to review the draft and provide feedback to evaluators so they can produce final drafts for submission to the court on Nov. 17. Based on feedback from board members attending last weeks board meeting they seem to want hard copies of lengthy reports. Therefore, I am printing copies of the reports this afternoon and tomorrow and will bring enough copies to Beverly tomorrow for Board members. I will also send copies of each report to Cabinet members via interdistrict mail as soon as they are printed. I need your assistance to complete the timeline below, see number 4: 1. Copies of draft reports delivered to evaluation team members, Cabinet and Board members as soon as possible, or by Friday. 2. Evaluation teams will meet at the IRC (with evaluators on conference call) to give feedback on October 25 (Read 180 and 21 Century) and October 30 (A+). 3. Cabinet members to provide feedback by or during October 30*^ Cabinet meeting. 4. Board members to provide feedback on ??? Questions-Will a special board meeting be called so board members can provide feedback before November O? Or, will board members provide feedback on November 9 (NOTE this would only leave 1 week for evaluators to edit and finalize the reports before they are due to the Court and I am not sure this is enough time.) Also,do you want the evaluators to be invited to present their reports to board members or answer questions? Thanks for assisting. 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Notes of discussion about the second annual survey for the monitoring report October 2, 2006 Attending: Mr. Hugh Hattabaugh, Dr. Olivine Roberts, Mr. Joe Mittiga, Dr. Karen DeJamette, Ms. Maurecia Robinson, Dr. Ed Williams, and Mr. Jim Wohlleb Olivine summoned Jim and Karen to the administration building for a conference, and Karen invited Ed and Maurecia. PRE Department members thought it would be about the authority of PRE to determine what it assesses. Instead, Dr. Roberts led discussion about this years survey of teachers, parents, and students for the monitoring report. Mention of on-line surveys by Education for the Future (EFF), ready for administration now, was met by Mr. Hattabaughs declaration that any services by outside organizations require RFPs. Dr. DeJarnette noted that EFF is so busy it does not consider RFPs. In her opinion, LRSD is turning away from the best methods and services and instead using its own unvalidated measures. Given this, she prefers that Mr. Mittigas office rather than PRE conduct the survey for the monitoring report. All agreed on a more attractive survey instrument than last years and distribution by some means other than USPS. Showing high priority to the survey is a way to increase participation. For ES parents, teachers can ask them to answer questionnaires at the start of conferences with teachers. This might not work so well with parents of middle \u0026amp; high school students. There was agreement by both Dr. Roberts and Mr. Mittiga that last years questions were ambiguous. They also endorsed stakeholder participation in the design. Martha Hill was mentioned as a good participant. Afterwards, Mr. Wohlleb sent copies of the four EFF questionnaires to Mr. Mittiga, and he sent around a copy of the survey he designed with UALR but did not administer due to lack of funds. Comments sent with the EFF documents noted the intended application of them in PREs assessment of the teacher performance challenge as step 2 evidence.Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine ()(h'i.ne 'Rolnrts, TiCl). ..Associate Super mt eiutent, Tducat tonal Services fittie Rock ScHool 'Dblriti 300\n.s'. 'Puluslii St. Little Rock, S\\R 72206 Jfione: soi.447.ss^o fa.v: 501.4473321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM Roberts, Olivine: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE\nMr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Oliyine 'Roberts, 'i'lL'D. SAssociale Superinleyhleiit, TdiK ulloiiul Services Lit lie 'R/)ck School 'Jlistrict _so()i S. 'PuUisHi St. Little Ri)ck, .AR 72200 Phone: 501.447.3320 fax: 501-447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:18 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga. Joseph Dejarnette. Karen\nRobinson. Maurecia\nWilliams. Ed\nParadis. Darral Subject: RE: climate survey The group agreed to use a locally developed instrument. 06VIne Hofierly, Id.'l). .'Associate Supennlendent, Educational Services Eittle 'Jiock .School 'District 3001 S. '.Pulaski St. Tittle 'Hack, yX'H 7.. J^TOiie: 51)1.44/ .-5 2(i(i '20 Tax: 501.44^.5521 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb. I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olh'ine 'Roherts, 'EcL'D. .Associate Superhdeiulen.t, 'Educationa.l Services Eittte 'Rock School 'DistricI 3001 S. 'Eutaski St. Eittte 'Rock, .A'R. 7'2206 'Phone: 501.447- '33'2o 'Fax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true, Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock. AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM Wohlleb, Jim\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim, I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine 'Roberts, id.J). .'Associate Superintendent, Lducalionai Services Little Rocfi SeboolDistrict 30111 S. Puiasbi SI. Little 'Rock. LVR 72206 'Rhone: so 1.447.3320 Lax: 501.447.'3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, I'll correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine OLivine Roberts, Rd/D. .'Associate Superintendent, 'Rdiicational Services Little .Scfiooi''District 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 S. 'Pulaski St. PitlCe 'Rocd, .:AR ^2206 Th m ic\u0026gt;: 501.447.33^ \u0026lt; \u0026gt; fax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb. Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) ji m. wohl leb@ Irsd. org 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Roberts, Olivine Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:07 PM Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Karen, you are right. That is why it was a part of the discussion. Olivine 'Rolwrls, I'cl.l). .'Associate Superinienclint. 'Lducat ional Service.^ fill Ie Jioik Scliool'Distcicl sooz S. J'ul'aski SI. fit tie 'Rock. fXR ~2^(\u0026gt;6 'Rhone: sc)i.447..s:-i2() lux: s(.it.447cfS'2i From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:43 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Jim. I understood there were two purposes for the meeting. See the following email I received from Dr. Roberts on Friday September 29*^ at 9:29a.m: Let's meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine RoRerLs, fd.'D. .'Associate Superintendent, 'f ducal ional Services fit tie 'Rock School District sooi S. 'Rulaski St. fit lie 'Rock, .'A'R -2206 Rli 01 le: 501.44/.3420 J'ax: 501.447.34'21 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: climate survey Certainly, Ill correct my notes. They are silent on the matter of not proceeding with the survey prepared by EFF. Do you recall whether it was resolved during that discussion? Thanks. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:01 PM 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 To: Wohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: RE: Mr. Wohlleb, I do not know what was told to the PRE staff regarding the purpose of the meeting, but my sole intended purpose was to discuss the monitoring report. Please correct the minutes to reflect that. Thank you. Olivine Olivhie 'IWberl.'!, Td. J). .'/Xssoeiale Superinlendeiil, Tducaliorml Services U.t(e 'Ruck Sebool 'DLslrix I 30(11 S. 'Ililasl^i SI. RillLe 'Rock, .'A'R 72206 'Rhone: 301.447.3320 fax: 501.447.3321 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE won't go forward with the climate\" survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If that's true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD won't follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jimw0hlleb@lrsd.9rg 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Monday, October 16, 2006 7:11 PM Wohlleb, Jim Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral\nRoberts, Olivine\nMittiga, Joseph Subject: I stated that a RFP needed to be processed through LRSD Procurement, if we proceed with EFF. It was stated that EFF is to busy to be subjected to the RFP process. If a RFP for the survey instrument and services is not processed, your conclusion is correct. Sincerely, Hugh E. Hattabaugh, Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72210 (W) 501-447-1009 (C) 501-580-6815 (FAX) 501-447-1159 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM To: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\nParadis, Darral Subject: Mr. Hattabaugh \u0026amp; Dr. Roberts, My conclusion from our discussion October 2 was that PRE wont go forward with the climate survey designed for LRSD by EFF. Instead, there will be another survey for the monitoring report. If thats true. Id like to inform EFF that LRSD wont follow through with a contract for the survey. Was my conclusion correct? Attached are my notes from the meeting. Thanks very much. Jim Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Dept Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 501/447-3381 (office voice) 501/447-7609 (office fax) 501/680-9244 (mobile) jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From\nSent: To: Cc: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday, October 17. 2006 2:35 PM Hattabaugh, Hugh\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine Wohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: superintendent's report PRE will attend the meeting about the Superintendents monitoring report on Thursday afternoon. However I will not be bringing a detailed budget to the meeting. I cannot create such until I have the details of the project. At this time, I am unclear on the number of questionnaires, cover letters, and how they will be administered. Will all questionnaires be administered by hard copy? Or, will any surveys be mailed? If questionnaires will be administered to all parents (26,000), most students (3'^^ -12*^ would be about 20,000), all teachers (2000) and all community partners (200) then the printing part of this project will likely be large enough to go through the bidding process. We are talking about almost 50,000 questionnaires. And, I am assuming you will want cover letters to go with each questionnaires so that means about 100,000 total pages printed. Last year only 12,000 pages (questionnaires and letters) were printed. If you are planning to include open response items on each questionnaire then there will be need to be discussion about who will transcribe the written comments, likely a group of consultants will need to do this. Last year Metros print shop printed the questionnaires and many parents, staff and students complained that the forms were too hard to read, bubbles printed so lightly they could not see which bubble to fill in. The questionnaires may need to be in two colors (not just black and white) so they are more easily readable. For example, bubbles can be printed in light blue for more easy reading and scanning. Also, last year Metro printed many unusable/unscannable questionnaires, their registration on printing was off. These are just some of the points to be discussed before a budget can be detailed. As you know PRE worked with Dr. Bernhardt last year to draft questionnaires. However, Dr. Bernhardts group does not recommend administering any hard copy questionnaires. They do however have an online system that will provide questionnaires to respondents, quantify the responses as they are collected, and provide a report at any time during or after administration. The cost for online administration of parent, student and staff questionnaires to all LRSD is 45,000 total (about 900 per school site). 10/17/2006Page 1 of 123 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach\nSubject\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Maicolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt; Monday. October 16, 2006 10:17 PM image002.jpg\nimage004.png\nimage006.png\nimageOOS.png\nimageOIO.png\nimage012.png\nimage014.png\nimageOIO.png\nimageOlS.png\nimage020.png\nimage022.png\nimage024.png\nimage026.png\nimage028.png\nimageOSO.png\nimage032.png\nimage034.png\nimage036.png\nimage038.png\nimage040.png\nimage042.emz\nimage043.pcz\nimage045.wmz\nimage046.pcz\nimage047.wmz\nimage048.pcz\noiedata.mso RI 80_Draft_Final_Report_ Hi margie, Let me know if this works. Maurecia CREP Little Rock School District (.'enter for Research in Edneational Policy Read 180 Evaluation rhe IJnivcTsity of Memphis 525 Browning Hall Memphis, rennes.sce .58152 Foil f ret: l-8h6-670-6147 DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 123 CREP CenttT for Rescartb in Educational Policy Hie University ofMempliis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, I cnnessee 38152 Toll Free: 1-866-670-6147 Little Rock School District Read 180 Evaluation DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT October 2006 Clif Mims, Ph. D. Deborah L. Lowther, Ph.D. J. Daniel Strahl, M.S. Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University 10/17/2006Page 3 of 123 READ 180 Little Rock School District (LRSD) Draft Executive Summary This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2005-2006 READ 180 program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold: 1) to assess the effects of READ 180 on improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students, 2) to examine READ 180 implementation processes and practices, and 3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and district and school personnel involved with READ 180 regarding strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the program. Research Questions Primary Evaluation Question  Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality and level of implementation of READ 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-2006?  What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?  What are the perceptions of READ 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses?  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of students participating in READ 180 regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Evaluation Design and Measures Participants. LRSD identified 5 middle schools and 5 high schools to participate in the evaluation. Collectively, the evaluation participants included approximately 1000 Read 180 students and 23 Read 180 teachers. Design. The evaluation utilized a mixed-method design. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers. The researchers observed classrooms, administered surveys for teachers, students and parents, conducted teacher and student focus groups, and interviewed school principals. Instrumentation. Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: direct classroom observations, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and assessment of student academic achievement. Following are descriptions of the assessment instruments.  Direct Classroom Observations. Three instruments were used to collect observation data\n1) School Observation Measure - used to record the use or nonuse of 24 target strategies\n2) READ 180 Quality Assessment - used to document READ 180 implementation practices\n3) READ 180 Survey of Computer Use - used to record 10/17/2006Page 4 of 123 student use of READ 180 software.  Surveys. Four surveys were administered to the following groups to collect perceptions of the READ 180 program: 1) Read 180 Teachers\n2) Non-RAD 180 Teachers\n3) READ 180 Students\nand 4) READ 180 Parents  Focus Groups. READ 180 teacher and student focus groups were conducted to solicit impressions about READ 180.  Principal Interview. The interview focused on principal impressions of Read 180 implementation, how it meets the learning needs of African-American students, and how READ 180 could be improved.  Student Achievement. ITBS Total Reading NCE from 2005 was used as a student matching variable and pretest covariate in all analyses. ITBS Vocabulary, Comprehension, Total Reading, and Revised Writing NCE scores from 2006 were employed as outcome variables, as were 2006 Literacy Scale Scores and Proficiency Levels from the Arkansas Benchmark examinations. Procedure and Data Sources All data were collected during the spring of 2006 by external researchers. Direct observations were conducted in 17 randomly selected READ 180 classrooms across all 10 schools participating in this evaluation study. These observations each covered a full (90- minute) class period. Seventeen teachers participated in focus groups at seven randomly selected schools, 38 students participated in focus groups at eight randomly selected schools, and all 10 principals were interviewed. Surveys were administered to all Read 180 students, teachers, and parents and yielded the following: students n = 579\nteachers n = 269\nparents n = 164. Results Direct Observation School Observation Measure. Observation results from 17 Read 180 classrooms, revealed that teachers most frequently used direct instruction, higher level questioning, and acted as a coach, or facilitator. Students were most frequently engaged in reading, writing, or student discussion. Students were observed using computers to complete Read 180 activities in 94.1% of the observations. Overall, the observers reported that the Read 180 classes were always highly focused on learning and that the students were highly engaged all or nearly all of the time (76.5% extensively\n23.5% frequently). Read 180 Quality Assessment. There was a low occurrence of teachers utilizing fluency, vocabulary, text comprehension, or writing strategies recommended by Read 180. However, the learning environments were observed to be conducive to cooperative interactions, effective classroom management, and active teacher monitoring, while slightly less were found to be conducive for Read 180 rotation. Only 62% substantially adhered to the recommended 90-minute cycle. Read 180 Survey of Computer Use. The observed classes were comprised of 212 African American and 19 non-African American students. Most classrooms had 8-10 up-to- date computers. Students used Read 180 software in 15 of the 17 classes and primarily worked on reading comprehension, vocabulary, and spelling activities. All African-American students demonstrated a high level of attention, interest and engagement when using the READ 180 software. The non-African American students, present in slightly over half of the classes, demonstrated slightly lower overall levels of attention, interest and engagement. 10/17/2006Page 5 of 123 Surveys READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. Eighteen of the 23 READ 180 teachers (Caucasian = 61.1%\nAfrican-American = 33.3%) completed the questionnaire. Approximately 80% of the teachers indicated they adhered to the 90-minute Read 180 schedule, while all agreed that they routinely used Read 180 data to customize activities to meet student needs. However, almost half indicated that class by ethnicity reports were only used on a monthly basis. All teachers indicated that their computer skills were adequate and most felt they had received enough training to effectively utilize READ 180 resources. Less than half (44.4%) of the teachers indicated their school had formal guidelines for placing students in READ 180. All but one teacher indicated that the program should be continued. Non-Read 180 Teacher Questionnaire. A total of 269 non-Read 180, grades 6-9 teachers (Caucasian = 62.5%\nAfrican American = 28.3%) completed the survey. Most agreed that they understood the Read 180 program goals and how the classes are structured. However, 66.9% were not able to identify students who were taking or who had taken READ 180 classes. Of those who were able to identify Read 180 students, about 60% indicated that the students demonstrated improved vocabulary, literacy and comprehension skills. There was less agreement that Read 180 students showed more interest in learning, changed their classroom behavior or submitted work that reflected better writing. Only about half felt the program should be continued. Read 180 Student Questionnaire. A total of 579 READ 180 grade 6-9 students completed the Questionnaire (62.8% of 921 total Read 180 students). Of these, most (88.3%) were African American, nearly half were in the 9**^ grade and 75% were in their first year of READ 180. Nearly three-fourths of the students agreed that their reading skills and slightly more than one-half agreed that their writing skills had improved due to READ 180. Approximately 60% indicated that they learned a lot from computers\nteacher directed small groups, reading by themselves, and teacher instruction at the beginning of the class. Nearly a third reported they did not learn from reading with other students. Read 180 Parent Survey. Over three-fourths of 164 parents completing the survey had African-American children. Most parents were aware that their children were participating in the Read 180 program, with 44.9% indicating it had helped them a lot, or some (43.5%). Specifically parents indicated that the program improved their childrens reading grades (68.7%)\ninterest in learning (67.3%). interest in reading (58.5%), and time spent reading (51.0%). Almost all parents indicated that they felt Read 180 was an important part of their childrens education. Focus Groups Read 180 Teachers. A total of 17 Read 180 teachers from seven randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. The teachers reported the following as overall strengths of READ 180: students like and are motivated by the program, it supports progress and success, student reading has increased, repetition provides practice and increases comprehension, and rotation of activities. Suggested improvements included\nreduce technical difficulties, increase class time, create more user-friendly reports, and reduce class size. All teachers wanted the READ 180 program to be continued. Read 180 Students. A total of 38 students from eight randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. The students reported the following as overall strengths of READ 180: increased time spent reading and improving reading skills, using the computer 10/17/2006Page 6 of 123 (16%), and working in small groups. In contrast, the students reported that the following were areas in need of improvement: increase READ 180 time, reduce computer and CD problems, and improve book collections. All of the student wanted the program to be continued because it improved their reading and spelling skills, increased their desire to read, and was fun. Principal Interviews The ten principals from the schools participating in this READ 180 program evaluation were interviewed to examine their impressions of the program. The majority of these principals (60%) were administrators of schools that were using READ 180 for the second year. Nearly all of the principals indicated a positive overall impression of the READ 180 program while one reported that the benefits were dependent on the classroom teacher. Three of the principals indicated that their faculty liked READ 180 and two reported that they personally believe it is beneficial. One principal described that the program is wonderful because it restores confidence in the students. Student Achievement Sixth grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated no statistically significant multivariate main effects for program or for school X program interaction. Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program or program X school interaction. The percentages of students obtaining proficiency on the Benchmark Literacy exam were nearly equal between Read 180 and Control groups. Seventh grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (p = .03), with no school X program interaction effect. Follow-up univariate tests showed that Read 180 students performed significantly lower than the Control groups for Reading Comprehension (p = .001) and Total Reading (p = .006). Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program or program X school interaction. A lower percentage of Read 180 vs. Control students achieved proficiency at Southwest, Henderson, and Cloverdale, whereas a higher percentage achieved proficiency at Mabelvale. Eighth grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (p = .04), with no school X program interaction effect. Follow-up univariate tests showed that Read 180 students performed significantly lower than the Control groups for Revised Writing (p = .001). Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program, but a significant program X school interaction effect (p = .04) was observed. Follow-up tests revealed a statistically significant positive effect at Mabelvale (ES = +0.38) and a statistically significant negative effect at Henderson (ES = - 0.29). Nearly equal percentages of Read 180 vs. Control students achieved proficiency at Henderson, Cloverdale, and Mabelvale, but lower percentage at Southwest. Ninth grade. ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (p = .02), with no school X program interaction effect. Follow-up univariate tests showed that Read 180 students performed significantly lower than Control groups on Vocabulary (p = .01), Reading Comprehension (p = .004) and Total Reading (p=.002). Student Achievement Summary. ITBS 2006 subtests. The mean effect size estimates for all four ITBS subtests were statistically significantly less than zero, indicating overall negative effects of Read180. Benchmark Literacy. Overall, Read180 students were less likely to obtain proficiency on the Arkansas Benchmark Literacy examination. Conclusions 10/17/2006Page 7 of 123 Primary Evaluation Question  Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The preponderance of evidence suggests that the Read 180 program has not been effective in improving or remediating the academic achievement of African American students. Relative to Control students who were individually matched on the basis of prior achievement, sex, race, special education status, and free or reduced-price lunch status. Read 180 students consistently performed lower on both ITBS Reading subtests and the Benchmark Literacy exam. The only exception to the general pattern of Read180 students performing at equal or lower levels to Comparison students was that eighth grade Read180 students at Mabelvale performed significantly higher than their matched Control counterparts, with an effect size of +0.38. The design employed to assess Read 180 effects, while quite rigorous, cannot rule out the possibility of selection effects because students were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions  What are the quality and level of implementation of READ 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-2006? Overall, the observers reported that the Read 180 classes were always highly focused on learning and that the students were highly engaged all or nearly all of the time. Although 60% of the teachers reported use of the READ 180 professional modules, teacher infrequent use of targeted literacy strategies indicates that additional teacher professional development focused on implementing these strategies is needed. Also needed is a modified class schedule and increased technical support to ensure students spend the recommended time completing Read 180 computer activities.  What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? The 2005-2006 Read 180 program was implemented in 13 LRSD schools with student populations comprised of approximately 90% African American students. Of the 231 students observed during direct observation of Read 180 classes, all of the 212 African American students were rated as having a high level of attention, interest, and engagement, while the ratings of the 19 non-African American students were distributed across High, Moderate, and Low. Approximately 90% of the Read 180 teachers agreed that Read 180 was valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students in reading and literacy. In addition, many of the Read 180 students, agreed that the program had increased their reading (70%) and writing (56%) skills. Approximately 75% of the 164 parents who responded to the survey were parents of African American students in Read 180, and nearly all parents felt the program was an important part of their childs education. School principals were also in agreement that Read 180 met the needs of African American students by providing individualized literacy instruction that was highly motivating and used hands-on, practical approaches to assist students with low reading abilities to achieve greater learning.  What are the perceptions of READ 180 teachers regarding program 10/17/2006Page 8 of 123 implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? There was an general consensus among the Read 180 teachers that the program had a positive impact on students by improving students' literacy skills, overall quality of work, achievement and engagement in learning. Key strengths reported were that the program motivated students to learn and the repetition increased comprehension and reading skills. In contrast, the teachers reported that Read 180 needed to increase technical support for computer problems\nincrease and/or better distribute time\ncreate more user-friendly reports, decrease class size\nand establish formal guidelines for student placement into Read 180. Some teachers reported a need for more Read 180 professional development (PD), yet concern was raised as to the quality of the Read 180 PD modules. Teachers agreed that Read 180 was supported and liked by school principals, other teachers, parents, and the students and all but one teacher agreed that the READ 180 program should be continued.  What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Of the 269 non-READ 180 teachers that completed a survey, most were aware of Read 180 and understood the program goals and class rotation structure. However, two-thirds indicated that they were not able to identify students who were taking or who had taken READ 180 classes. Therefore, data reflecting non-Read 180 teacher perceptions of the program are limited to 81 teachers. Of these, about 60% indicated that Read 180 students demonstrated improved written, oral vocabulary, and literacy skills, increased reading comprehension, and were more willing to read in class. While, only about half of the non-Read 180 teachers thought that Read 180 students showed more interest in learning, changed their classroom behavior, or submitted work that reflected better writing. Similarly, only half of the r\\on-READ 180 teachers felt the program should be continued.  What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of students participating in READ 180 regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Over 75% of the 164 parents responding to the survey represented African American students enrolled in Read 180 classes. Nearly all of the parents responded that they were aware of and supportive of their childs participation in the Read 180 program and believed that the program was an important part of their child or childrens education. Most of the parents thought Read 180 had helped or somewhat helped improve their childs reading grades\ninterest in learning and in reading. Slightly fewer parents agreed that the program increased the amount of time that their son or daughter spent reading. Overall, the parents agreed that it is beneficial fortheir children to participate in the Read 180 program because of its positive impact on their reading and overall learning. 10/17/2006Page 9 of 123 READ 180 Little Rock School District (LRSD) DRAFT FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the evaluation study results of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) 2005-2006 READ 180 program. The overall purpose of the evaluation was threefold\n1) to assess the effects of READ 180 on improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students, 2) to examine READ 180 implementation processes and practices, and 3) to document the perceptions of students, teachers, principals. and parents involved with READ 180 regarding strengths, weaknesses, and needed improvements of the program. READ 180 \\sa reading intervention program that is aimed at assisting low performing adolescent readers. The program provides adaptive instructional software, high-interest literature, and direct instruction in reading, writing, and vocabulary skills. Each READ 180 class is designed for a 90 minute time block that is divided into three primary components. The class begins with 20-minutes of Whole Group Direct Instruction during which the teacher generally lectures and provides instructions for the remaining activities. Next is the 60-minute Small Group Rotations, in which small groups of students rotate through each of three 20- minute modules. The three modules include small group direct instruction from the teacher. modeled and independent reading and computer time using the READ 180 software. The class concludes with the final component, known as the Whole Group Wrap-up. During this final 10 minutes the teacher leads the students in the lessons conclusion. Currently, five middle schools and eight high schools in LRSD use this program. Students are targeted to participate in the program based on results from the Arkansas Benchmark Exam. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation was structured around one over-arching, primary question concerning 10/17/2006Page 10 of 123 the impact of READ 180 on student achievement, and five supplemental questions that addressed contextual factors related to implementation of the READ 180 program. Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of READ 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African-American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of READ f 80 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of students participating in READ 180 regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? EVALUATION DESIGN AND MEASURES The following section describes the participants, the student achievement sample. design, instrumentation and procedures utilized for this evaluation. Participants The Little Rock School District has 7 middle schools, 8 high schools and 1 alternative high school. Of these, 5 middle and 8 high schools use the READ 180 program. LRSD identified 5 middle schools and 5 high schools as participants in the 2005-2006 READ 180 evaluation. The ten schools implementing Read 180 collectively served grades 6*^ through 12**^. However the Read 180 program was only implemented in 6**^ through 9**^ grades. Collectively these schools had an enrollment of 9884 students and employed approximately 750 classroom teachers. There were approximately 1000 total Read 180 students in the 10/17/2006Page 11 of 123 program and 23 Read 180 teachers. All Read 180 schools schedule classes in blocks, so they all scheduled Read 180 classes in approximate 90-minute blocks. Student Achievement Sample According to district records, 921 students in ten schools participated in the Read 180 program. Participation by school ranged from a low of n = 18 at Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet School, to a high of n = 149 at Cloverdale Magnet Middle School. Read 180 students performed significantly and substantially lower than other students in the same schools on 2005 ITBS Reading normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores, with a mean NCE of 30.48 for program participants versus a mean NCE of 48.71 for non-participants (f = 23.32, df= 4918, p \u0026lt; .001). Given that NCE scores have a standard deviation of 21.06, participants scored 0.87 standard deviation units lower than all non-participants attending the same schools. District enrollment records with basic demographic information were available for 910 of the 921 participants, yielding a match rate of 98.8%. Compared to students attending the same schools. Read 180 participants were more likely to be male (53.6% vs. 47.6%), African American (91.1% vs. 70.3%), free lunch recipients (69.7% vs. 47.5%), and special education students (17.5% vs. 9.0%). Participants were about equally as likely as non-participants to have limited English proficiency (1.6% vs. 1.2%). Design The evaluation, which utilized a mixed-method design, was conducted during the 2005- 2006 academic year. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the participating schools by trained external researchers (e.g., university faculty and staff). The researchers observed classrooms, administered surveys for teachers, students and parents. conducted teacher and student focus groups, and interviewed school principals. Table 1 provides a description of the evaluation instruments and a summary of the participants and data sources, presented with associated research questions. 10/17/2006Page 12 of 123 Table 1. Summary of Instruments, Participants, and Data Sources by Evaluation Question Evaluation Questions Primary Question: Has the READ 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Participants Data Sources All READ 180 students ITBS and Benchmark Exam Supplemental Questions: What are the quality and level of  implementation of READ 180 at the . schools implementing it in 2005- , 06? READ 780 teachers READ 180 students Principals at READ 180 schools READ 780 Observations (17 90- minute observations): SOMIREAD 180 Quality Assessment/RHAD 780 SOU School level READ 180 reports READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire READ 180 Student Questionnaire (all READ 180 students) READ 780 Teacher Focus Groups READ 180 Student Focus Groups (random sample) Principal Interviews What is the level of participation in READ 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All READ 180 schools School level READ 180 reports READ 180 Observations (17 90- minute observations): SOM/READ 780 Quality Assessment/READ 780 SOU What are the perceptions of READ 780 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? READ 180 teachers READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire READ 780 Teacher Focus Groups What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Non-READ 780 Teachers at schools using the program tion-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire (random selection of teachers) What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of READ 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Parents of READ 180 students READ 180 Parent Survey 10/17/2006Page 13 of 123 Instrumentation Five measurement strategies were used to collect the evaluation data: assessment of student academic achievement, direct classroom observations, surveys/questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews. Following are descriptions of the evaluation instruments. Student Academic Achievement ITBS Total Reading NCE from 2005 was used as a student matching variable and pretest covariate in all analyses. ITBS Vocabulary, Comprehension, Total Reading, and Revised Writing NCE scores from 2006 were employed as outcome variables, as were 2006 Literacy Scale Scores and Proficiency Levels from the Arkansas Benchmark examinations. Observations Observation data were collected with three measures: Read 180 School Observation Measure, Read 180 Quality Assessment, and the Read 180 Survey of Computer Use. READ 180 School Observation Measure. The School Observation Measure (SOM) was developed to determine the extent to which different common and alternative teaching practices are used throughout an entire school (Ross, Smith, \u0026amp; Alberg, 1999). The target strategies include traditional practices (e.g., direct instruction and independent seatwork) and alternative, predominately student-centered methods associated with educational reforms (e.g., cooperative learning, project-based learning, inquiry, discussion, using technology as a learning tool). The strategies were identified through surveys and discussions involving policy makers, researchers, administrators, and teachers, as those most useful in providing indicators of schools instructional philosophies and implementations of commonly used reform designs (Ross, Smith, Alberg, \u0026amp; Lowther, 2001). Using the SOM, the observer examined classroom events and activities descriptively, not judgmentally. Notes were taken relative to the use or nonuse of 24 target strategies. The observer completed a SOM every 10 minutes throughout the class time. At the conclusion of the 90-minute visit, the observer summarized the frequency with which each of the strategies was observed across all 9 of the completed SOMs on a data summary form. The frequency is 10/17/2006Page 14 of 123 recorded via a 5-point rubric that ranges from (0) Not Observed to (4) Extensively. To ensure the reliability of data, observers receive a manual providing definitions of terms, examples and explanations of the target strategies, and a description of procedures for completing the instrument. After receiving the manual and instruction in a group session, each observer participates in sufficient practice exercises to ensure that his/her data are comparable with those of experienced observers. In a 2004 reliability study reported by Sterbinsky, Ross \u0026amp; Burke, pairs of trained observers were within one category for 96% of the whole-school observations and for 91% of the targeted observations. READ 180 Quality Assessment. The READ 180 Quality Assessment (QA) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement READ 180 in classrooms during the approximately ninety minute observation period. The instrument was used to record the meaningfulness of the following instructional components: fluency. vocabulary, text comprehension, writing and the learning environment. The data were recorded every 10 minutes for the duration of the observation. READ 180 Survey of Computer Use. The READ 180 Survey of Computer Use (SCU) was designed to document the processes and practices used to implement the READ 180 computer program in classrooms. The instrument was used to record the number of students in each READ 180 class by ethnicity (African-American and Non-African-American) and computer configuration data (e.g., number, type, and working condition of the computers). Data were also recorded regarding student use of READ 180 software including: subject area of the activities, teacher/student interactions during READ 180 use, and level of African- American and non-African-American student engagement/interest. The data were recorded during two 10 minute time slots of the Small Group Rotations component of the class. The SCU data was summarized on a data summary form at the end of the entire observation period. Surveys READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire is a three- part instrument used to collect teachers perceptions of the READ 180 program. In the first 10/17/2006Page 15 of 123 section, teachers rate their level of agreement with 21 statements regarding six program-related areas: compliance with READ 180 guidelines, impact on instruction, impact on students, readiness to teach READ 180, overall support for READ 180 and technology support. Items are rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Two primary questions are asked in the second section. The first asks teachers to rate the frequency of their use of different READ 180 reports as daily. weekly or monthly. Next, teachers indicate the number of minutes they spend on the following READ 180 activities: whole class direct instruction, small group direct instruction, READ 180 software, modeled/independent work and whole group wrap-up. The third section asks teachers to comment on the strengths and weakness of the program. The final question asks teachers about changes they would recommend for the READ 180 program. The Non-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The Non-RAD 180 Teacher Questionnaire is a two-part instrument designed to ascertain perceptions of the READ 180 program held by teachers at schools that offer the program but are not involved in teaching READ 180 classes. In the first section, teachers rate their level of agreement with 10 statements regarding their own understanding of the program and their perceptions about READ 18Os influence on their students literacy, vocabulary, writing and behavior. In the second section, teachers are asked to comment on the strengths and weakness of the program. Teachers are also asked about changes they would recommend for the READ 180 program. The final question asks teachers if they think the program should be continued. The READ 180 Student Questionnaire. The READ 180 Student Questionnaire is a three-part instrument used to collect students perceptions of the READ 180 program. In the first section, students rate their level of agreement with 10 statements regarding their progress related to reading and writing skills, their interest in learning, and their value and enjoyment of READ 180. Items are rated with a five-point Likert-type scale that ranges from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree. Two primary questions are asked in the second section. The first asks students to rate the frequency that they work on reading, writing and vocabulary activities in their READ 180 class. Students also rate how much they learn from the following 10/17/2006Page 16 of 123 class activities: teacher instruction at the beginning of class, computer activities, teacher directed small group work, reading by yourself and reading with another student. In the third section students are asked to comment on the strengths and weakness of the program. The final question asks students about changes they would recommend for the READ 180 program. The READ 180 Parent Survey. The READ 180 Parent Survey was designed to ascertain parent awareness and perceptions regarding their childs participation in the program. They were asked to complete one survey per household, but indicate the number and ethnicity of their school-aged child/children. If the parent or guardian was aware of the READ 180 program, they were asked five general questions regarding student attitudes about READ 180 and the value of the program. The final section of the survey consisted of three open-ended items to record parents perceptions of the best and worst aspects of their childs/childrens use of READ 180 and what changes they recommended. Focus Groups Teacher Focus Groups. The Teacher Focus Group Protocol solicited teachers impressions about the following components of the READ 180 program: whole-group direct instruction, computer activities, small-group direct instruction, and independent reading/reading with another student. Focus group participants were asked what was the best part of each of these components and how could each be improved. In closing, the teachers were asked what they believed to be the strongest and weakest aspects of the overall READ 180 program and whether they advised continuing the program. Student Focus Groups. The Student Focus Group Protocol solicited students impressions about the following components of the READ 180 program: whole-group direct instruction, computer activities, small-group direct instruction, and independent reading/reading with another student. Focus group participants were asked what was the best part of each of these components and how could each be improved. In closing, the students were asked what they believed to be the strongest and weakest aspects of the overall READ 180 program and whether they advised continuing the program. 10/17/2006Page 17 of 123 Interviews Principal Interviews. The principal interview was designed for principals of schools that were using READ 180. Interviewees were asked how many years the school been using READ 180. Interview questions examined each principals impressions about the following: how the program is implemented, degree to which the READ 180 program meets the learning needs of African-American students, overall impressions of the program and how his/her schools use of READ 180 could be improved. PROCEDURE The ten data collection measures are summarized in Table 2 by type of measure. instrument, number completed and the data collection procedure. 10/17/2006Page 18 of 123 Table 2. Data Collection Summary Timeline: 2005-2006 Number of Schools = 10 Read 180 schools selected to participate in the study Type of Measure Observations Instrument SOM Number Collected 17 QA 147 SCU 17 Surveys Teacher 18 Focus Groups Interviews Non-Read 180 Teacher Student Read 180 Parent Read 180 Teacher Read 180 Student Principal 269 579 164 7 groups, total number of teachers = 17 8 Focus groups with a total number of students = 38 10 REPORT OF THE FINDINGS Description  Prearranged 90 minute sessions in which teachers were observed following the Read 180 rotation protocol. Note forms were completed every 10 minutes of the lesson and summarized on a Data Summary Form.  Prearranged 90 minute sessions in which teachers were observed following the Read 180 rotation protocol. Instruments were completed every 10 minutes of the lesson  Prearranged 90 minute sessions in which teachers were observed following the Read 180 rotation protocol. Note forms completed every 10 minutes during the 60 minutes of student computer rotation only. The six notes forms from each visit were summarized on a data summary form.  Teacher surveys distributed to each of the 23 Read 180 teachers. Eighteen completed surveys were returned to the evaluators.  Non-Read 180 Teacher surveys distributed to all non-Read 180 teachers.  Distributed to all Read 180 students during class by teacher for completion. Completed surveys were forwarded to the evaluators.  Distributed by Read 180 teachers to all students for delivery home. All parents were requested to complete the survey. Completed surveys were returned to the school and forwarded to the evaluators  Researchers conducted teacher focus groups with all Read 180 teachers at 7 randomly selected schools. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 30-45 minutes  Researchers conducted student focus groups at 8 randomly selected schools. The focus groups at each school consisted of 4 to 5 students randomly selected from students with signed parent consent forms. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 30-45 minutes  Researchers individually interviewed each principal. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes. 10/17/2006Page 19 of 123 The results of the study are presented below by measurement strategy: observations, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and student achievement. In the Discussion and Conclusions section, the findings are synthesized across instruments to address each research question. Observation Results All the observation results {READ 180 SOM, READ 180 Qualitative Assessment and READ 180 SCU) reflect data collected during observations conducted in 17 randomly selected READ 180 classrooms across all 10 schools participating in this evaluation study. READ 180 School Observation Measure. In observations of 17 Read 180 classrooms, observers found that the main instructional orientation was towards direct instruction, or lecture. Nearly two-thirds of the observations found this kind of teaching to be occurring (41.2% frequently: 23.5% extensively). The most common type of instructional strategy being used, among those considered. was the use of higher level questioning. This was used occasionally in 47.1% of the cases, and frequently in 23.5% of the cases. Another often-used strategy was for the teacher to act as a coach, or facilitator, which happened occasionally 41.2% of the time and frequently 11.8% of the time. One strategy that was used by some, and not by others, was to give higher-level instructional feedback to enhance learning. Over 40% (41.2%) were found to never use this strategy and 29.4% to rarely use it\nbut 29.5% were found to use it at least occasionally. The observers also recorded the frequency that students engaged in particular activities. Of those reported, the most frequent student activity was sustained reading, which was observed to happen frequently or extensively in 53% of the cases and occasionally in 41.2% of the cases. Two other popular strategies were to engage the students in sustained writing (17.7% frequently and 35.3% occasionally) or student discussion (23.5% frequently and 17.7% occasionally). Rarely was independent seatwork, such as self-paced worksheets or individual assignments, used (35.3% rarely, 41.2% never). In areas of technology use, computers were used for instructional delivery of the Read 10/17/2006Page 20 of 123 180 software in 94.1% of the observations. Nearly 30% (29.4%) were found to use technology in this way frequently or extensively, while 64.7% used the Read 180 software occasionally. The observers did not observe any of the classes using technology as a learning tool (e.g., use of word processing, spreadsheets, or conducting Internet searches). In areas of assessment, the observers rarely found examples of student selfassessment (5.9%) and no cases of performance assessment strategies. Overall, the observers reported that the Read 180 classes were always highly focused on learning and that the students were highly engaged all or nearly all of the time (76.5% extensively\n23.5% frequently). The results from these observations are reported in Table 3. 10/17/2006Page 21 of 123 Table 3. READ 180 School Observation Measure (SOM) Results N = 17 READ 180 Classrooms The extent to which each of the following was observed in the classroom. None JOE _______Percent Observed__________________ Rarely Occasionally Frequently Extensively Hi (2) Hi Mean SD Instructional Orientation Direct instruction (lecture) Team teaching Cooperative/collaborative learning Individual tutoring 0.0 82.4 100.0 76.5 17.7 5.9 0.0 17.7 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.2 5.9 0.0 5.9 23.5 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.8 Classroom Organization Ability groups Multi-age grouping Work centers (for individuals or groups) 100.0 100.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 0.0 70.6 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 Instructional Strategies Higher level instructional feedback (written or verbal) to enhance student learning Integration of subject areas Project-based learning Use of higher-level questioning strategies Teacher acting as a coach/facilitator Parent/community involvement in learning activities 41.2 29.4 11.8 17.7 0.0 1.1 1.1 94.1 94.1 11.8 17.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.1 41.2 0.0 0.0 5.9 23.5 11.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.0 Student Activities Independent seatwork (self-paced worksheets, individual assignments) Experiential, hands-on learning Systematic individual instruction Sustained writing/composition (self-selected or teachergenerated topics) Sustained reading Independent inquiry/research on the part of students Student discussion 41.2 94.1 100.0 35.3 5.9 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 Technology Use Computer for instructional delivery Technology as a learning tool or resource Assessment Performance assessment strategies Student self-assessment (portfolios, individual record books) Summary Items High academically focused class time High level of student attention, interest, engagement 29.4 5.9 88.2 29.4 17.7 0.0 5.9 29.4 35.3 41.2 0.0 17.7 17.7 41.2 5.9 23.5 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.5 0.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.2 5.9 100 0.0 0.0 64.7 0.0 23.5 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 100.0 94.1 0.0 0.0 Note. Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing data 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 100.0 76.5 4.0 3.8 0.0 0.4 10/17/2006Page 22 of 123 READ 180 Quality Assessment. The Quality Assessment instrument was used to record the occurrence of processes and practices used to implement Read 180. The observations were recorded every 10 minutes, typically resulting in nine observations in a 90-minute class period. The observations were made in five different categories: fluency, vocabulary, text comprehension, writing, and learning environment. Overall, as seen in Table 4, there was a low occurrence of teachers utilizing fluency. vocabulary, text comprehension, or writing strategies recommended by Read 180. Specifically, observers reported about 20% frequent or extensive evidence of student work on reading fluency (18.4% for modeling fluent oral reading\n19.1% for students reading orally). In vocabulary, observers reported frequent or extensive evidence of introducing or reviewing key vocabulary words only 13.6% of the time and explicit vocabulary instruction only 4.8% of the time. In text comprehension, there were only two strategies that were observed frequently or extensively in approximately 20% of the observations: higher order questioning (20.4%) and interactive discussion (18.4%). Techniques for writing were the least observed strategy when compared to techniques for fluency, vocabulary, or for text comprehension. On a positive note, the learning environments observed in the Read 180 classrooms were frequently to extensively observed to be conducive to cooperative interactions (98.6%), have students actively engaged (98.0%), have effective classroom management (93.2%), and to have teachers actively monitoring (98.6%). Slightly less classes were found to be set up in a manner conducive for Read 180 rotation (78.2%) and only 62% substantially adhered to the recommended 90-minute cycle. 10/17/2006Page 23 of 123 Table 4. READ 180 Quality Assessment Results N= 156 The extent to which each of the following was observed in the classroom. None ((0) Rarely or Frequently or Occasionally Extensively 112). (3,4) Mean Standard Deviation Fluency Models fluent oral reading Has students read/re-read orally 80.3 78.2 1.4 2.7 18.4 19.1 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 Vocabulary Introduces or reviews key vocabulary words Explicit vocabulary instruction 83.7 94.6 2.7 0.7 13.6 4.8 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.4 Text Comprehension Explicit comprehension strategy instruction Makes connection to prior knowledge Ask students for predictions Uses higher order questioning Guides visual imaging Guides interactive discussion 89.1 86.4 92.5 72.8 91.8 81.6 7.5 2.0 4.1 6.8 1.4 0.0 3.4 11.6 3.4 20.4 6.8 18.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 Writing Instructs letter formation, handw/riting Explains the writing process Conducts language mechanics lesson 100.0 90.5 91.8 0.0 3.4 4.1 0.0 6.1 4.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.4 Learning Environment Conducive to cooperative interactions Students are actively engaged Effective classroom management Teacher actively monitors The room is set up conducive to the Read 180 rotation The teacher substantially adheres to the 90 min. cycle Read 180 supporting material are available for student use 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.7 2.0 6.8 1.4 21.8 31.3 100.0 98.6 98.0 93.2 98.6 78.2 62.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 READ 180 Survey of Computer Use. A total of 17 6**^-9** grade READ 180 classes were observed. These classes were comprised of 212 African American students and 19 non-African American students. The majority (88.2%) of these classrooms had 8-10 computers and all the computers in the classes observed were up-to-date. Students were observed using the Read 180 software in 15 (88.2%) of the 17 classes. The students were observed rarely asking questions related to the use of READ 180 software or the computer equipment (Table 5). There was a high level of academic focus during the Small Group Rotations component of the READ 180 classes, when the students were working on the computer modules. The 10/17/2006Page 24 of 123 students were observed predominately spending computer time working on Read 180 reading comprehension (82.4% of time), vocabulary (76.5%) and spelling (70.6%) activities. They were not observed asking any content related questions while using the software. All African-American students demonstrated a high overall level of attention, interest and engagement when observed using the READ 180 computer program. The Non-African American students, present in slightly over half (52.9%) of the classes, demonstrated lower overall levels of attention, interest and engagement. While data were colleted about the types of instruction teachers provided specific to students use of READ 180 computer program, analysis indicates that in over half (52.9%) of the classes, students received no instructions from the teacher. When instruction was provided, the most frequently observed type was related to using the computer, which was observed rarely to occasionally in nearly 30 percent of the classes (29.4%). Other types of instruction seen were related to classroom rules (17.7%), Read 180 software (11.8%), and only 5.9% related to the Read 180 subject-area content. 10/17/2006Page 25 of 123 Table 5. READ 180 Survey of Computer Use Results N= 17 READ 780 Classrooms School Cloverdale Middle Cloverdale Middle Central High Central High Hall High Hall High Henderson Middle Henderson Middle J.A. Fair High Mabelvale Middle McClellan High McClellan High Parkview High Pulaski Middle Pulaski Middle Southwest Middle Southwest Middle TOTAL Grade Observed 6 7 9 9 9 9 7 8 9 8 9 9 9 6 6 6 8 NA Number of students by ethnicity African American 14 14 11 12 15 19 5 13 13 13 13 13 12 14 14 10 7 212 Non-African American Number of classes observed Computer Configuration and Use How many computers were available for Read 180? Only one 2-4 5-7 8-10 11 or more % Observed 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 0.0 Never How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Read 180? 76.5 Computers used for Read 180 most frequently had: No Headphones 5.9 Mostly Non-functional Headphones and Microphones used for Read 180 were\n11.8 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 3 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Most computers used for Read 180 were: Up to date Aging but adequate Outdated/Limited Capacity % Observed 100.0 0.0 0.0 Rarely 11.8 Occasionally Frequently Extensively 5.9 0.0 0.0 Headphones with no microphones 5.9 Headphones and Microphones 88.2 Displayed signs of disrepair 0.0 All in good working order 82.4 Read 180 Computer Activities In which subject areas did students complete Read 180 computer work? Reading comprehension Vocabulary Spelling % of time 82.4 76.5 70.6 10/17/2006Page 26 of 123 Table 5. Continued Items________________________________________________ What was the level of academically focused time while students were using the computer for Read 180? What was the overall level of African-American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? Not Applicable 17.6* 11.8* Low 0.0 0.0 Moderate 5.9 0.0 High 76.5 88.2 What was the overall level of NON African-American students attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? 52.9 11.8 5.9 29.4  Students did not use computers\n \"Class did not have any NON-African American students Types of Questions Students Asked While Using the computer Read 180 %Not Observed % Rarely % Occasionally % Frequently % Extensively Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem, the meaning of a word). Software use (e.g. how to log in\nhow to move to the next section\nhow to take a test) Computer use (e.g. how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) Non-Read 180 questions (e.g. Do I have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) The teacher provided the following types of instruction specifically for student use of Read 180 computer activities: Content area (e.g. reading, vocabulary) Software use (e.g. how to log in\nfind correct lesson) Computer use (e.g. locate software, use mouse) Classroom behavior njies No instructions were given 100.0 88.2 70.6 94.1 % Not Observed 94.1 88.2 70.6 82.4 52.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 29.4 5.9 % Rarely 0.0 11.8 23.5 11.8 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Occasionally 5.9 % Frequently % Extensively 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 Read 180 Time-on-Task. As seen in Table 6, the Read 180 teachers whose classes were observed spent close to the recommended amount of time for each of the five Read 180 activities. However, when examining a district provided sample of Read 180 computer program time-on-task reports from six of the 10 schools, the results revealed that an average Read 180 computer session lasted from 9.3 to 13.6 minutes per student (Table 7). Students completed an average of 0.2 to 2.0 sessions per week for up to 31 weeks. Thus, the mean overall time that students spent 10/17/2006Page 27 of 123 working on Read 180 computer activities during the 2005-2006 academic year ranged from 2.2 hours to 16.1 hours, with the average being 10.2 hours per student. Read 180 as the name implies, recommends that students spend 20 minutes per day throughout the academic year. When computing this number with the required 180 days of school attendance, the total time equals 60 hours. The LRSD Read 180 students worked less than 20% of the recommended time completing the instructional activities presented by Read 180 software. Table 6. Observed vs. Recommended time per Read 180 Activity Whole Class Instruction Computer Small Group Independent Reading Whole Total Group Wrap Time Average Time Observed* Read 180 Recommended Time 19.4 19.4 19.4 18.2 8.2 84.7 20 20 20 20 10 90 W = 17 observations at 10 Read 180 schools Table 7. Read 180 Computer Program Report of Student Time-on-Task N = 6of the 10 Read 180 schools participating in the study Schools HaifH^ McClellan HS Parkview HS Pulaski Heights MS Fair HS Southwest Alt. Center Average Weeks of Time 31.0 24.6 30.3 21.9 28.0 20.3 26.0 Mean Sessions Per Week 2.0 1.6 1.4 Mean Session Time 12.3 10.1 12.5 Mean Total Sessions 78.7 71.9 57.2 Mean Total Time (Min) 968 728 717 Mean Total Time (Hrs) 16.1 12.1 12.0 1.4 1.2 0.2 1.3 12.6 9.3 13.6 11.8 54.4 46.9 9.7 53.1 688 437 132 612 11.5 7.3 2.2 10.2 Survey Results READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The READ 780 Teacher Questionnaire was completed by 18 of the 23 READ 180 teachers, representing a 78.2% return rate. The respondents were primarily Caucasian (61.1%), and secondarily African-American (33.3%), with most being female (94.4%). Nearly two-fifths (38.9%) of the respondents were first year READ 180 teachers while 22.2% were 10/17/2006Page 28 of 123 teaching their second year with the program and 38.9% were in their third. The respondents represented ail READ 180 grade levels, with sixth and ninth grade teachers (33.3% each) more heavily represented than seventh and eight grade teachers (22.2% each). As shown in Table 8, the first 21 items assessing teachers perceptions of the READ 180 program were indicative of a relatively high level of teacher approval for the program (as measured by a combination of the categories Strongly Agree and Agree. Almost 90% (88.9%) of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the program had a positive impact on students, improving their overall quality of work, achievement and engagement in learning. All teachers were in agreement that they routinely customized READ 180 activities to meet the instructional needs of students, while over four fifths (83.3%) reported that they modified READ 180 on the basis of report feedback. Only whole class and individual reports were used on a daily basis, but the majority of teachers indicated they used these reports at least weekly. Almost half (44.4%) of respondents indicated they used the class by ethnicity and class by gender reports on a monthly basis and never on a daily basis. Over four-fifths (83.3%) of teachers indicated that they adhered to the full 90 minute implementation schedule. This time was fairly evenly split among the required learning activities. Most teachers (94.4%) used 20 minutes for small group discussion and 20 minutes for READ 180 software. Additionally, 83.4% of teachers spent between 15-20 minutes on whole class or group discussion. Whole group wrap up was the activity teachers reported spending the least amount of time on, although 27.8% of teachers did report spending 15-20 minutes on wrap up. All teachers indicated that their computer skills were adequate to effectively utilize READ 180 resources. While nearly four-fifths of teachers felt they had received enough training, 16.7% indicated that they could use more training in order to address students learning needs. Interestingly only 61.1% used the READ 180 professional modules to enhance their own effectiveness as READ 180 teachers. This may be related to the 66.7% agreement that the READ 180 resources enabled teachers to effectively implement the program according to 10/17/2006Page 29 of 123 recommended guidelines. In addition less than half the respondents strongly agreed that their school has a well-developed plan to guide the READ 180 program. Nearly two-fifths (38.9%) of respondents were neutral as to the schools well-developed plans and 16.7% disagreed that there were well-developed plans at all. In addition, less than half (44.4%) of the respondents indicated their school had formal guidelines in place for determining which students should participate in the READ 180 program. The same percentage (44.4%) actually disagreed or strongly disagreed that their school used the Scholastic Reading Inventory to place READ 180 students. In fact, two thirds (66.6%) reported that the schools administration did not routinely use READ 180 reports to monitor and adjust implementation practices. However, these shortcomings in formal guidelines do not indicate lack of support. In fact. 83.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the school administration fully supports READ 180, with no disagreements. Similarly, two-thirds (66.7%) reported that their colleagues were generally supportive of the READ 180 program, with almost the same number (61.1%) reporting support from parents. All but one teacher indicated that the program should be continued. When asked to describe Read 180 program strengths, teachers listed individualized and small group instruction, the teaching materials, and that the program was motivating, assisted students in achieving rapid progress, and that they received positive feedback about the program (Appendix B). The primary weaknesses noted were technology problems, not enough time, limited selection of books, inflexible structure, and lack of organization in the Read 180 materials. The teachers offered the following recommendations for improving the program: better student screening, correct technical problems, train new teachers, include higher-level questions on the handouts, and provide materials that are more engaging and books that are more interesting for the students. 10/17/2006Page 30 of 123 Table 8. READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire Results N= 18 Read 180 Teacher Questionnaire items % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) % Neutral (3) % Strongly Disagree and Disagree ____tL21____ Mean Standard Deviation mpact on Students 'he use of the Read 180 has increased the level of student attention, interest and engagement in learning. tead 180 has had a positive impact on student sarning and achievement. Overall, the Read 180 program seems valuable for Tiproving the achievement of African-American tudents in reading and literacy. 'he use of Read 180 has improved the quality of itudent work. mpact on Instruction frequently use the Read 180 professional levelopment modules to enhance my effectiveness as I Read 180 teacher. routinely customize Read 180 activities to meet the nstructional needs of students. routinely modify my Read 180 instructional practices lased on Read 180 report feedback. he design of the Read 180 resources enables me to jffectively implement the Read 180 program according 0 recommended guidelines. Compliance with READ 180 Guidelines adhere to the Read 180 recommended 90 minute Tiplementation schedule. Jy school has formal guidelines for placing students in he Read 180 program. 4y school has formal guidelines for determining when I student no longer needs the Read 180 program. school uses the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) 0 place students in the Read 180 program. teadiness to Teach READ 180 have received enough training to address student sarning needs through the use of Read 180 resources. computer skills are adequate to effectively utilize tead 180 resources. 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 61.1 100.0 83.3 66.7 83.3 44.4 22.2 38.9 77.8 100.0 11.1 5.6 5.6 0.0 22.2 0.0 11.1 16.7 5.6 22.2 27.8 16.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 5.6 16.7 0.0 5.6 16.7 5.6 33.3 50.0 44.4 16.7 0.0 4.2 0.6 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.7 4.6 4.1 3.8 4.2 3.1 2.6 2.9 3.9 4.7 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.5 10/17/2006Table 8. Continued iead 180 Teacher Questionnaire Items % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) % Neutral (3) % Strongly Disagree and Disagree ____(12)____ Mean Page 31 of Standard Deviation 123 echnology Support can readily obtain answers to questions about Read 80. ?1ost of our school computers that are used for Read 80 are kept in good working condition. }verall Support for READ 180 Ay school's administration fully supports the Read 180 irogram. 3ur school has a well developed plan that guides the tead 180 program. Ay school's administration routinely uses the Read 180 eports to monitor and adjust program implementation iractices. \"eachers in this school are generally supportive of the lead 180 program. arents and community members support our school's ise of Read 180. 83.3 83.3 83.3 44.4 27.8 66.7 61.1 16.7 16.7 11.1 38.9 33.3 33.3 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.7 4.1 0.7 4.4 0.7 3.5 2.9 3.9 3.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.7 How routinely do you use the following Read 180 performance report formats? Whole class Class by ethnicity Class by gender Individual student % Daily 16.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 % Weekly 61.1 11.1 5.6 72.2 % Monthly 22.2 44.4 44.4 16.7 Ini fol wt Sit Re Me Wt Teachers who feel the Read 180 program should be continued. Yes No % 88.9 5.6 Respondents teaching at each grade level 6*^ Grade 7*^ Grade 8*^ Grade 9*^ Grade % 33.3 22.2 22.2 33.3 Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic % 61.1 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gender Male Female % 0.0 94.4 low long have you taught a Read 180 class? I year i years ! years 38.9% 22.2% 38.9% Non-READ 180 Teacher Questionnaire. The Non-/?AD 180 Teacher Questionnaire is a two-part instrument designed to ascertain perceptions of the READ 180 program held by teachers at schools that offer the program but are not involved in teaching READ 180 classes. As seen in Table 9, of the 269 10/17/2006Page 32 of 123 respondents, 62.5% were Caucasian, 28.3% were African American, with less than 3% representing other races. Most respondents (44.4%) were 9*^ grade teachers, with the remaining grades being represented fairly evenly at around 20%. Nearly three-fourths (73.6%) were female. Reports from colleagues of READ 180 teachers revealed that most (86.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that they understood the Read 180 program goals, and nearly as many (79%) indicated they understood how READ 180 classes are structured. However, two-thirds (66.9%) of the teachers indicated that they were not able to identify students who were taking or who had taken READ 180 classes. The non-Read 180 teachers (30.1%) who were able to identify Read 180 students were generally positive with regard to the impact of READ 180 on students. Specifically, 63.0% indicated that Read 180 students demonstrated improved written and oral vocabulary skills. continuous improvement in literacy skills (61.7%), increased comprehension of assigned reading (60.5%), and were more willing to read in class (59.3%). However, there was less agreement among the non-Read 180 teachers that Read 180 students showed more interest in learning (55.6%), changed their classroom behavior (51.9%) or submitted work that reflected better writing (50.6%). Only about half (49.8%) of these r\\on-READ 180 teachers felt the program should be continued. Responses of teachers who could identify the Read 180 students responded to open- ended comments are located in Appendix C. When asked to describe strengths of Read 180, the most common responses were that the program improved student reading skills, grades. and tests. Also mentioned was the individualized approach to instruction and use of a variety of instructional delivery methods. The most frequent response to program weakness and areas of needed improvement was that access to the program was limited - that it is not reaching all the students with low reading ability. The teachers also indicated that there were not enough books or computers to adequately support implementation of Read 180. There were 99 of the 269 non-Read 780 teachers who supported continuation of the program because it improved student reading skills and performance and provided good teacher and 10/17/2006student feedback. Page 33 of 123 10/17/2006Page 34 of 123 Table 9. Non-/?AD 180 Teacher Questionnaire Results A/=269 ^on-Read 180 Teacher Questionnaire Items have an understanding of the Read 180 program goals. % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) 86.4 % % Strongly Disagree and Neutral Disagree 13L 7.4 1121 4.9 Mean 4.2 Standard Deviation 0.8 have an understanding of the Read 180 program classroom Tiplementation (how the classes are structured). 79.0 12.3 7.4 4.0 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes lemonstrate improved written and oral vocabulary skills. 63.0 30.9 3.7 3.8 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes lemonstrate continuous improvement in literacy skills. 61.7 30.9 4.9 3.8 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes ihow increased comprehension of assigned reading. 60.5 34.6 2.5 3.8 0.8 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes\nhow more willingness to read aloud in class. 59.3 30.9 6.2 3.7 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes :how increased attention and interest in learning. 55.6 35.8 6.2 3.7 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes lave improved classroom behavior. 51.9 37.0 8.6 3.6 0.9 'he students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes iubmit work that reflects improved writing. 50.6 40.7 3.7 3.7 0.9 Teachers able to identify students who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes. Yes No % 30.1 66.9 Teachers who feel the Read 180 program should be continued. Yes No % 49.8 0.7 Respondents teaching at each grade level 6*^ Grade 7*** Grade % 19.3 18.6 8*^ Grade 9*^ Grade 16.4 44.6 Ethnicity Caucasian African- American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic % 62.5 28.3 0.7 0.4 1.9 Note: Item percentages may not total 100% because of missing input from some respondents. Gender Male Female % 24.5 73.6 10/17/2006Page 35 of 123 READ 180 Student Questionnaire. There was a total of 579 students involved in READ 180 classes that completed the READ 180 Student Questionnaire (Table 10). This number represents 62.8% of the total 921 Read 180 students. Of these, most (88.3%) were African American and nearly half (45.9%) were in the 9*^ grade, all other grades being represented fairly equally. This sample is representative of the whole population as 45.2% of READ 180 participants were in the 9*^ grade and all other grades are also represented fairly equally. Additionally, nearly half of the respondents were female (44.6%) and slightly over half (52.5%) were male. Three-fourths of the students were in their first year of READ 180, while most of the remaining students (23.7%) were in their second year of the program. READ 180 was implemented in 6**^ through 9^*^ grades. While the overall means of responses on this 5-point Likert-type survey were generally lower than scores reported by teachers, overall student response to the READ 180 program tended to be positive. Nearly three-fourths (74.1%) of the students agreed that their reading skills and slightly more than one-half (55.4%) agreed that their writing skills had improved due to the READ 180 program. Additionally, 48.4% of the students also felt as if their overall schoolwork had improved due to READ 180. Student attitudes were generally more positive than perceptions of increased ability. Approximately 70% (69.6%) of students agreed that their READ 180 classes were well- organized, while 58.9% looked forward to their READ 180 classes and 57.7% agreed that they were more interested in learning in general due to READ 180. Interestingly this is slightly higher than the same perception of increased interest by non-READ 180 teachers. Only about half (52.0%) of the students agreed that READ 180 was the best reading class that they had ever taken or that they learned more than in their other classes (47.2%). Even less, or nearly a third of students (31.8%) reported not wanting to repeat the program. READ 180 activities were broken down into reading, writing and vocabulary and students were asked to indicate how much they engaged in each of these (not at all, a little, or a lot) during their 90-minute Read 180 classes. Nearly 70% of the students indicated that they 10/17/2006Page 36 of 123 worked on reading (69.8%) and writing (69.6%) a lot, while one fourth (25.6%) reported that they only worked on these areas a little (reading = 25.6%\nwriting = 24.4%). The Read 180 students reported working on vocabulary to a lesser degree, as a lot was reported by 57.0% and a little by 32.5%. Students were asked to respond to closed- and open-ended items to indicate how much they learned from Read 180 activities (see Appendix D). The closed-ended items revealed that over 60% (63.7%) learned a lot from computers. Nearly as many indicated that they learned a lot from teacher directed small groups (59.4%), reading by themselves (58.7%), and teacher instruction at the beginning of the class (57.7%). Nearly a third (30.6%) reported they did not learn from reading with another student. The open-ended responses revealed spelling, pronunciation, reading and Reading Zone as most frequently cited activities that helped students to learn the most. Whereas, Reading was also cited along with Vocabulary Zones as activities that do not help students learn. When asked what would make the Read 180 better, most students wanted the program to last longer, more activities, videos, and centers, and more time on the computer. 10/17/2006Page 37 of 123 Table 10. READ 180 Student Questionnaire Results N = 57Q tead 180 Student Questionnaire Items______ /y reading skills have improved because of Read 180. ^y Read 180 class is well organized. lead 180 has made me want to get better grades. look forward to my Read 180 class. lead 180 has made me more interested in learning. 4y writing has improved because of Read 180. lead 180 is the best reading class I have ever taken, would like to be in the Read 180 class again next year, ity schoolwork is better because of what I have learned 1 Read 180. learn more in the Read 180 class than in my other lasses. % Strongly Agree and Agree (4,5) 74.1 69.6 62.5 58.9 57.7 55.4 52.0 50.4 48.4 47.2 In your Read 180 class, how often do you work on the following activities: Reading? Writing? Vocabulary? In your Read 180 class, how much do you learn from the following activities: Computer activities? Teacher directed small group work? Reading by yourself? Teacher instruction at the beginning of class? Reading with another student? % A lot (3) 69.8 69.6 57.0 % A lot (3) 63.7 59.4 58.7 57.7 28.3 Respondents at each grade level 6*'^ Grade 7** Grade 8*^ Grade 9* Grade % 20.0 19.5 14.5 45.9 % Neutral (3) 16.4 16.4 23.0 23.8 25.2 20.4 24.4 16.9 28.5 24.2 % A little (2) 25.6 24.4 32.5 % A little (2) 24.7 30.2 31.1 32.1 36.8 Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic % Strongly Disagree and Disagree (1,2) 9.2 13.1 13.5 16.8 16.2 23.5 23.0 31.8 22.1 Mean 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.4 St Dev 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 27.8 3.3 1.3 % Not at all (1) 2.8 3.5 7.1 % Not at all (1) 9.0 6.9 6.2 7.3 30.6 Mean 1.7 1.7 1.5 St Dev 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 % 2.9 88.3 2.8 0.2 4.3 Gender Male Female % 52.5 44.6 How long have you been in a Read 180 class? 1 year 2 years 3 years 74.3 23.7 0.7 READ 180 Parent Survey. The Read 180 Parent Survey was completed by 164 parents (Table 11). Over three- fourths of these parents had African-American children (75.6%), while 7.3% had Caucasian children, and the remainder represented Hispanic, Asian, or multi-ethnic backgrounds. Nearly 40% of the children (39.6%) whose parents completed this survey were in ninth grade while 26.8% were in sixth grade, 20.7% were in eighth grade, and 11% were in seventh grade. The vast majority of the parents (89.6%) were aware that their children were 10/17/2006Page 38 of 123 participating in the Read 180 program, with over half (53.7%) having learned this from their children. Other parents learned about the Read 180 program from teachers (28.6%) or from the schools (16.3%). Nearly all of the parents felt that the Read 180 program had improved their sons/daughters reading skills, with 44.9% indicating it had helped them a lot, and 43.5% indicating it has helped them some. None of the parents felt the program had not helped their children at all, but 8.8% were still not sure. To understand how these parents felt the Read 180 program helped their children, the parents were asked to what level they agreed with statements regarding the programs impact on their childrens reading ability. The most positive response was that the program improved their childrens achievement or reading grades (68.7% indicated yes\n23.1% indicated somewhat). Parents also felt that the Read 180 program improved their childrens interest in learning (67.3% indicated yes\n25.2% indicated somewhat) and their interest in reading (58.5% indicated yes\n26.5 indicated somewhat). Fifty-one percent of parents agreed that the program improved the time their children spent reading, while 34.7% somewhat felt that it did. Similar results are seen in the parents responses to the open-ended item asking them to describe the best thing about their son/daughter being in a Read 180 class (Appendix E). The most frequent comments were that the program improved their childs reading skills and interest in reading. The parents indicated that the worst aspects of the program were that it did not encourage students to read at home, computer time was too limited, the activities were too challenging, there were too many computer problems, and it did not seem that students were learning anything new and did not have Read 180 homework. To summarize their support for the program, 89.1% of parents indicated that they felt Read 180 was an important part of their childrens education while 4.8% somewhat felt this way and less than one percent (0.7%) did not. Table 11. READ 180 Parent Survey Results N= 164 Do you think Read 180 has increased your sons/daughters: Interest in reading. Yes 58.5 Somewhat 26.5 No 6.1 Not sure 6.1 Mean 1.6 Std. Dev. 0.9 10/17/2006Page 39 of 123 Interest in learning Achievement or grades in reading. Time spent reading. 67.3 68.7 51.7 25.2 23.1 34.7 1.4 2.0 8.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 Do you think Read 180 is an Important part of your son/daughters education? Yes 89.1 Somewhat 4.8 No 0.7 Not sure 3.4 Mean 1.2 Std. Dev. 0.6 To what degree has the Read 180 improved your son's/daughter's reading skills? A lot 44.9 Some 43.5 Not at all 0.0 Not Sure 8.8 Parents who are aware of the Read 180 program son/daughter Is taking. Yes No 89.6 10.4 How did you learn about the reading (Read 180) class? School Teacher My kids Other parents/friends % 16.3 28.6 53.7 0.0 Grade level(s) of your son/daughter. 6* Grade 7* Grade 8** Grade 9** Grade 26.8 11.0 20.7 39.6 Ethnicity Caucasian African-American Hispanic Asian Multi-Ethnic 7.3 75.6 2.4 0.6 3.7 % % % Focus Group Results Teacher Focus Groups. A total of 17 Read 180 teachers from seven randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. The teachers were asked to respond to questions related to implementing the Read 180 curriculum. Full results of the Teacher Focus Group are in Appendix F. Whole group direct instruction. The teachers reported that the best part about the teacher whole-group instruction at the beginning of class was that it provided an opportunity too explain the lesson, address the students all at once, and set the focus and tone for the day (82% of responses). When asked to describe strategies for improving this component of the READ 180 classroom, approximately one-fourth (24%) did not feel any changes were needed. while the same percent of teachers responded the time format should be revised (24%), that smaller classes would be beneficial (24%). Computer module. When describing the strengths of the READ 180 computer activities the teachers explained that it provides new subject matter in a format (computer, video, etc.) that keeps students interested (48%) while also addressing students individual needs and 10/17/2006Page 40 of 123 abilities (24%). The teachers also reported that the computer activities provide repetition and fluency practice (16%) and gave students and teachers immediate feedback (8%). The teachers suggested that overcoming technical issues should be the primary means of improving this READ 180 module. The teachers reported technical failures sometimes resulting in the loss of students work (43%) and equipment issues with headphones, software CDs, etc. (21%) as the major areas for improvement. Small group direct Instruction module. The majority of the responses (55%) indicated that the teachers valued this one-on-one time with students allowing them to interact with and focus on individual students. The teachers explained that during this time individual needs can be met (23%) and that the small groups allowed ease in monitoring (9%). When asked to describe changes that should be recommended the teachers explained that more time (23%) and more space and smaller groups (23%) would be beneficial. The teachers also reported difficulties in being available to students in the other modules (15%) and classroom distractions (8%) as areas for improvement. Independent reading. The teachers reported that independent reading time provides students with an opportunity for quiet reading and practice (21%) and that this activity can be individualized for students reading levels (16%). The teachers also noted that the ability to retake quizzes and get immediate feedback (11%), listen to audio books (10%), allow students to choose their own books to read (11%) as strengths of the independent reading time. While describing strategies for improving this module the teachers reported that the reading collection needed to be updated and increased to include more variety (38%) and that strategies for keeping students engaged for the duration of this module were needed (25%). The teachers explained that an aide/assistant would be helpful (13%) as would smaller group sizes (13%) as this was a time during the READ 180vjhen trouble-makers act up (6%). Modeled reading. Nearly two-fourths (38%) of the teachers described that the best part of students reading in pairs was the opportunity for modeling. The teachers reported that students enjoy reading, sharing, and discussing books using this strategy (23%). However, 15% of the teachers explained that modeling is rarely or never done in their READ 180 10/17/2006Page 41 of 123 classrooms. One-third (33.3%) of the responses suggest that no changes are needed for this module. Other suggestions included more time for peer reading (17%), smaller class size (17%), and smallergroup size (17%). Overall. The teachers reported the following as overall strengths of the READ 180 program: students like and are motivated by the program (16%), the program supports progress and success (16%), students are better able to focus and stay on-task (11%), student reading has increased (11%), repetition provides practice and increases comprehension (11 %), and rotation of activities (11 %). In contrast, the teachers stated that the following were areas in need of improvement: too many technical difficulties (16%), the need for more and better distributed time (16%), more user-friendly reports, and the need for smaller groups of students (10%). All of the teacher responses suggest that the READ 180 program should be continued. They explain that student improvement and success are notable (23%), that students enjoy the program (17%), and an increase in student reading comprehension and skills (17%), and an increase students self-worth from their own accomplishments (10%). Student Focus Groups. A total of 38 students from eight randomly selected schools participated in the focus groups. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix G. Whole group direct instruction. The students reported that the best part about the teacher instruction at the beginning of class was that they are provided with an overview of what is to be expected (40% of responses). The students also liked that it provided an opportunity forthem to receive study questions, practice sheets and a review of previous work (13%). When asked to describe strategies for improving this component of the READ 180 classroom the majority of the student responses (78%) stated that nothing needed to be changed. The only suggestions given were allowing students more time to complete their work during this component before moving on to the small group rotations (11%) and providing students with a better explanation of expectations for the rest of class (11 %). Computer module. When describing the strengths of the READ 180 computer activities 10/17/2006Page 42 of 123 the students explained that they enjoyed the Spelling Zone (23%), learning new vocabulary in the Word Zone (20%), reading (20%) and videos (11%). Half of the student responses (50%) indicate that no changes to this module are needed. Suggestions that were made included increasing the time allowed for the computer module (17%) and overcoming computer malfunctions (17%). Small group direct instruction module. The student responses indicate that they valued the following as strengths of small group interactions with the teacher: discussion and helping each other (30%). writing (18%), one-on-one attention (12%), and reading and writing essays (12%). The majority of the student responses (67%) indicate that no changes to this module of the READ 180 program are needed. Those suggestions that were given are linked. It was suggested that more time is needed during this module (22%) and that group sizes should be smaller (11). It was explained that if five students working at varying skill/ability levels each need individualized help/instruction, then 20 minutes goes by too quickly for the teacher to assist each student and teach a lesson. Independent reading. The students reported that their favorite aspects of the independent reading time included reading (27%), exploring new books and progressing to more advanced books (27%) and working on vocabulary words and questions (12%). While describing strategies for improving this module the students reported that the reading collection needed to be increased and include more variety, better books, longer books, and more audio books (39%). The students also suggested that this module needed to be more fun (6%) and incorporate opportunities for discussion (6%). Modeled reading. While describing the strengths of reading in pairs the students reported that they enjoyed partner work by modeling reading (25%), that it was more interesting and fun (19%) and helped them focus on emphasis and comprehension (19%). It was also reported that this module was not used in some classes (19%). When asked to suggest improvements for this module 67% reported that no changes were needed and 33% reported a desire to read in pairs more often. Overall. The students reported the following as overall strengths of the READ 180 10/17/2006Page 43 of 123 program: increased time spent reading and improving reading skills (26%), the computer component (16%), working in small groups (14%), and the whole experience (14%). In contrast, the students reported that the following were areas in need of improvement: increase allotment of time (11%), too many computer difficulties (11%) and CD/disk problems (11%), as well as improvements to the book collections (11%). All of the student responses suggest that the READ 180 program should be continued. They reported that improves reading and increases the desire to read (17%), learn more (13%), improves spelling skills (7%) and it is fun (7%). It was also explained that the READ 180 program helped in other classes (7%) which all can result in students feeling more successful (4%). Interview Results Principal Interviews. The ten principals from the schools participating in this READ 180 program evaluation were interviewed to examine their impressions of the program. The majority of these principals (60%) were administrators of schools that were using READ 180 for the second year, 30% were at schools using it for the third year and one school was using the program for the fourth year. Full results of the Student Focus Group are in Appendix H. Overall Impressions. Nearly ail of the principals indicated a positive overall impression of the READ 180 program while one reported that the benefits were dependent on the classroom teacher. Three of the principals indicated that their faculty liked READ 180 and two reported that they personally believe it is beneficial. One principal described that the program is wonderful because it restores confidence in the students. Meeting needs. When asked to evaluate how READ 180 meets the learning needs of African-American students 50% of the responses described that it improves reading abilities and comprehension. One principal indicated that it helps individualize instruction while others mentioned that it provided a practical instructional model for teachers to use. One principal explained that READ 180 is helpful for African-American students with deficient reading, comprehension and analytical skills. While, another indicated that the quality of the teacher 10/17/2006Page 44 of 123 impacted student ability to achieve success. Implementation. The principals were asked to describe how their Read 180 programs were implemented with regard to student selection, role of the Read 180 course (replace or supplement Standard English course), student graduation from Read 180, and use of tracking elements. Responses revealed that students were primarily from 9^*^ grade (25%), but also included grades 6-8 students. Students were primarily selected on the basis of Benchmark scores (77%), while one indicated automatic enrollment for all resource students. one used transcript data, and one staff recommendations. The Read 180 program was equally used to replace or to supplement Standard English courses. Principals indicated that students typically (60%) graduate at the end of the school year. Reporting and tracking elements. Four of the ten principals reported that the tracking forms included in the READ 180 software were used for program assessment. Three interviewees indicated that READ 180 in their schools used the software for pre- and postassessment of student performance. One principal further described that students were assessed at the beginning of the year, quarterly and at the end of the year using these tools. Strengths. The principals interviewed were asked what they considered to be the best aspects or strengths of the READ 180 program. The ability to work in small groups and individualize instruction was reported in 21% of the responses while 16% of the responses focused on the technological aspects of the program. One principal explained that the faculty believes that the READ 180 program meets the students at their reading level and helps them progress from there. It was also reported that the program encourages the use of a variety of teaching strategies (11%), that students, as well as teachers, can track student progress (11%) and that READ 180 classes holds students attention (11%). One principal commented that the faculty loves the program because of the hands-on approach. Another stated that READ 180 improved students vocabulary, reading and comprehension abilities. Improvements. The following were suggested as areas of improvement in the READ 180 program by the interviewees\novercoming technical issues (30%), bad marketing/image of the READ 180 program (20%) and costs of the program (20%). One principal reported that it 10/17/2006Page 45 of 123 was also difficult to ensure that everyone is maintaining data regarding students progress within the READ 180 program. Another indicated that as a result of the programs success the faculty at his/her school would like to offer the program to more students. However, the programs expense made this an unlikely possibility. Student Achievement Analyses and Results Student Achievement Analyses For all tests of program effects, a matched-samples design was employed. Where possible, each Read 180 student was individually matched to another student within the same school, at the same grade level, with the same 2005 ITBS Reading NCE score and demographic characteristics. In 13 of the 15 school/grade level combinations in which the program was implemented, this process resulted in nearly perfect matching based on a comparison of Read 180 and non-Read 180 students 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores. Independent samples t-tests were performed on 2005 ITBS Reading NCE scores within each grade and school, and in 12 of 15 cases the resulting p-value was at or above 0.95, where 1.00 indicates a perfect match (i.e., exactly the same pretest mean\nsee Table 12). The least efficient matching occurred at Central High and J.A. Fair High, where the p-values were 0.481 and 0.494, respectively. In these two instances, a preponderance of students with low pretest scores participated in the program, so it was not possible to match each program student to a control student on a one-to-one basis. Nevertheless, the results of the pretest comparisons indicate that there were no statistically significant differences between program and control students within any grade level or school. 10/17/2006Page 46 of 123 Table 12 Mean 2005 ITBS Reading NCE Scores (Pretest) by School, Grade, and Treatment Condition: Matched Samples School Central High Grade 9 Hall High Parkview High Treatment Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 J.A. Fair High Pulaski Heights Middle Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Southwest Middle McClellan High Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Mabelvale Middle Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Not Read 180 Read180 Mean 29.89 28.94 37.88 37.84 41.67 41.67 28.78 27.68 29.36 28.76 24.32 24.24 28.00 28.27 24.27 24.41 27.15 27.18 28.90 28.57 40.11 40.00 29.36 29.14 26.10 26.27 25.91 26.11 36.92 36.92 38.61 38.74 36.68 36.63 SD 10.169 12.172 11.244 11.261 12.228 12.228 11.741 13.643 13.003 13.989 13.431 13.627 14.386 14.109 13.854 13.727 9.144 14.011 14.734 15.148 11.985 11.995 15.237 15.207 13.757 12.642 12.094 11.979 14.866 14.855 20.043 20.409 12.679 12.691 n 64 64 51 51 15 15 51 103 25 25 25 25 22 22 22 22 39 68 21 21 35 35 28 28 30 44 44 44 25 25 31 31 38 38 t .481 .018 .000 .494 .157 .021 -.063 -.033 -.009 .072 .040 .053 .056 -.080 .000 -.025 .018 .632 .990 1.00 .620 .876 .983 .950 .974 .993 .943 .968 .958 .956 .937 1.00 .980 .986 9 9 9 6 6 7 8 9 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 A total of 661 Read 180 (72% of participants) had matching 2005 ITBS, district enrollment, program enrollment records, and 2006 ITBS scores. The matched comparison sample was comprised of a total of 566 students. The overall number in the comparison sample was smaller due to the lack of sufficient one-to-one matches at Central and J.A. Fair. In addition to the near exact matches on pretest scores, program students and comparison 10/17/2006 Page 47 of 123 students were quite similar on other demographics: 52.6% vs. 51.8% male, 93.5% vs. 92.4% African American, 71.4% vs. 71.2% eligible for free lunch, and 19.1% vs. 17.5% special education students for Read 180 and the control group, respectively. For each grade 6-9, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed with program (Read 180, Control) and school serving as independent variables\n2006 ITBS Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Total Reading, and Revised Writing NCE scores as outcomes\nand 2005 ITBS Reading NCE, student sex, special education status, and free or reduced-price lunch status as covariates. Wilks lambda was used as the criterion of multivariate significance and alpha was set at .05. When MANCOVA indicated a significant multivariate effect, univariate follow-up tests were conducted using a sequential Bonferroni approach\ni.e., employing an alpha of .0125 to adjust for the fact that four outcome measures were being analyzed. Effect size estimates were computed for each outcome by subtracting the covariate-adjusted Control mean from the Read180 adjusted mean, and dividing the difference by 21.06 (the national norm standard deviation for NCE scores). Arkansas Benchmark Literacy scale scores were available for grades six through eight. For these grades, analyses of covariance were performed with program (Read 180, Control) and school serving as independent variables\nLiteracy scale scores as outcomes\nand 2005 ITBS Reading NCE, student sex, special education status, and free or reduced-price lunch status as covariates. Effect size estimates were computed by subtracting the covariate- adjusted Control mean from the Read180 adjusted mean, then dividing the difference by the total standard deviation for each respective grade level. The percentages of students obtaining proficiency were computed for each combination of grade level, school, and treatment. Student Achievement Results Sixth grade ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated no statistically significant multivariate main effects for program (X, = 0.98, = 1.11, p = .36) or for the school X program interaction effect (X. = 0.92, F.,2 493 = 1.31, p = .21). Directionally, results tended to favor Control students 10/17/2006Page 48 of 123 (see Table 13 and Figures 1-4), particularly at Cloverdale and Mabelvale. At Pulaski Heights and Southwest, effect size estimates across subtests ranged from -0.11 to +0.05, showing essentially no differences between ReadlSO and Control students. At Mabelvale, moderately large negative effects were observed on Vocabulary (-0.39), Reading Comprehension (-0.21), and Total Reading (-0.33\nsee Table 12). Mean NCE scores for all groups across all subtests were quite low, ranging from 17.96 on Total Reading for the Read 180 group at Southwest Middle, to a high of 32.28 on Vocabulary for the Control group at Mabelvale Middle. 10/17/2006Table 13 Page 49 of 123 Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Means, Adjusted Means, and Effect Size Estimates^ by Treatment Condition and School Vocabulary: NCE Treatment Control School Pulaski Heights Middle Mean 27.65 Adjusted Mean 27.47 Effect Size N 23 1 Read180 Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle 20.60 27.50 32.28 27.63 19.80 24.46 24.56 22.38 27.82 29.81 28.31 22.31 24.80 21.51 0.04 0.00 -0.14 -0.39 25 28 25 24 25 28 25 Reading Comprehension: NCE Reading Total: NCE Revised Writing: NCE Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Effect size estimates are all based on the NCE standard deviation of 21.06. 29.43 26.00 28.61 31.04 27.58 22.96 24.61 27.00 26.74 21.52 26.43 30.64 25.79 17.96 22.79 24.24 31.87 25.20 28.96 29.44 28.58 22.04 23.61 30.92 29.29 28.17 28.73 27.53 28.99 26.65 24.86 23.01 26.55 23.84 26.69 27.12 27.03 21.60 23.13 20.11 32.07 26.19 28.90 26.03 30.55 27.19 23.62 26.16 23 25 28 25 -0.01 -0.07 -0.18 -0.21 0.02 -0.11 -0.17 -0.33 -0.07 0.05 -0.25 0.01 24 25 28 25 23 25 28 25 24 25 28 25 23 25 28 25 24 25 28 25 10/17/2006Page 50 of 123 Means by School and Treatment. Control Readl80 10/17/2006 Page 51 of 123 30- 29- in c S 28- s re E 27- ra s o 01 t# 26- E 25- 111 24- T T T Pulaski Heiglits Southwest Cloverdale Middle -------- Control -------- Readl80 23- Middle Middle Mabelvale Middle E n T Figure 2. Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Reading Comprehension NCE Adjusted Means by School and Treatment. 10/17/2006 28- Coiitiol Page 52 of 123 (A 26- 01 5 ra c '5 n 24- Z o 01 I# E  22- lU 20- T T T T Pulaski Heiglits Southwest Mabelvale Middle Cloverdale Middle - Read180 Middle Middle Figure 3. Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Total Reading NCE Adjusted Means by School and Treatment. 10/17/2006 32- lA n soot Sw c 528- k. n s D 01 Io 26- E \u0026lt;0 LU 24- --------Control  Readl80 22 Pulaski Heiglits Southwest Middle Middle Cloverdale Middle I Mabelvale Middle Page 53 of 123 T T T Figure 4. Sixth Grade 2006 ITBS Revised Writing NCE Adjusted Means by School and T reatment. Benchmark Literacy. ANCOVA revealed no statistically significant main effects for program (F.^ = 3.23, p = .07), and no program X school interaction effect F3193 = -11. P = .96). Directionally, results consistently favored the Control group, with effect size estimates ranging from -0.27 at Pulaski Heights to -0.12 at Cloverdale (see Table 14 and Figure 18). The percentages of students obtaining proficiency on the Benchmark Literacy exam were nearly equal between Readl80 and Control groups at Southwest (0.0% vs. 4.0%), Cloverdale (14.3% vs. 14.3%), and Mabelvale (16.0% vs. 20.8%), but only half the percentage of Read 180 students achieved proficiency relative to Control students at Pulaski Heights (12.0% vs. 24.0%\nsee Table 15). Table 14 10/17/2006 Page 54 of 123 2006 Benchmark Literacy Scale Score Means, Adjusted Means, and Effect Size Estimates by Grade Level, School, and Treatment Grade School Treatment Mean Adjusted Mean Effect Size N 6 Pulaski Heights Middle Control 534.04 539.07 25 7 8 Read180 487.24 501.06 -0.27 25 Southwest Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Control 434.60 451.97 25 Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 Control Read180 373.00 518.54 505.61 537.71 518.84 465.18 450.91 550.67 541.62 565.17 522.50 600.97 629.57 620.57 581.59 733.66 707.26 594.95 595.40 649.82 704.84 431.13 523.56 506.76 490.71 462.69 498.85 479.84 550.10 576.35 584.53 533.80 555.98 570.30 651.44 647.78 690.90 652.18 629.81 629.24 629.56 680.53 -0.15 -0.12 -0.20 -0.12 0.16 -0.31 0.09 -0.03 -0.29 0.00 0.38 25 28 28 24 25 22 22 21 21 30 44 31 30 21 22 35 35 44 43 38 37 Note. Total standard deviations by grade were 142.00,163.52, and 135.24 for grades six, seven, and eight, respectively. 10/17/2006Page 55 of 123 Control Readl80 Figure 18. Sixth Grade Mean Adjusted 2006 Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Scale Scores by School and Treatment. 10/17/2006 Page 56 of 123 Table 15 2006 Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Proficiency Categories by School and Treatment Condition, Sixth Grade School Treatment Control Read180 Pulaski Heights Middle Proficiency Category Not Proficient 19 22 Southwest Middle Proficiency Category Proficient Not Proficient % within treatment condition % within treatment condition 76.0% 88.0% 24.0% 12.0% 24 25 n n n 6 3 Proficient % within treatment condition 96.0% 100.0% n 1 0 Cloverdale Middle Proficiency Category Not Proficient Proficient Mabelvale Middle Proficiency Category Not Proficient Proficient % within treatment condition % within treatment condition % within treatment condition % within treatment condition % within treatment condition 4.0% 24 85.7% 14.3% 19 79.2% 20.8% .0% 24 85.7% 14.3% 21 84.0% 16.0% 10/17/2006 n n 4 4 n n 5 4Page 57 of 123 Seventh grade ITBS 2006 subtests. MANCOVA indicated a statistically significant multivariate main effect for program (A = 0.95, F^ 205 = 2.81, p = .03), with no school X program interaction effect (A, - 0.92, F^2,543  .37, p = .18). Follow-up univariate tests showed a significant program effect for Reading Comprehension {F.^ 208 = 10-59, p = .001) and Total Reading {F.^ 208  ^-^0, p = .006). In both cases, the overall adjusted mean for Read 180 students was significantly lower than that of the Control group = 30.96 vs. Mq = 36.55 for Reading Comprehension\nM.^qq = 28.84 vs. Mq = 33.64 for Total Reading). As shown in Figures 5-8 and on Table 16, Reading Comprehension and Total Reading scores consistently favored Control students at all schools, with effect size estimates ranging from -0.44 at Cloverdale Middle on Total Reading to -0.13 at Mabelvale Middle on Total Reading. Mean NCE scores across subtests for all groups, while somewhat higher than sixth grade, were still quite low. ranging from M = 23.5 on Vocabulary for the Southwest Middle Control students, to M = 43.43 on Reading Comprehension for the Mabelvale Control group (see Table 16). 10/17/2006Page 58 of 123 Table 16 Seventh Grade 2006 ITBS Means, Adjusted Means, and Effect Size Estimates^ by Treatment Condition and School Vocabulary: NCE Treatment Control School Mean Adjusted Mean ES N 1 Read 180 Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle Mabelvale Middle Southwest Middle Henderson Middle Cloverdale Middle 23.50 25.82 22 31.14 34.27 39.87 26.43 23.90 25.41 31.67 36.82\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_91","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-09"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/91"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org September 29, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza , 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill OCT 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of September 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sinvly, ,. D. fs~~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for September 2006. Respectfully Submitted, A_.,~)~ Scoff Smith, Bar # 9225 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on September 29, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFFICEOF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 September 30, 2006 Based on-the information av~ilable at August 31 2006 the AD ted the f)tate Fpunda_tion Funding for Y 0q/_07 _su.b,=-=-...---== =--=--==== B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation . 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 1tas1tatIJ6e\ninfQmffitiodo/amal2te:af!'.u..\"s\"'t.$!1!l'.20:0$!tne':DEca1cu1ated mtw oeY01!sotiiCToFoeriooic!a'oJtmeots1 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 D \"\"'K' \"\" )1, 20Q6, aTstributicfris '6(State Foundation Funding for F,Y 06/07,were rRSD f'J[RS __ .. .CSS :t 33,LOO LRSD NLR.S _ - 3 ,477,2?q ECSSD ~ $56,463,0id 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 September 30, 2006 }?ased.on the information availa_ble, the 6DE calculated at August 31 2006 for r:y\nQ..6/07 . subjectto. iriodic a_gjustments. 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 September 30, 2006 u I 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 September 30, 2006 j3as,e_d. QQ_tt}~ \"oformati6n\"9vaila'ble :..t'Ke ADE'calculated,at'Aug'usf3J,:2006 for: E)1 Q6/07 subect to.Qeriodic agjust~ 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 September 30, 2006 DistribuJions for-_ FY Q6/07 at _August 31 , 2006 tqtal_ecl $1,269,267:- Allotment ~alculated for FY 06l,071.Yas 13~62,94:1: ,subject to\" periodic adjustmenfsJ 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 September 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 05/06, 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 September 30, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at July 31, 2006, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11,619,283 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11 ,619,283 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 September 30, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out ir, three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 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 September 30, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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 September 30, 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger and 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 e'- FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) O. 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 September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 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 September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed , and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 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 September 30, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monito'ring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actuai as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assista .t - Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the AD E's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No C_hild Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1~30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions tu the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegre gation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p. m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in redt.. ing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation , and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presen~ed 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 A.DE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some deseg reg at ion monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 JV. 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 September 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the 84th Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 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 September 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. . COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) Duringthe 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 fr,6 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the AD E's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized . On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AD E's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT 'and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March.  On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11 , 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On August 14, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. QnSe fhe PM 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by  School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule foi Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature compensatory education programs. (Continued) search for research evaluating D. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. - - - In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled . On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing , Assessment and Accountability Program (ACT MP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTMP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT MP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT MP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT MP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT MP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for botn Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professio\n.a: development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training . Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided train ing on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming , 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACT AAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend . On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum . This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing , and mathematics skills. The following train ing has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, train ing was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program , entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child 's learning .\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian , and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Patholog ists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facil ity in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facil ity in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided train ing on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning , and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and read ing . On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, includ ing all the materials that have been given out at the vidt::o conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step tra ining. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading , writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching . This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11 , 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering , an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended . On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and train ing materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31 , 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting . On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum , assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kall ick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions\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_1449","title":"Report: ''Update of the Status of the Pulaski County Special School District's Implementation of Plan 2000,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2006-08-16"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School buildings","School discipline","School facilities","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Update of the Status of the Pulaski County Special School District's Implementation of Plan 2000,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1449"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["105 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_76","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2006-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/76"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner .Educatilf n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasEd.org August 31 , 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregatio One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 18 Pio 5,zoaa Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jone!lfiflR ll/i1/1l fONNI 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 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of August 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.  General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for August 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Smith, Bar# 9,251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on August 31, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 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. SamuelJones,m Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;kA Scott Smith RECEIVED THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT a SEP O EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS W 5 2006 WESTERN DIVISION LITTl.lJt-~~~OL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS Tnm'f,fl1NITORING 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 August 31 , 2006 Based on the information available at July 31, 2006, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 06/07, subject to periodic 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. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Based on the information available at Jul~ 31 06/07, sub'ect to eriodic adjustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 On July 31, 2006, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows: LRSD-$67,135,185 NLRSD - $34,528,908 PCSSD - $57,834,709 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 06/07 at Jul 31 2006, subject to eriodic adjustments, were as follows. LRSD- $68,967,608 NLRSD - $35,477,276 PCSSD - $56,463,070 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 August 31, 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at July 31, 2006 for FY 06/07, 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 August 31, 2006 ~ase on e I onnation availal51e, the AD calculated at July 31, 2006 for F't1 06/07 sub\"ect to riodic adustments 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 August 31, 2006 Based on the infonnation available, tlie ADE calculated at July 31, 2006 for FY 06/07, 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 August 31, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at July 31, 2006, totaled $13,862,944. Allotment calculated for FY 06/07 was $13,862,944 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 August 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 05/06, 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 August 31, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at July 31, 2006, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11,619,283 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,482,380 NLRSD - $4,691,996 PCSSD - $11,619,283 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 August 31, 2006 In September 2002, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 02/03 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinatorof School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the third one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the first one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. In January 2006, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 05/06 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 In November 2005, General Finance made the last one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $4,143,106.00 NLRSD - $834,966.13 PCSSD - $2,884,201.56 In November 2005, General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At November 2005, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $1,415,633.33 NLRSD - $284,716.52 PCSSD - $974,126.58 In February 2006, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 05/06 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 2006, the following had been paid for FY 05/06: LRSD - $2,831,266.66 NLRSD - $569,433.04 PCSSD - $1,948,253.16 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 August 31, 2006 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2002, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 02/03 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2003, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 03/04 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2004, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 04/05 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In October 2005, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 05/06 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 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 August 31 , 2006 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. In July 1999, the ADE. purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two 47 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and fourteen 65 passenger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. In June 2003, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include 5 - 47 passenger buses for $47,052.00 each, and 11 - 65 passenger buses for $48,895.00 each. The total amount was $773,105. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 47 passenger a.nd 1 of the 65 passenger buses. In June 2004, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The price for the buses was $49,380 each for a total cost of $790,080. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8, NLRSD - 2, and PCSSD - 6. In June 2005, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 -47 passenger bus for $52,135.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for $53,150.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $53,150.00 each. The total amount was $849,385.00. In March 2006, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Central States Bus Sales. The buses for the LRSD include 8 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The buses for the NLRSD include 1 - 47 passenger bus for $54,990.00, and 1 - 65 passenger bus for$56,810.00. The buses for the PCSSD include 6 - 65 passenger buses for $56,810.00 each. The total amount was $907,140.00. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 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 August 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. 9 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 August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 04/05. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 05/06. Distribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $92,500. This was the total amounf due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 06/07. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. Distribution in July 2003 for FY 03/04 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 03/04. Distribution in July 2004 for FY 04/05 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 04/05. 11 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. istribution in July 2006 for FY 06/07 was $200 000. This was the total amount tJue to the ODM for FY 06/07. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 13 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation tu file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's praa~\"'\"'\"S toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued} In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. WilliA Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool {PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. On October 29, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Meetings with the parties to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan will be postponed by request of the school districts in Pulaski County. Additional meetings could be scheduled after the Desegregation ruling is finalized. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On January 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. No Child Left Behind and the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD were discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201- A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from April 10. It will take place on April 24, 2003 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 19 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 August 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearance Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 20 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On November 4, 2004, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The ADE is required to check laws that the legislature passes to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Clearence Lovell was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he has retired, the ADE attorney will find out who will be checking the next legislation. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 6, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On May 3, 2005, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The PCSSD has petitioned to be released from some desegregation monitoring. There was discussion in the last legislative session that suggested all three districts in Pulaski County should seek unitary status. Legislators also discussed the possibility of having two school districts in Pulaski County instead of three. An Act was passed by the Legislature to conduct a feasability study of having only a north school district and a south school district in Pulaski County. Removing Jacksonville from the PCSSD is also being studied. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 7, 2005 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On June 20, 2006, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. ADE staff from the Office of Public School Academic Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The purpose, content, and due date for information going into the Project Management Tool and its Executive Summary were reported. There was discussion about the three districts in Pulaski County seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 21 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 August 31, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31 , 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature., the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine iftbey 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 lm!1 .dA Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 27 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 1748 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. On October 27, 2003, the ADE sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County asking if there were any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to review laws passed during the~ Legislative Session, any new ADE rules or regulations, and district policies.. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 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 August 31 , 2006 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) 0. 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 August 31, 2006 (Continued} During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight 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 August 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of wr~ response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, 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 August 31, 2006 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend 1he meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 100 They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress. a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 18, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 12, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 9, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 11, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 8, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 13, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 10, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 10, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 14, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On August 9, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of June and July. On September 12, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 11, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 8, 2004, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 39 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) On May 9, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 13, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 11, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 8, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 12, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 10, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 14, 2005, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On January 9, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the months of November and December. On February 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 8, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 40 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On August f4, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Eaucation reviewed and aJ) PMT and its executive summa~ for the month of Jul 41 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCNCOE peer team visits. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 43 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. {Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content \u0026amp;-ea. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 46 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NGA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teacbio~ strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas {ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTMP lntermecilate. (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writin_g. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 53 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued} 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 {Continued} On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001, there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001, a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 56 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 0 and 11, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001. The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD O!' September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001. The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of August 31, 2006 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam t\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":20,"next_page":21,"prev_page":19,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":228,"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}}]}}