{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_652","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":["2006-08/2006-10"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","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/652"],"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\nPage 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, August 07, 2006 4:14 PM meeting toorrow at 1:30 Chris called this afternoon and said PRE staff members are not to attend the meeting scheduled for tomorrow. 8/8/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday. August 09, 2006 4:59 PM updateSep06draft.doc Margie, This is a new draft of the Quarterly that is supposed to go to Board members this evening. There are just a couple of minor additions to the text you saw in the draft sent to you yesterday. Karen RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2006 office OF desegregation monitoring 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Maicolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:08 AM RE: quarterly update Thanks. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:00 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nMargie Subject: Re: quarterly update karen - we've got three weeks - i don't see any problem, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 8/10/2006 10:58:24 AM \u0026gt; Chris, I posted PRE's quarterly update, due Sep 1 to the Court, and the topic is on the agenda for tonight's agenda meeting of the Board. However, late yesterday Beverly notified me that the Board will not get copies of the report itself. Instead, she posted only the cover or title page for the Board members to see. A couple of issues concern me about this: 1. Will the Board members have adequate opportunity to read and discuss the update before they approve it, so we can deliver it to the Court by Sep 1 ? 2. What if anything should the PRE department do to get the update to the Board members and answer any questions prior to their vote and assure compliance with the Court's remedy? We're able to work on this today and during the remainder of August, since it's a high priority for the department. Thanks for your counsel. Karen 8/10/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:15 AM training with pricipals PRE will be working with principals today -4 sessions- at the Tech Center beginning at 8:30, 10:00,12:30, and 2:00. The focus is on ACSIP plan development. Dr. Roberts assigned development of ACSIPs to PRE as part of the deeply embedded assessment process. You are invited to attend. Also tomorrow Janine Riggs will meet with PRE and principals at Bale Elementary at 9am to discuss ayp processes. Again, you are welcome to join us. About Chris, we have not met with him yet. He says he is busy with the case related to Central. 8/16/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:16 PM Data for Evaluation Before I loose my thoughts after attending the meeting re AYP being conducted by Janine Riggs from ADE, I am thoroughly confused regarding the data that is being provided to the experts for program evaluations. Based upon the responses from Ed Williams and several of the principals at the meeting, it appears that the data being provided to the evaluators is not valid, or is fraught with errors, especially as it related to student identity and attendance. Would you kindly explain the process being used by PRE for submitting the electronic data to the experts for their evaluations. Please advise what was done last year, what was done this year and how you plan to obtain the data for future assessments and evaluations. Your attention to this request is appreciated. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"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; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:13 PM FW: assessment process fyi From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:28 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject\nassessment process karen - please do not discuss issues which will likely be litigated in December, including our implementation of the compliance remedy, with lawyers or paralegals representing any other party in this case outside my presence, please ask the rest of the pre staff to do the same, thank you. ch 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:43 PM FW: AYP Appeals, Password for Ed. Stats and data you can pull for ACSIP Related to the questions posed today about incorrect data. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:15 PM To: Zeigler, Gwendolyn\nAnderson, Barbara\nBarksdale, Mary\nBrooks, Jill\nBrooks, Sharon\nCarson, Cheryl\nCarter, Karen\nCarter, Lillie\nCox, Eleanor\nDunbar, Ethel\nHall, Donna\nHarris, Tyrone\nHobbs, Felicia\nJones, Beverly\nKeown, Ada\nKetcher, Theresa\nMangan, Anne\nMannon, Roberta\nMenking, Mary\nMitchell, Deborah\nMorgan, Scott\nMosley, Betty\nRamsey, Becky\nRay, Katina\nRichardson, Shoutell\nScull, Lillie\nSmith, Darian\nSwaty, Nancy\nTaylor, Leslie\nTucker, Janis\nWhitehorn, Daniel\nBlaylock, Ann\nBoykin, Patricia\nBurton, Marvin\nFields, Frederick\nPrice, Deborah\nSmith, David M.\nThrasher, Eunice\nTodd-Hamilton,Gloria\nAllen, Brenda\nBacon, John\nBrown, Linda\nLaurent, Ronald\nRousseau, Nancy Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie\nBabbs, Junious Subject: AYP Appeals, Password for Ed. Stats and data you can pull for ACSIP Per your request: A clarification Their is a tremendous amount of information / data that can be pulled down from the NORMES web page, via the orange Ed.Stats icon on that page. All you need a user name and password. You user name is your lea #, (e.g., 6001000). However, the password is a random bunch of numbers and letters. The password is the same that you were assigned to access EnterprizeGuide. So, many of you should know what your password is. If you do not have a password, then go to the NORMES site as you will need to fax a signed request to NORMES, http://normes.uark.edu/. This site is also where the IRI data is accessed. Okay, I need your help. ADE has advised us that if you feel that the AYP report on percent tested is wrong on the combined population then an appeal is in order. The reason that the AYP report has you testing less than 95% is that the mainframe computer shows students registered at your school that did not take the Benchmark or EOC test. This list of students is accessed through the orange Ed.Stats icon on the NORMES website, thus the importance of the password. I am asking that you print off this apscan nonmatch report and determine why these students were not tested. I will also be sending you an excel file of these students, but would appreciate your help. Pleas call me if you have any questions. Dr. Ed, 7-3386 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\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; Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:15 AM RE: Assessment Process Joy, The ACSIP plans are public documents and you may have access to them. As for the other questions posed, I will send a response from the PRE Department after further discussion with the statisticians. I certainly have my opinion but would rather respond as a department since we are a team and work from group consensus. And yes, we have had extensive discussions with Vicky Bernhardt. I will send a more detailed and specific response to both of your questions as soon as the department can meet. This may take a few days since we are facilitating training sessions for principals related to Annual Yearly Progress and the NORMES website today and tomorrow. Karen From: Joy Springer [mailto:jspringer@gabrielmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:10 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: mqpowell@odmemail.com\nJohn W. Walker Subject: Assessment Process Good morning.. I wanted to let you know that I have been reflecting on the meeting on yesterday and the one at the Embassey Suites. In doing so, several questions comes to mind: 1) Do you and members of your staff believe that the district can deeply embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the curriculum and instruction program through the use of ACSIP? 2) Have you had any discussions with Dr. Bernhardt regarding this approach? and if so, what comments has she made regarding the use of this approach/process? Would you kindly share copies of the ACSIP plans? or allow us to view them as they are being develop? Thank you for your cooperation. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:10 AM Assessment Process Good morning.. I wanted to let you know that I have been reflecting on the meeting on yesterday and the one at the Embassey Suites. In doing so. several questions comes to mind: 1) Do you and members of your staff believe that the district can deeply embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the curriculum and instruction program through the use of ACSIP? 2) Have you had any discussions with Dr. Bernhardt regarding this approach? and if so, what comments has she made regarding the use of this approach/process? Would you kindly share copies of the ACSIP plans? or allow us to view them as they are being develop? Thank you for your cooperation. 8/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;wes.whitley@arkansas.gov\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;wwhitley@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:18 AM ACSIP - LRSD Good morning... I am reflecting on our meetings the last few weeks. I have several questions for you: 1) Are you familiar with the LRSD's obligation to embed a comprehensive assessment process into its curriculum and instruction program? 2) Do you have an opinion regarding the district's use of ACSIP for this process? Finally, correct me if I am in error, but I understand that your role (ADE) regarding school improvement (ACSIP) is to actually develop the ACSIP for schools who are in Year 5 improvement. How do you specifically plan to do this with respect to schools in LR who are in year 5? Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. 8/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:35 PM FW: An additional database if you choose to use Update: Ed has sent additional data to evaluators. From: Williams, Ed Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:03 PM To: JNunnerY@odu.edu\n(Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu) Cc: Steve Ross (smross@memphis.edu)\nDejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: An additional database if you choose to use James and John\nThe attached database is what the State uses for the NCLB Annual Yearly Progress reports. There is much less data on this file than the one I sent Tuesday. However, there are some points you may want to consider. In past years the outside evaluators (i.e., you guys) have deferred to the Districts mainframe data for demographic data (e.g., free and reduced lunch) rather than use the test data information. There is a slight change to that. Schools, this past year, had the option to change demographic test data where it was found to be incorrect and not use the pre-printed labels provided via the District's mainframe. In looking at what is on the mainframe v. test booklet for race, it was decided to defer to the test booklet thus there were some changes. The attached data file is a melding of the mainframe and school level data and my advice would be to use the attached data file for demographic data as in represents the most current information we have on student demographics. Since the attached data file only has the level of performance, you will need to link it to the data file I sent on Tuesday if you want more types of data. Call if you need info on the various codes. Talk to you soon Dr. Ed 501-447-3386 8/17/2006Margie -Oed. O Page From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, August 21, 2006 4:48 PM updateSep06draftfinal.doc quarterly draft revised The Quarterly was revised to reflect our receipt of needed electronic data and that we passed the data on to external evaluators. I have sent this amended document on to Chris Heller and Dr. Roberts. 8/22/20066 Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:34 PM FW: Cabinet Recap From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:31 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap As you know we met yesterday and afterwards I sent Chris (and cc: Roberts and Hattabaugh) a copy of the report with an edit requested by Dr. Roberts. I let Chris know we were fuzzy on the other edits mentioned but not specifically discussed. I have not heard back from anyone. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:24 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap Karen\nAny word on the quarterly report? From\nDejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:28 PM To: Griffin, Beverly\nAdams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap Also, the Magnet Evaluation Report is scheduled for the September meeting. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:13 AM To: Adams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nDejarnette, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Cabinet Recap Since some of you missed the meeting yesterday morning, thought I would provide a brief recap and a list of Snapshot assignments. Snapshots: Dennis Glasgow - - Southwest Learning Academy Junious Babbs - - Summer School Summary Wayne Adams - - Completed Summer Projects 8/23/2006Page 2 of 2 Olivine Roberts - - ACT Results Updates \u0026amp; Other Assignments: Dejarnette / Roberts - - report to the board at September agenda meeting / Measuring the Vision Watson - - enrollment status report to the board at September agenda meeting / Final October enrollment report at October agenda meeting Hattabaugh / Mittiga / Roberts - - report to Board in July 2007 / 2\"** annual Superintendents Monitoring Report Roberts - - status report! Evaluation of magnet programs Hattabaugh / Watson - - parent notification / school improvement status letters Mittiga - - writing and revising of policies / coordinate with Linda Young Babbs - - have Coach McGee present for introduction at board meeting Glasgow - - have Barbara Williams present for introduction at board meeting Milhollen - - establish date for budget worksession in early September FYI Vann - - Board Candidate Forum / Wednesday, September 6, 6:30 p.m. LRSD board room. Next meeting: Monday, August 28, 9:00 a.m. 8/23/2006August 24, 2006 The Update, which is due September 1 to ODM and Joshua, is the last of eight required of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department in the remedy issued by the US District Court (June 30, 2004). After this, the Courts remedy calls for reports of the last four evaluations and a final compliance hearing in the coming months. This update may be the last opportunity for the Department to convey its observations about progress toward the first task assigned to PRE by the court-to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction .... The purpose of this \"'deeply embedded\" process, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in January 2005, is to gauge the Districts progress in improving the academic achievement of African- American students. The Court anticipated a decade or more for LRSD to improve their academic achievement and clearly did not desire to supervise the District that long. At the next compliance hearing, the court explicitly wrote, LRSD \"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. The four professionals of the rejuvenated PRE Department undertook this challenge with enthusiasm and vigor in the autumn of 2004, and they continue to do so. PRE has reported its progress to the Board of Directors in its seven previous updates, all of which the Board has approved before their submission to ODM and Joshua. This one, however, was withheld from the board so legal counsel could edit it, a puzzling action. As a result of the remedy issued by the US District Court (June 30, 2004), the Little Rock School District has advanced its ability to assess its programs and activities. Several critical obstacles have been identified, and the District has embarked on removing them. They are appropriate for consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. After hiring qualified people to assess and evaluate programs, LRSD must allow them unrestricted access to the data they need for assessments and evaluations. This the District did, putting highest priority on PREs requests for data from Information Services Department, which has quickly responded to requests, and moving toward making the data more directly accessible to PRE. However, PRE did not participate in designing a data warehouse, which it recommended to the District\nand the District rejected the best known software product for this purpose, which probably could have been operating by now. Instead, software is being adapted from a commercial retail application, and no date for its completion has been set. The importance of an efficiently operated, comprehensive data warehouse is evident when one remembers that the PRE Department has only four people assessing LRSD activities, compared to the dozens employed by the external experts who carried out the eight evaluations required by the Court.A greater impediment to assessment which has become evident during the past two years is incorrect data. How many errors (or the error rate) are unknown, since apparently no one has studied the matter. However, PRE and the external evaluators have found much wrong information. PRE has found no individual or department responsible for correct data. So an obvious recommendation is to implement a universal data management system which checks new data, edits it during its lifetime, oversees its use, and deletes wrong and outdated information. Until the District accomplishes that, decisions based on its data will be less uncertain than they should. These are prominent findings by PRE, which the District can now address. PRE remains enthusiastic about the prospect of providing correct and useful evidence on which LRSD can act to become the highest achieving urban school district. The District will be quite unusual if not unique in this respect, which is an accomplishment LRSD can proudly present to the US District Court as well to its patrons.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:12 PM Ed Services Program Assessments.pdf FW\nassessments of programs From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:12 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: FW: assessments of programs I have given all of the reflection and input I feel necessary related to the Quarterly Update. I defer to counsel to amend any portion of the report necessary. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:56 AM To: 'Chris Heller'\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: assessments of programs Chris, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Dr. Roberts, I have called each of you this morning to request further conversation related to program assessments requested by Dr. Roberts and reported in the eighth quarterly update. After further reflection, I am very uncomfortable taking the names of the programs we have been asked to assess out of the quarterly update. The enclosed document was written by Dr. Roberts and given to me as well as other directors attending the February 2006 Ed Services Directors' Meeting. Dr. Roberts and I discussed progress on these assessments many times since the initial February meeting. Now, 6 months later, after we have disclosed in the eighth quarterly report the names of the programs we are assessing we are being counseled and directed to take the names out of the report. Further, we are told to understand that we have not ever received direction to assess any of these programs. Again, I am uncomfortable with amending the report in this way. I hope we can discuss this further. Karen 8/24/2006Program Curriculum Mapping SOAR Voyager CRISS Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 Measures Survey, Lesson Plans, Anchor Assess, SOAR Survey Pre/Post Data Attitudinal Survey Survey Target Group Curriculum-Council Math Coaches Literacy Coaches Subgroups: Parents, Teachers, Students, Principals Students Teachers Participating Teachers When April 30 June 1 June 1 February 18Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 New K-12 Literacy Adoption Survey Focus Group Teachers May 30 Transition to Advanced Mathematics (TAM) Coaches (Instructional, CCSTs, Math, Literacy, Curriculum) Inclusion Attendance Grades Attitudinal Survey ACTAAP Survey Focus Group Focus Group (Middle/High) Students Teachers Coaches Teachers Principals Teachers Principals May 30 May 30 May 30Educational Services Program Assessment 2005-2006 SAPI Module Evaluations Exit Conference Participants May 30 IMargie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"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\"Donna Creer\" \u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;: \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt; Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:41 PM Magnet Team Meeting The following email is sent to you by Karen Dejarnette because Maurecia Robinsons email is currently not working: Hello Team, An evaluation team meeting with Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, the external evaluator of our Magnet Schools and Programs, will be held on August 30^ at 11a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope you will attend and provide feedback on the draft report. The draft report will be hand delivered for your review. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia 8/24/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"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\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Greer\" \u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\"Jeanne Dreyfus\" \u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla,edu\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, August 28, 2006 3:05 PM Reminder - Magnet Team Meeting Jeanne Dreyfus, the external consultant and technical writer for the Magnet Evaluation, will hold a conference call to get feedback on the draft of the Magnet report. The meeting will be held on August 30*^ at 11a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope you will attend and provide feedback on the draft report. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 8/28/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, August 28, 2006 10:51 AM Joshua Concerns regarding LRSD program evaluation Good morning.... After attending the LRSD Board meeting on Thursday evening, I have some additional concerns that I would like to bring to the attention of the district's administration: The Board voted to continue an incentive program for teachers regarding improving student achievement and it was expanded to additional schools. It is my understanding that PRE has evaluated this program??? It does not seem equitable in that all schools need help in improving student achievement. Additional questions are\n1) why is the district spending thousands of dollars to an external evaluators to do what the court and Joshua envisioned PRE would do\n2) would this money be better spent purchasing the educational program that was recommended by Dr. Bernhardt for embedding program assessments rather than the program used by retail businesses being developed by the district that has no tentative date for completion\nand 3) why was there no attached quarterly report to the Board Agenda package? 3) 8/28/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 01, 2006 4:32 PM LRSD Evaluation Report Status.doc FW: Request for extension Margie and Gene, Looks like Chris will be asking for another extension for three of the evaluation reports. Just wanted to let you know. See enclosed document received from Steve Ross today. Karen From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 4:09 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: Request for extension Hi Karen, Based on the current status of the available data, we need to request extensions to be sure that we can satisfy timelines. Please see the attached explanation. Thanks, and rest up this weekend! Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax: 901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu 9/5/2006LRSD Evaluation Report Status September 1, 2006 21- Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180  CREP received confirmation on September 1,2006 from PRE that the benchmark data we received is complete.  As we established in previous extension requests, CREP needs 6-8 weeks to analyze the achievement data and write the final reports using both achievement and Step 2/Qualtitative data sources.  The projected timeline for sending the 2P CCLC and READ 180 reports to PRE is October 23'^. PRE will need to conduct reviews of the reports before they send them to the court, so they should back up the court due date extension request accordingly. o Important Note - The above timeline presumes that we will analyze the data that we have on hand as of September 1. With regard to the recently discovered unprocessed McClellan High School Algebra 1 tests, CREP will see if there are any systematic concerns that can be teased out with the data that we have. After we get the data for those missing students, the analysis can be rerun if desired by PRE. Pre-K  The district and CREP are still awaiting the QELI data from Riverside Publishing. We will need 6-8 weeks from the date we receive the data before sending the draft reports to PRE.Page 1 of 1 Margie From\nTo: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 11, 2006 7:55 PM FW: foia fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:53 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: foia Chris, I reviewed the four foi requests received today from Mr. Walker. I believe I gave you all of the documents requested in these four foi requests to you in early July. I delivered them to your office and we discussed the items briefly. Afterwards, Khayaam called to discuss some of the items and then he sent me a letter (hard copy) indicating he had passed them on to Mr. Walker. The emails and other items were in response to the June 28* foi received from Mr. Walker. Let me know if I need to provide another copy or if you kept a copy of the file I delivered to your office. It was quite large. Karen 9/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday. September 11, 2006 1:24 PM request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf\nsecond request from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf from PRE Update\n-We received two requests from Mr. Walker last week (enclosed), have sent on to Roberts, Hattabaugh, and Heller -Chris has not yet responded about Ross request for an extension. I sent him Ross' email on September 1 and reminded him twice since then. -Another draft of the Magnet Report is ready for you. Want to pick it up or should I drop it off to your office? 9/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:07 PM discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1 request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21* Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23''* and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/14/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:52 PM FW: discussion about extensions for CREP fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:49 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: discussion about extensions for CREP Dr. Ross is not available for a call until Tuesday at 1p.m. And, your secretary says you are not in today. Dr. Ross has discussed the status of his evaluations with me and I have relayed the information to you by email and voice mail on September 1' and thereafter. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:24 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP when is the call w/ dr ross and what happened to the meeting jim was going to schedule for us to meet today to discuss this same topic? dr ross is our expert and we have an obligation to determine the status of his evaluation and report to the court, odm and Joshua, i don't see any reason for an open conference call w/ dr ross before we have done that, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/14/2006 12:07 PM \u0026gt; I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21' Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23'^'' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:27 PM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I understand the District is not interested to request an extension and feels Ross should get it done\". This is the reason for setting up the call. From: Margie [mailto:mqpowell@odmemail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:32 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP Karen, Do you know what length of time the district is expecting to ask for in the request for an extension? Do you have a date and time yet for the conference call? Gene plans to attend for ODM. MP  Original Message  From: Dejarnette, Karen To: Chris Heller\nMarqie\nJoy Sprinqer\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nJames Catterall\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nBrooks, Roy G Sent: Thursday. September 14, 2006 12:07 PM Subject: discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1 request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21* Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23\"* and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed' \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday. September 14, 2006 12:26 PM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I meant to include the date and time of the call: Tuesday September 19*^ at 1p.m. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:07 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Margie'\n'Joy Springer'\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\n'James Catterall'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: discussion about extensions for CREP I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23'' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/15/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 15, 2006 5:07 PM meet and confer John and margie - i spoke today with Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the three evaluations which they are in the process of preparing, i've got some information which, given judge wilson's expectation that we continue to meet and confer, i would like to discuss with you as i prepare a report for the court, i am also prepared to respond to the Joshua concerns raised at our last meeting, my schedule is fairly open for the next week or so. please let me know when you would like to meet, thanks, ch Jones - i could not find his email address. ps- please forward this to gene 9/21/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 18, 2006 12:27 PM Re: meet and confer i'll do it. ch \u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;Johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt; 9/18/2006 6:48 AM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Chris, Please put your concerns in writing so there will be no misunderstanding about the issues. I am aware that the district remains out of compliance. You and I are both aware that you have not met the previous commitment made in the presence of Gene Jones and Margie Powell regarding program evaluation. That was more than a month ago in the ODM office (conference room). Further, if we \"meet and confer\" I prefer that it be in the presence of Jones and Powell. -----Original Message------ From: Chris Hellei To: iohnwalkeratty@aol.com\nmqpowell@odmemail.com Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 5:07 PM Subject: meet and confer John and margie - i spoke today with Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the three evaluations which they are in the process of preparing, i've got some information which, given judge wilson's expectation that we continue to meet and confer, i would like to discuss with you as i prepare a report for the court, i am also prepared to respond to the Joshua concerns raised at our last meeting, my schedule is fairly open for the next week or so. please let me know when you would like to meet, thanks, ch ps- please forward this to gene Jones - i could not find his email address. 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Ed Williams\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hugh Hattabaugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Jim Wohlleb\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Karen Dejarnette\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Maurecia Robinson\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olivine Roberts\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roy G Brooks\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:09 AM Re: discussion about extensions for CREP karen (and everyone) - i spoke last week w/ Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the evaluations, i emailed joshua and odm to let them know that i had information to discuss with them and to suggest another meeting, mr walker requested that i put my concerns in writing, which i will do today, following any discussion with odm and joshua, i will prepare a report to the court, there is no reason for a conference call w/ dr ross today, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/14/2006 12:07 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1' request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23^ and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/26/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hattabaugh, Hugh\" \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks, Roy G\" \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:55 AM RE: discussion about extensions for CREP I plan to call Dr. Ross at 1p.m. today to learn what is going on. This email does not have details about what was discussed, whether or not an extension will be requested. If so, when? What was written to ODM and JOSHUA, etc. Chris, please provide details. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:10 AM To: Joy Springer\nJames Catterall\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nMargie Subject: Re: discussion about extensions for CREP karen (and everyone) - i spoke last week w/ Steve ross and aaron mcdonald regarding the evaluations, i emailed Joshua and odm to let them know that i had information to discuss with them and to suggest another meeting, mr walker requested that i put my concerns in writing, which i will do today, following any discussion with odm and Joshua, i will prepare a report to the court, there is no reason for a conference call w/ dr ross today, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.DeJarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/14/2006 12:07 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; I have scheduled a conference call with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss his September 1* request for an extension of court-mandated evaluation reports. The conversation will focus on potential dates for PRE to receive the three studies being conducted by CREP. My understanding is the Read 180 and 21 Century reports will likely arrive to PRE around October 23''' and the PreK study may arrive around mid-November. CREP has not yet received all of the needed data for the PreK analysis. You are all invited to join this conversation. The call will take place in my office at the IRC. Please let me know if you plan to join us. 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 3 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:12 PM FW: evaluations From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 6:12 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\n'Steve Ross (smross@memphis.edu)' Subject: RE: evaluations The best thing we could do is have a meeting with everyone together to answer your questions. I set up such a meeting for last Thursday. Then, you emailed and said you had talked to people and the meeting did not need to happen. Now, you have lots of questions. All of us have pieces of answers to your questions, together we could provide you with a more complete response. Many phone calls have taken place as well as emails. Not all of PRE staff or CREP staff were on each call or included in every email. The important outcome is that CREP needs an extension of time for each of their three studies. They realized and communicated that on September 1 yet the request had not been forwarded to the Court. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed Subject: RE: evaluations i have reviewed the emails you just sent, they do not answer most of the questions i sent on Tuesday, would you please review my questions and either answer them or direct me to the particular document which you believe provides the answer, also, after reviewing what ed sent to crep on August 15 and 17, i don't understand why dan at crep did not seem to know on August 21 that crep had received any data, finally, it looks like ed advised crep on August 17 that crep should use the data file he attatched because it \"represents the most current information we have on student demographics\", but that it could be linked with the August 15 file if the evaluators wanted \"more types of data\", i don't see where ed indicated that there was any problem with the data in either the August 15 or August 17 data files, was james confused by this? maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see much sense of urgency, if crep had a problem or a question, why didn't someone contact us when they got the data from ed? from the correspondence i've seen, it looks like they didn't know they had any data until maurecia checked with them, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/21/2006 1:50 PM \u0026gt; 9/26/2006Page 2 of 3 Chris, We have met and I am forwarding a number of emails to you now that show the line of conversation. The forwarded emails include one sent from Ed on August 15'^, another from Ed on August 171^, one from Debbi Lawson on August 31*, and one from me to Ed today. I am also sending the NORMES posting printed on June 22'^'*. Let me know if you have additional questions after you review these documents. I would have scanned these and sent in one file but our copier is jammed today. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: evaluations karen - i've reviewed the documents you sent this summer and don't find clear answers to my questions, have you had a pre meeting yet to prepare a response? ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrscl.org\u0026gt; 9/20/2006 1:25 PM \u0026gt; I would like to meet with PRE staff before responding because I may not know of all of the communications that have happened between PRE and CREP. Two statisticians are moving among schools today providing test training. We can meet and provide answers tomorrow morning or you can meet with us tomorrow morning to hear the answers. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? if so, would you please send me a copy of that document, did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? is the data we sent in mid- august the data that crep is now using? regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to Steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline, if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? these are a few of the questions i must be in a position to answer, thanks for your help, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/19/2006 10:02 AM \u0026gt; 9/26/2006Page 3 of 3 Chris, Here are answers to your questions. Karen first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? Ed sent two files in mid-August and did not verify which on to use until September l^ who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? NORMES posted incorrect data for the month of August and PRE (Ed, Jim, and Maurecia) worked with schools to clean and correct misinformation for students who showed on the NORMES mismatch and nomatch databases, why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? They were waiting on us to tell them which file to use and that the data had been verified. second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? In January I believe-at the eval team meeting. why was it added? Steve and Anna felt it necessary. why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? Riverside did not offer it in an electronic format, NORMES said it would but then determined it had over 15,000 errors and decided not to offer it. PRE then contracted with Riverside to get it. finally, i understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? Yes i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? Yes, Ross proposes to use what he has. We are not sure the McClellan tests will be scored. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:39 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: evaluations karen - a couple of questions so that i can report to odm, joshua and judge wilson. first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? why was it added? why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? finally, I understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? thanks, ch ps - i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? 9/26/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 22, 2006 1:32 PM FW: three evaluations From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 1:04 PM To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu Subject: RE: three evaluations Chris, We just had a long meeting with the key researchers. I can tell you, and would certainly be willing to convey this to judge Wilson if deemed appropriate, that extraordinary efforts are already being made to analyze the data and complete the reports. These efforts include weekends and late nights, and concern about stakeholder understanding (assuming quick turnaround is desired or being encouraged) about the complexity of the data bases, the anomalies that are discovered AS WE WORK WITH THE DATA, and the critical importance of informing the district, the court, and the research community of how the targeted programs impact students, especially African Americans. Even for 21* Century, we have recently uncovered anomalies (uninterpretable) data for one of the schools regarding attendance and enrollment. Now is not the time for details, but wed be happy to participate in a conference call with anyone from the district, Joshua, or ODM to describe how challenging it is to work through these problems, and produce a credible report. Six weeks is a very constrained, but potentially achievable deadline, if it assumed that the data sets contain no anomalies or unusual complexities. That is NOT the case here for 21 Century and Pre-K Literacy, respectively. So, its essential that you request an extension, as we requested for Read 180 and 21 Century, until October 15. However, if you want 21 Century by the 15*, there will not be sufficient time to work with PRE and the school in question to resolve the (major) discrepancies in the data for those schools. So, well need to qualify those findings in the report. (If LRSD wanted an amended report, involving re-analysis once the anomalies for that school, are resolved, wed need to discuss and negotiate the additional time involved.) My staff informs me that they hope to be able to verify by Oct 1, all the Pre-K Literacy data sets, to ensure that we have what we need to start the analyses. If so, we will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete that report by November 15*. So, for now Read 180 and 21 will be in on Oct 15, and Pre-K by November 15. Well inform you if issues or problems arise that would preclude meeting those projected deadlines. Perhaps there is some flexibility at the district end in reviewing the reports? Steve 10/2/2006Page 2 of 2 We, again, are fully open to conference calls with you or any stakeholders to explain what needs to be done to produce meaningful, accurate, and scientifically valid evidence for LRSD. Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Direct Line: 901-678-3413 Center Toll Free: 866-670-6147 Fax:901-678-4257 http://crep.memphis.edu From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:58 PM To: Steven M Ross (smross) Cc: Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\nroy.g.brooks@lrsd.org\nAaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmcdnid) Subject: three evaluations Steve - i've reviewed many of the documents concerning the availability of data for the three evaluations being prepared by crep. i did this with the expectation that i would report to Joshua and odm that additional time would be necessary, and then file a request with the court, it is in Irsd's best interest to do everything possible to meet the current deadline before we consider requesting another extension, please let me know if there is anything that can be done, even at an increased cost, to get the evaluations, or any of them, drafted by October 15. if not, can you assure me that there is nothing that crep or pre could have done to get the evaluations done on time, thanks, ch 10/2/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 25, 2006 4:28 PM FW: deadline fo October 1st From: James Catterall [mailto:jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: deadline fo October 1st Hi Karen  Oops. 1 thought we had discussed on the phone a couple of weeks ago that October 10th would suffice as OK. Sorry if I mis-heard this. I'll assume I did. At this point, I should be able to hand a draft to FedEX on the morning of October 4th, and perhaps earlier by a day or two. So you would get the report between the 3rd and 5th. Sorry about my confusion. James I am at home today if we should talk. 310-455-2720 On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Dejarnette, Karen wrote: Hi James, Just checking in on youre A+ report draft. When will I receive the initial draft? We should file it with the court on Friday if it is to make the October 1* deadline. Karen 10/2/2006Margie Page 1 of 5 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, September 25, 2006 4:29 PM FW: evaluations From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:27 AM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations Chris, I thought I answered your questions. Here goes again\ndid someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? When Ed sent the file to CREP as soon as he received it-without PRE verifying the dataI told everyone it needed to be verified. Then, when Ed sent the 2\"' file it looked to me like he sent it because the demographics were incorrect on the first file. Also, we all had discussion that the first ITBS file was incorrect and being resent from Riverside. did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. We had a phone call with CREP on September 1^. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? No. We all had concerns about the file being sent to CREP during mid-August because PRE had not verified the data as we told CREP we would. was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? Yes. is the data we sent in mid-august the data that crep is now using? Yes, but CREP had found errors in the data and even today we are trying to work those errors out. regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? Jim has provided the PreK dates and copies of contract. can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? 9/26/2006Page 2 of 5 who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? Ed received some data from NORMES but not the detailed data Anna needed. are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? No. what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to Steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline. In Ross' email last Friday, he said he can provide the Readl80 report by October 15^, the 21stCLC report by October 15* with a disclaimer about the data (WHICH I WOULD DEFINITELY NOT RECOMMEND) and the PREK report by mid-November. if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? No. Chris. I do not understand the delay in seeking an extension for these studies. When we called Dr. Ross last Tuesday at 1p.m. (the call you said we did not need to have) he shared with the group his concern that an extension has not been requested. He then asked me to write a letter to Judge Wilson to notify him of the problems. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 3:27 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - you told me yesterday that pre has already met to prepare responses to my questions, i still don't have the responses, just a few emails that don't directly address my questions, please provide responses, if you want to have another meeting \"with everyone together\" to answer my questions, please do that as quickly as possible and then provide me a written response, please understand that i cannot just forward a request to the court without knowing the reasons for it. finally, you say the the \"important outcome is that crep needs an extension of time for each of their three studies\", the court has established a schedule for resolving the remaining issues in this case and its important that we stick to that schedule if at all possible, if we must seek more time, we should have very good reasons, i'm asking to to give me the information i need to explain those reasons, my latest information from dr ross is that, depending on verification of certain data,\" read 180 and 21st century will be in on oct 15, and pre-k by November 15\". what, then, would be the basis for a request to extend the current deadline for all three evaluations? ch 9/26/2006Page 3 of 5 \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/21/2006 6:11 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; The best thing we could do is have a meeting with everyone together to answer your questions. I set up such a meeting for last Thursday. Then, you emailed and said you had talked to people and the meeting did not need to happen. Now, you have lots of questions. All of us have pieces of answers to your questions, together we could provide you with a more complete response. Many phone calls have taken place as well as emails. Not all of PRE staff or CREP staff were on each call or included in every email. The important outcome is that CREP needs an extension of time for each of their three studies. They realized and communicated that on September 1 yet the request had not been forwarded to the Court. From: Chris Heller [maiito:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Williams, Ed Subject: RE: evaluations i have reviewed the emails you just sent, they do not answer most of the questions i sent on Tuesday, would you please review my questions and either answer them or direct me to the particular document which you believe provides the answer, also, after reviewing what ed sent to crep on August 15 and 17, i don't understand why dan at crep did not seem to know on August 21 that crep had received any data, finally, it looks like ed advised crep on August 17 that crep should use the data file he attatched because it \"represents the most current information we have on student demographics\", but that it could be linked with the August 15 file if the evaluators wanted \"more types of data\", i don't see where ed indicated that there was any problem with the data in either the August 15 or August 17 data files, was james confused by this? maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see much sense of urgency, if crep had a problem or a question, why didn't someone contact us when they got the data from ed? from the correspondence i've seen, it looks like they didn't know they had any data until maurecia checked with them, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/21/2006 1:50 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, We have met and I am forwarding a number of emails to you now that show the line of conversation. The forwarded emails include one sent from Ed on August 15^, another from Ed on August 17*^, one from Debbi Lawson on August 31 and one from me to Ed today. I am also sending the NORMES posting printed on June 22'^'. Let me know if you have additional questions after you review these documents. I would have scanned these and sent in one file but our copier is jammed today. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 1:38 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: evaluations karen - i've reviewed the documents you sent this summer and don't find clear answers to my questions, have 9/26/2006Page 4 of 5 you had a pre meeting yet to prepare a response? ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/20/2006 1:25 PM \u0026gt; I would like to meet with PRE staff before responding because I may not know of all of the communications that have happened between PRE and CREP. Two statisticians are moving among schools today providing test training. We can meet and provide answers tomorrow morning or you can meet with us tomorrow morning to hear the answers. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:19 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: evaluations karen - did someone from pre tell crep that the mid-august data file was either incomplete or possibly inaccurate? if so, would you please send me a copy of that document, did someone from pre tell crep on September 1 that the data was complete? if so, i'd like that document, too. are you saying that the mid-august data was good data but crep did not begin its analysis because they were waiting for us to tell them that? was there any communication between pre and crep in the last two weeks of August? is the data we sent in mid- august the data that crep is now using? regarding the pre-k evaluation, when did we contract with riverside to produce the qeli data? can i get a copy of that contract (or is it already in a quarterly report)? who at normes declined to produce the qeli data? when? are you saying that the Irsd data had 15,000 errors (we can't have had that many students tested, i don't think)? what happened between the time we filed our motion to extend time in July, where we said that pre expected the qeli data in early August, and now? this may be a question better directed to steve ross but, if you know, what are the prospects that crep can get their work done in six weeks, rather than eight weeks, so we can meet the current deadline, if it can't be done otherwise, could we authorize the use of more people or do anything else to expedite this work? these are a few of the questions i must be in a position to answer, thanks for your help, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 9/19/2006 10:02 AM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, Here are answers to your questions. Karen first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? Ed sent two files in mid-August and did not verify which on to use until September 1^. who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? NORMES posted incorrect data for the month of August and PRE (Ed, Jim, and Maurecia) worked with schools to clean and correct misinformation for students who showed on the NORMES mismatch and nomatch databases, why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? They were waiting on us to tell them which file to use and that the data had been verified. second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? In January I believe-at the eval team meeting. why was it added? Steve and Anna felt it necessary. why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? Riverside did not offer it in an electronic format, NORMES said it would but then determined it had over 15,000 errors and decided not to offer it. PRE then contracted with Riverside to get it. 9/26/2006Page 5 of 5 finally, I understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? Yes i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? Yes, Ross proposes to use what he has. We are not sure the McClellan tests will be scored. From\nChris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 9:39 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: evaluations karen - a couple of questions so that i can report to odm, Joshua and judge wilson. first, what happened between the time we sent benchmark data to crep in mid-august and the time \"crep received confirmation on September 1, 2006 from pre that the benchmark data we received from pre is complete\"? who said the data may not be complete? what was the problem? why didn't crep begin to analyze the data two weeks earlier? second, when was qeli data added to the pre - k evaluation design? why was it added? why has it taken so long to get the qeli data from riverside publishing? finally, i understand that dr catterall will be on time with his evaluation, is that correct? thanks, ch ps - i understand that the algebra 1 tests recently found at mcclellan will not further delay the 21st century evasluation. is that correct? 9/26/2006Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, September 29, 2006 8:55 AM FW: data elements for program assessment From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:33 AM To: Roberts, Olivine Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Okay. Also, Id like more discussion on the comments you made yesterday about PRE does not have the authority to determine the types of data to collectthose decisions need to go through Cabinet. I was very surprised by your statement and need clarification as to what you meant. From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 7:29 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Lets meet on Monday following Cabinet to discuss the Monitoring Report and the Climate Survey. Please ask Jim to attend. Thank you. Olivine Roberts. 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: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:36 AM To: Milhollen, Mark\nWohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment In addition to examples provided by Jim, Catterall found the highest error rate in parent contact information. From: Milhollen, Mark Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:37 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment When you say inaccurate data would you provide specific examples so that we can investigate From: Dejarnette, Karen 9/29/2006Page 2 of 3 Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 7:05 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim\nMilhollen, Mark\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: RE: data elements for program assessment Thanks for the thoughtful comments Jim. I agree. I left the meeting thinking that we also need to focus on cleaning all data thoroughly before entering it into a data warehouse. PRE staff members, as well as external evaluators, have noted a high error rate in some data sets. For example. Dr. Dreyfus could not carry out her full study last year because data was either not available, not coded properly, or not accurate. Dr. Catteralls upcoming report on the A+ program notes that he found a 65% error rate in the parent data during his study of YRE during the 2004-05 school year and a 70% error rate in the same database during his study of A+ in the 2005-06 school year. And, Dr. Ross informed us on September 1* that reports will be late because of problems with inaccurate data. We really need to focus on cleaning the data. And, the District needs to develop a comprehensive process (with the responsible department or positions named) for maintaining accurate data. Thanks for including PRE in the discussion. From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:19 PM To: Milhollen, Mark\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Cc: Morgan, Nancy\nCrawford, Kevin\nCole, Chris\nTipton, Mattie Ruth\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: data elements for program assessment Mark, Thanks for arranging this afternoons meeting. It was helpful to see what data is ready for use and hopeful to learn we can recommend more. Some thoughts still fresh in my mind follow. Although the measures presented by Larry are important and appropriate for getting started, there is more I would recommend in the near future and long term: Soon, we should be able to connect multiple years test scores so we can assess students progress longitudinally (rather than compare different groups/cohorts of students as they pass through the same grades). That means at least several years results for ITBS, benchmark, AP, and others mentioned today. These, of course, are not available for all students for all grades. Because were moving fonward with wellness for the ACSIP, well soon want to use health-related data. The attached Excel file has 04-05 data from nurses reports to the health services director. (A disclaimer is that I was the keypuncher, and Ive not thoroughly checked the data.) Margo just delivered last years reports this week, and Ive begun keying them into another Excel file. This will do as a stopgap measure. Long-term, devising a friendly data-entry and management program for the nurses \u0026amp; their helpers would make their data collection efficient and more quickly useful to the nurses, administrators, and others. Such software probably exists somewhere. LRSD can no doubt devise something much better than the states painfully slow and inconvenient web-based data entry for BMI (another measure well want to include in the ACSIPs). I hope to learn more about school health at a public health meeting in November where many school health researchers will present studies and vendors will show their products. At least two aspects of this data interests us(1) the number \u0026amp; variety of services provided to students and staff by nurses et al and (2) the patterns of health events and traits among our students and staff. The first should help administer needed services, while the second should help us discover students needs and understand possibly why some have difficulty learning. Another kind of information is environmental, both social and physical. We have been planning for the past year or more to survey students, parents, teachers, and administrators with the help of Vicky Bernhardts group (with whom Ed, Maurecia, \u0026amp; I studied for a week in July 2005 and who has consulted with us over that period). We want to introduce it as an on-line questionnaire, realizing that we might need to supplement it with paper questionnaires or suffer low participation in early years. This climate survey asks for impressions about the quality of operations and human relations in the schools. It will provide soft but consistent clues for improving 9/29/2006Page 3 of 3 the schools and assessing such efforts. Weve begun exploring what physical environmental information might exist and in what format. This is probably as important as the other information, but we cant be certain until we look at it. It might include data from property inspections, air and other sampling, injuries, etc. Finally, financial information was not mentioned (that I heard) today. An interest we explored with some researchers allied with Vicky Bernhardt is efficiency estimates. Much forethought, of course, will be required with this kind of analysis, but per capita and per program costs are certainly interesting. I hope these notes are helpful. Theyre going to everyone in todays meeting I can remember except Larry (because I dont have an address for him). Jim 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 9/29/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From\nTo: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday. September 29, 2006 8:55 AM FW: Report to Court From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: 'Brenda Kampman' Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Report to Court I have not received any report from Chris by email or other. From\nBrenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:30 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Chris Heller Subject\nRe: Report to Court Karen: Chris Heller asked me to check on the status of the report to the court that he emailed you about late yesterday. He needs to provide a response to Judge Wilson tomorrow and would like to review that information first thing. Please see if you can get it to him as early as possible tomorrow. Thanks. Brenda Kampman Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 direct line: 501-370-1444 fax: 501-376-2147 9/29/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Requests for Information from Dr. DeJarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September Sth available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer ) 9/29/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:49 PM database revised.doc\nrequest from Mr. Walker sept 8.pdf FW: response to foi fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 12:49 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: response to foi Chris, The following email and enclosed file was requested by Mr. Walker on September 8^. The foi is also enclosed. Karen From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:44 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Snapshot Compliance Remedy - External Evaluations On June 12'^ PRE and Chris Heller were told by ADE staff that electronic benchmark data for individual students would be available to us (and evaluators) from NORMES on July 10'^. So far, the data is not available. Chris Heller has provided an update to the Court saying we expected to receive data by July lO**^. However, he has not filed a motion for an extension. On Monday, the 10^, and again yesterday I let Chris know the data was not available and asked him to file a motion for an extension. To my knowledge he has yet to file a motion. I wish he would file one immediately. I am concerned the Judge will look harshly on a late motion. What else can I do? Compliance Remedy - Deeply Embedded Assessment Process See document enclosed that outlines the timeline and work efforts of PRE to meet this requirement. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:06 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Snapshot Karen: An update on the status of completing the compliance report? 10/2/2006In the fall of 2004, three new staff members joined the PRE Department to carry out the Compliance Remedy ordered by the US District Court in the spring of that year. This included developing policy for assessing LRSD programs and overseeing well designed evaluations of eight LRSD programs. The Court also clearly directed LRSD to weave assessment and evaluation into the fabric of its operations, so that programs would start, continue, and end based on evidence of their performance. Consistent with contemporary practice, continuous improvement depends on sound knowledge of effectiveness. The biggest obstacle to fulfilling challenges of the Compliance Remedy was access to current, reliable data related to LRSD and its programs. Both content and process were (and remain) problems: 1) Content - LRSD collects little data other than demographic information and student outcomes such as standardized tests scores, this data is not related to specific programs, and no one checks its accuracy. 2) Process - Individual departments collect data, assemble much of it into data bases, and provide it to Information Services Department and other departments\nso PRE depends on other sources for unchecked data in various stages of automation. On October 5, less than two weeks after PREs new hires, Drs. DeJamette and Roberts discussed a plan of action with Dr. Steve Ross to address the tasks outlined in the Courts Compliance Remedy-developing a comprehensive assessment policy for LRSD and identifying the first four key programs for evaluations. (The Court named Dr. Ross as a preferred consultant.) This policy assumed timely access to reliable information about individual students, staff, resources, and programs. A plan and three experts to carry it out were approved by Dr. Ross, as required by the Compliance Remedy. By the end of October, the three consultants agreed to assist: Dr. Ross would conduct the first three external evaluations. Dr. James Catterall one external evaluation, and Dr. Victoria Bernhardt would assist with development of a comprehensive assessment process to be deeply embedded in our day-to-day educational operations. The work outlined with Dr. Victoria Bernhardt included phases such as 1) 2) 3) determining useful data sets for program assessment, creating a district portfolio in printed format so LRSD staff could immediately access key data for assessment purposes without requesting it, and designing a data warehouse to store all data needed for program assessment. Dr. Bernhardt worked with PRE staff during 2005 to accomplish these tasks. She met with PRE staff during visits to Little Rock, and three PRE staff attended her week-long workshop in Chico, California. The first draft of a printed portfolio, a collection of data collected by October 1, 2005, was helpful to PRE staff and external evaluators. However, other data collected after October 1 and additional data related to other measures were needed.On the recommendation of Dr. Bernhardt, PRE staff engaged in design conversation with personnel from TetraData to determine the type of data warehouse that would be most useful for LRSD program assessments. TetraData is a company that designs, builds, and maintains data warehouses specifically for educational organizations. Its databases offer up-to-the-minute triangulation of multiple measures of data-a time-efficient model for conducting ongoing program assessments. During this same period, PRE encountered two primary deficiencies with current data sent to the Information Services Department and in turn provided to PRE: 1) incorrect, duplicated, and missing data and 2) lack of tags to instructional programs. For example, two external evaluators reported 60-65% error rates in parent contact information as they tried to conduct parent phone interviews for the first round of evaluations. PRE recommended to Cabinet members and the Information Services Department cleaning the data and relating it to programs. Gena Magaruh, a representative of TetraData, met with PRE staff in July 2005. Through the end of 2005 she demonstrated to senior LRSD administrators the ability of TetraData to design, build, and maintain a database tailored to PREs needs. Her forecast for its completion was summer 2006. After these meetings, PRE requested of Dr. Roberts, Mr. Hattabaugh, and Mr. Milhollen that LRSD purchase a TetraData warehouse. Estimated costs varied depending on how much LRSD wished to service or maintain the data, from $250,000 on up. By early 2006, PRE learned that LRSD would not engage TetraData, but instead its Information Services Department would design and build a Crystal Objects database. PRE would have access to the same type of data and services as TetraData proposed to offer. At least one senior programmer of the Department expressed doubts about its capacity to accomplish this task in a reasonable time frame. PRE offered input into the design of the Crystal Objects database. Information Services Department offered a glimpse into the development of the new database. In July 2006, Information Services Department announced that three pieces of student data-demographics, standardized test scores, and transcriptsare available in the new database, but there is no schedule for completion. Thus, PRE faces the same set of problems as in the fall of 2004.Comparison______________________ Crystal Database as of July 11, 2006 TetraData offered Student demographics Standardized test scofes Student Transcripts Student and staff demographics Standardized test scores Perceptions from surveys of students, parents, staff et al. Discipline, graduation, etc. Instructional Programs School resources School finances PRE requests, and CISD supplies data in fonaats requested PRE imports data files into SPSS and Word p)r analyses and reports. PRE staff arrange data Statistical features support analyses and reports.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Margie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 12:02 PM Fw: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, would you please advise whether you intend to forward the requested information via email. Please advise. If the documents are in an email, I do not see the need for me to come to your office in order to review them. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy Springer  Original Message  From: Joy Springer To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: John W. Walker\nDejarnette, Karen\nMargie Powell Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September Sth available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer 10/2/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM FW: qeli data From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:50 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nWilliams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: RE: qeli data We expect initial/draft reports from James and Steve, these reports should go to evaluation team members, Cabinet and Board for feedback. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM To: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: RE: qeli data thanks, on a related matter, would the pre-k eval filed on November 15 be considered a \"draft\"? if so, how quickly could it be finalized? ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 3:36:56 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; CREP decided they needed more detailed QELI data than Normes could provide. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:23 PM To: Williams, Ed\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nRobinson, Maurecia Cc: Roberts, Olivine Subject: qeli data we told the court on July 18 that qeli data from normes was \"delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and 10/3/2006Page 2 of 2 names\", but that pre expected \"to provide the qeli database to dr ross by early August\", can someone please explain, right away (this is my third request) what happened, also, i understand from aaron that jim is currently working with riverside on the qeli data, what is the status of that effort and when will usable data get to crep? ch 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 3:40 PM FW: compliance report fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:41 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: RE: compliance report Chris, Please review all of the Quarterly Updates we have provided thus far and let me know what else you would expect to be included. I believe PRE has fully informed the Court, through the Quarterly Reports we have sent to you, all of our compliance efforts. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:27 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: compliance report karen - as you know, our compliance report to judge wilson is due in two weeks, we must document our compliance with the section 2.7.1 of the revised plan as specified in the June 30, 2004 compliance remedy (pp. 61 - 67 of the memorandum opinion), although much information has been provded in our quarterly reports, we will want to include everything necessary to fully document our compliance in this final report, in that regard, would you please provide me a summary of the things we have done to comply with each requirement of the compliance remedy and, for each separate requirement, either a list or copies of the documents which demonstrate our compliance, once i have the summary and the documents, we can discuss final preparation of our compliance report, please call if you have any questions, thanks for your help, ch 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"John W. Walker\" \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\"Karen Dejarnette\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Margie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, October 02, 2006 4:36 PM Re: Fw: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette i just checked w/ khay. he is in the process of having the documents numbered and expects to provide them today, ch \u0026gt; \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; 10/2/2006 12:02:40 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, would you please advise whether you intend to forward the requested information via email. Please advise. If the documents are in an email, I do not see the need for me to come to your office in order to review them. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy Springer -----Original Message------ From: Joy Springer To: HELLER@fec.net Cc: John W. Walker\nDejarnette, Karen\nMargie Powell Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: Requests for Information from Dr. Dejarnette Chris, On yesterday I asked Khayyam to have the documents that I requested from Dr. Dejarnette on September 8th available for my review as well as the documents he was providing to me from another request. It is my understanding from Khayyam that those documents consist of 277 pages and were emailed to you by Dr. Dejarnette as an attachment. Great!! Would you kindly email those documents to me and there would be no need for your office to copy them. Thank you for your cooperation. Joy Springer 10/3/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:24 PM FW: alleged violations of compliance remedy From: Chris Heller [mailto:HEIJ.ER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:40 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: alleged violations of compliance remedy karen - i have been made aware of your allegation, made in an employee relations complaint, that you have been required to withhold information from the court, the monitors and the parties in violation of the compliance remedy, please tell me what information \"mandated by the compliance remedy\" you were directed to withhold and who directed you to withhold it. if the information is in document form, please send me copies of the documents, if not, please summarize the information which you believe must be shared with the court, the parties and odm. in order to address this issue with the court, if necessary, i need a response from you as soon as possible, please understand that i do not make this request as a part of the process for resolving your complaint, but in order to fulfill my responsibilities in Irsd v. pcssd. ch 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:01 PM documents related to withheld information.pdf FW: alleged violations of compliance remedy From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:01 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: alleged violations of compliance remedy Chris, In response to your email about information being withheld from the Court, monitors, and parties (and omitting material relating to my allegation that I have been directed to withhold information from the Districts Board), PRE was directed by Mr. Hattabaugh, Dr. Roberts, and yourself to withhold the following information from the September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update: 1) Information included in Section B that relates to the comprehensive assessment process (see Section B of the Compliance Remedy for evidence LRSD must include) 2) Information included in Section F, specifically a list of programs currently being assessed by PRE I am enclosing a file of documents that can provide more details. Karen From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:40 PM To\nDejarnette, Karen Subject: alleged violations of compliance remedy karen -1 have been made aware of your allegation, made in an employee relations complaint, that you have been required to withhold information from the court, the monitors and the parties in violation of the compliance remedy, please tell me what information \"mandated by the compliance remedy\" you were directed to withhold and who directed you to withhold it. if the information is in document form, please send me copies of the documents, if not, please summarize the information which you believe must be shared with the court, the parties and odm. in order to address this issue with the court, if necessary, i need a response from you as soon as possible, please understand that i do not make this request as a part of the process for resolving your complaint, but in order to fulfill my responsibilities in Irsd v. pcssd. ch 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:26 PM foia October 3.pdf\nfoia October 3 response.pdf FW: foia October 3rd From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:24 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject\nfoia October 3rd Enclosed you will find two files. First, an foia from Mr. Walker dated October 3, 2006. And second, scanned emails in response to the October 3^*^ foia. 10/11/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent\nTo: Cc: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:52 PM 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 EPF. 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) j i m, wo h 11 eb @ I rsd. o rg 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 Dejarnette, 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. DeJamette 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 OCivine 'Roberts, 'PRD. .Associate Superintendent, 'Educational'Servires Eittl'e Rock School''District. 3001 S. Eufastii. St. Little 'Rock, J47\u0026lt; 72406 Pfione: 501.44\n0 fax: 501.447-332I  MWi IW11 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.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of2 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: To: Cc: Wohlleb, Jim Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:16 PM Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, 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: 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 OR-vine 'Roberts, Rif'D. -Associate. Supermtendent, IdiicationaCServices Little 'Rocfi School 'District 3001 S. 'PuLaslii St. Little sA'Rpzeofi 'Pfione: 561.44-.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. woh I leb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 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. Olivine 'Roberts, 'Dtf.'D. Associate Su/)enn tencfent, 'Lducatianal Services RittCe Rocli Scfiool District 3001 S. 'Pulh.-iki SI. Rock, SPR 722 RIitmp.: 301.447.3320 fax: 501.447-3321 00' 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 OCh'me Roberts, 'RfiJ. .'Associate Superhitendent, 'Rdiicat umal Services Lit Ue. Rocii Scl'woC'District 3001 S. 'Rulas/ii. St. PittLe 'Rocli., 7\\'R 7'2206 Tlione: 501.44, 3320 fax: 501.447.3321 r\u0026lt; ................ k ... 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) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 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, 'fd.'D. dissociate Superintendent, XtiiicationaCServices Xittle 'Rock School District 3001 S. 'Put'oski St. Xtttie Rock, SVR 72206 Rkone: 501.447.3320 J'ax: 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, 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. ijunorjiiK 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, 'Ecti'D. dissocia te S upe. rin ten den I, Educat ionatServ ices Eittle 'Ri)ck .SdiooC'District 10/17/2006Page 2 of 2 SOO I S. 'PuCaski St. ittCe 'KocH, A'R -2206 THme: 501.44/.332o fax: 5O].447.S3:^ 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) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 10/17/2006Page 1 of 2 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. OCivine 'Roberts, Rd.!). .Associate Superintendent, ducatirmul'Servire.s Rittte 'Roca Scfiool District sooi S. 'Pulaski St. ittfe Rock, RX'R recob 'Rhone: 501.447.^'320 Fax: 5O1.44R-3321 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 'Roberts, 'cC.D. Associate Sujierintendent, RdiicatumaCServices fittbe Rock Seboot'District 3001 S. 'Pulaski St. Fittbe Rock, A'R 72206 Rhone: 501.447.3320 fax: 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. 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\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 Olivine 'd:D. y^ssociale Superint\u0026lt;md\u0026amp;iit, hfucalional Services Utle 'Rocli Scbool 'District 5()()i S. 'Putasbi St. LUlLe 'Rock, SAR 72206 'RIione: 501.447.3320 J'ax: 501.44 21 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) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 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) iim,wohlleb@l.rsd,org 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Dejarnette, Karen From: Sent: 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 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:37 AM FW: reports from James and Steve From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:37 AM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: reports from James and Steve Chris, I received the following emails from James and Steve last night. Karen Hi Karen, I'm planning to get it all into PDF and e-mailing it to you. I might be ready to do that on Friday, but I might need some weekend time. Hope things are good there. james Karen, The two reports (Read 180 and 21* Cent) are almost ready and the researchers in charge plan to email them to you on Oct 15. You can then forward them to Chris. No delays are expected, so check your email on the 15*^. Busy time for all of us! Steve 10/12/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:28 AM FW: Cabinet Recap /10-09-06 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:29 AM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 Beverly, You have asked for each Cabinet member to send recommended revisions for the organizational chart. As you know, last summer I met with Dr. Brooks to request for PRE to be moved from the Educational Services Division, from where the reorganization of the District moved it, and instead report directly to the Superintendent again. Afterwards, I also sent this request to him by email. It is still the desire of PRE to move from Ed Services, since it seems a conflict of interest for the same division to assess the programs that it selects and supervises. At the least, this arrangement deprives PRE of independent assessments, which the District and its Board require. As we understand the US District Courts opinion, PRE should operate independently without influence from possible self-interest of a department or division. When I began as Director of PRE two years ago, the department reported to Dr. Brooks. Since last years reorganization, PRE has experienced barriers and obstacles from both Ed Services and the Superintendents office. The Board of Directors, which is ultimately accountable for the Districts operations, has not received some reports needed for it responsibility. In the light of its experience, PRE should report directly to the Board of Directors, parallel to the internal auditors position. This arrangement would keep the assessment function within the District but distance it from interests of any one division or department. Karen From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 9:55 AM To: Griffin, Beverly\nAdams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nDejarnette, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G Subject: RE: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 One additional reminder - - please review the org chart for your line of authority and get those revisions to me before Friday. We will probably go over the updated charts at cabinet on Monday. Thanks to those of you who have already submitted your changes. They have been made and Ive sent the revised pages to you to check. From: Griffin, Beverly Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 5:25 PM To: Adams, Wayne\nBabbs, Junious\nCarter, Karen\nDejarnette, Karen\nGlasgow, Dennis\nHartz, David\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nMilhollen, Mark\nMitchell, Sadie\nMittiga, Joseph\nRoberts, Olivine\nVann, Suellen\nWatson, Linda Cc: Brooks, Roy G 10/12/2006Page 2 of 2 Subject: Cabinet Recap / 10-09-06 Snapshots: - Dennis Glasgow - Foreign Language / AP Credit for Middle School courses Updates \u0026amp; Other Assignments: - Joe Mittiga / policies drafted re: campaigning on school district properties. Will be presented to the board in November for first reading. - Joe Mittiga! discussed drafting a charter school proposal to provide remedial catch up instruction for fifth through seventh graders, chronically low-performers. Project Management Matrix - Suellen Vann - PTA Officers Breakfast scheduled 11-17-06 - Hugh Hattabaugh / David Hartz - completion of Cycle Reports to Arkansas Department of Education prior to October 15 deadline FYI: Media Event at Central High School at 3:00 on Friday - - ceremony retiring Joe Johnsons jersey Next meeting: Monday, October 16, 2006, 9:00 a.m. Beverly J. Griffin Sr. Executive Assistant Little Rock School District 501-447-1005 10/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Williams. Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktinzie1@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb. Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Ray. Katina\" \u0026lt;Katina.Ray@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher. Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Monday. October 16. 2006 1:53 PM A+ Evaluation Meeting To All: The A+ evaluation team meeting has been rescheduled for the afternoon of the 30*^ at 1p.m, Room 18 of the IRC. Please call me if you have any questions, 447-3386. Ed R. Williams, ph.D. 10/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Robinson. Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \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; \"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. October 16. 2006 2:52 PM meeting.ics Magnet Team Meeting When: Wednesday, November 08. 2006 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US \u0026amp; Canada). Where: Room 18 IRC 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. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 10/16/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:41 AM database training today PRE will attend a training session offered by the Janis Group today at the Tech Center form 8:30-3 to learn more about data access. 10/17/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail,com\u0026gt; Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:34 AM disc06oct2.doc FW: 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) iim.wohlleb@lrsd.orq 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. DeJamette 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: Dejarnette, Karen Tuesday. October 17, 2006 1:50 PM Roberts. Olivine\nHattabaugh. Hugh\nBrooks. Roy G\nHELLER@fec.net Subject\ntimeline 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 me\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_72","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":["2006-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","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/72"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OfflCE OF PLAINTIFl\u0026gt;~EGREGATION i10NITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Based on the information available at June 30, 2006, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06, 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 July 31, 2006 Based on tlie information available at June 30 2006, the ADE calculated for ~ 05/06 sub\"ect to eriodic ad'ustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 On June 30 2006 distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 were as follows: RSD -$67,135,18 NLRSD - $34,528,908 CSSD - 57 834 709 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30 ~006 sub'ect to riodic adjustments, were as follows LRSD-$67,135,18 NLRSD - $34,528,908 PCSSD - $57 834 709 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2006 for F~ 05/06 subect 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 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30 2006 for F'1 05/06 sub'ect to eriodic dustments It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2006 Basecl on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2006 for 05/06 subject to eriodic ad'ustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, totalecl $13,862,944. Allotment calculated for FY 05/06 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 July 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 1. 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 July 31, 2006 Distri utions for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, were RS 482,380 NL 91,996 ........,. _______ .........._ 19,283 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at June 30, 2006, subject to eriocr adjustments, were: LRSD - $,t,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 July 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 July 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 July 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 July 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 July 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 July 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 July 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 July 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 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of July 31, 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 July 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of July 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 July 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 July 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. U. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of July 31, 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 1. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 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. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of July 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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 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. 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 July 31, 2006 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997to 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. 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 July 31, 2006 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 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 July 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. 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. Actual as of July 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. 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 July 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 afterthe 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. 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. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 11. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. Clearance 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\n2005 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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of July 31, 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 July 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of July 31, 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 July 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 July 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 July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 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 July 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 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. 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 July 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. 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 July 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. 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 July 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 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 July 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 July 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 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 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. 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 July 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. 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 July 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 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. 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 July 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. 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 July 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. 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 July 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand 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. 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 July 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. 35 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 July 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. 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 July 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. 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 July 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. 38 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 July 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 1 O, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. 39 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 July 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 NCA/COE peer team visits. 40 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 July 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. 41 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 July 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. 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 July 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 July 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 July 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 July 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 in service 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 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 ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 we re provided the op po rtu n ity 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued} 2. Actual as of July 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 Leaming 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 ShelleyWeirwere 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 atthe 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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?-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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of July 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 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 Leaming\" 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 workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 58 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions o\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_841","title":"\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-07/2006-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Meeting Agenda,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/841"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n. , BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED JUL l 7 2006 OFROCFE DESEGREMGAOTKIOITNO RINI ass e North Little Rock School District Thursday, July 20, 2006 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President II. INVOCATION, Cecil Gibson, Argenta Academy Instructional Aide III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)-Page A- 1 B. Tuesday, June 27, 2006 5:30 P.M. (Special) -Page A- 6 C. Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:30 P.M. (Special)-Page A- 9 VTI. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS Page 2 - Board Agenda July 20, 2006 A. Consider Arkansas School Boards Association Membership - K. Kirspel - Page B - 1 B. Consider 2006-2007 Proposed Budget ofExpenditures- K. Kirspel - Page C- 1 C. Consider Budget Workshop Date - K. Kirspel D. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - I 3. Consider bid items - Page R- 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - I IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Thursday, August 17, 2006- 5:00 P.M. Regular Board Meeting XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES June 15, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, June 15, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. There were no public comments. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Shara Brazear, Communications Specialist, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Absent Dorothy Williams, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS - TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS None. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the minutes of the May 18, 2006 as printed. John Riley seconded the motion. A-l YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report No Report from Certified Personnel Policies Committee. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented their report with nineteen (19) new proposals at this time. Eight (8) of the policies are to add nothing to the policies but to add the CL to designate them as classified policies. They are CFA (was CFB) -Working Hours for Non -Instructional Staff\nCFJ - Payment of Debts\nCFK - Citizenship Rights/Political Activities\nCFR - Tobacco Use By Employees\nCFSB - Employee Substance Abuse\nCGA - Grievance Procedures\nCGB - Solicitations\nand CGD - Directory Information. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the eight (8) new policies for the classified staff with no revisions other than adding the CL used to designated as classified policies: CF A (was CFB) -Working Hours for Non - Instructional Staff\nCFJ - Payment of Debts\nCFK - Citizenship Rights/Political Activities\nCFR - Tobacco Use By Employees\nCFSB - - Employee Substance Abuse\nCGA - Grievance Procedures\nCGB - Solicitations\nand CGD - Directory Information. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Mrs. Tucker also presented eleven (11) new policies that need revising and the addition of CL for classified designation. They are: CDB - Teacher Retirement System- First paragraph - to add the words \"new employees\" and remove the words \"certified personnel, instructional aides, and secretariaVclerical staff' and \"either on a contributory or non contributory basis.\" CDC - Public Employees Retirement System - to add \"new\" and \"Contributory\" and \"Teacher\" deleting the words \"custodial, maintenance, transportation, and cafeteria\" and the phrase \"either contributory or non contributory.\"  CDH - Expense Reimbursement - Third paragraph - to add the word \"administrator\" and delete the words \"assistant superintendent.\" CEBA - CL - Extended Leave Without Pay - Second paragraph - adding the words \"building administrator\" in two places and \"District Personnel Officer\" and deleting the A-2 words \"principal\" and \"Director of Personnel\" and in the third paragraph- adding the - words \"District School\" prior to Board of Education. CEH - Vacations - two typographical errors were corrected. CFMB - Discipline of Employees - only CL will be added to this one. No other changes. CFO - Sign In/Out Procedures - adding the words \"Employees\" at the beginning of .the sentence and \"as directed by their supervisor and as required for proper payroll functions\" at the end of the sentence\nto delete the words \"by initialing the attendance roster upon arrival and departure. The posting of the time or the use of a time clock shall not be a part of this procedure.\" CFP - Annual Survey of Job Preference - to add the word \"Personnel\" in the title between Annual and Survey\nand as the second word in the first and second sentences\nand also as the fourth word in the first sentence of the third paragraph. CFSC - Network Appropriate Use - adding the word \"many\" between provides and employees in the first sentence\nand removing the words \"and students.\" Also this would remove all references to students in this policy. CFT - Personal Communications - adding the words \"employee should\" and removing \"teacher shall\"\nadding the word \"work\" and removing the word \"class\". CGC - Gifts - adding the words \"or vendors\" after staff. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the eleven (11) new policies for the classified staff with revisions as presented and to add the CL used to designated as classified policies: CDB - Teacher Retirement System\nCDC - Public Employees Retirement System\nCDH - Expense Reimbursement\nCEBA - Extended leave Without Pay\nCEH - Vacations\nCFMB - Discipline of Employees\nCFO - Sign In/Out Procedures\nCFP - Annual Personnel Survey of Job Preference\nCFSC - Network Appropriate Use\nCFT - Personal Communications and CGC - Gifts. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Increase in School Lunch Prices Marsha Satterfield, Food Services Director, presented recommendation to the Board to increase the cost of school lunches for elementary students to $1.50 (increase of 10)\nsecondary students to $1.75 (increase of 25)\nand Adultffeachers (increase of 25). A-3- MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the increases as proposed by Administration. Teresa - Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Contract Renewals for Transportation Employees Danny Reed, Director for Personnel and Special Services, presented the list of transportation employees for contract renewals as printed in the agenda. MOTION John Riley moved to accept Administration's recommendation for contract renewals for transportation employees as printed in the agenda. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Student Insurance Proposals Barry Kincl, Director of Finance, Audit and Purchasing, presented the recommendation to use Dwight Jones Insurance for one year coverage for athlete, spirit groups and all sanctioned AAA activities for $26,000. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept Administrations' recommendation to use Dwight Jones Insurance for insurance for one year for athletes, spirit groups and all AAA sanctioned activities for $26,000. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Special Board Meeting Date Mr. Kirspel explained the bids for roofing and asbestos removal could not be completed until later this month but all must be filed with the State before June 30, 2006. The Board discussed date options. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to have a special Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in the Board Room. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed. A-4 MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEM John Haynie, Transportation Director, presented to the Board some options to explore concerning the transportation communication system. He explained that technology needs to be utilized to insure the safety of our students. He requested permission from the Board to research more communication tools for the buses in the district. The Board agreed for him to pursue more information and present to the Board at a later date. PERSONNEL HEARING Mr. Reed stated no personnel hearing at this time. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, and Teague None - (Williams - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-5 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES June 27, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 in the Board Room of the Adrriinistration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent Trent Cox, Vice President Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Academic Transitional Facility Bids Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services, explained the new roofs, roof repairs and asbestos abatement bids for Poplar Street Middle, North Heights Elementary, NLRHS East Campus, Lakewood Elementary, NLRHS West Campus Music Building, NLRHS West Campus Creative Arts Building, NLRHS West Campus Science Building, Rose City Middle, Seventh Street Elementary, Lynch Drive Elementary, Ridgeroad Middle Charter, Amboy Elementary, and Crestwood Elementary with the Transitional Academic Facilities Funding. Mr. Massey expla\nn!!d his previous estimates on the bids were considerably lower than the bids due to prices increases for energy costs and the gulf coast States supply demand for repairing from Hurricane Katrina last year. A-6 MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the bids as presented and as listed on pages A -1 through A - 6. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) 2006 - 2007 Student Handbooks Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, explained the variety of changes on the elementary, middle school and high school levels with the District Suspension form. In compliance with Arkansas Nutrition Standards Regulations and Act 1220 of 2003, all of the handbooks have wellness section explaining the new guidelines for students. After a discussion, the Board also amended the high school handbook to remove the reference on page 13 to \"Vespers\" under the excluded activities while a student is suspended. Vespers is no longer a school - sponsored activity. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the rev1s1ons to the student handbooks as presented by Administration with the Board's amendment (to remove Vespers). Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Employment and Transfer of Personnel Mr. Kirspel presented a new employment and a transfer as printed. MOTION John Riley moved to enter into executive session to discuss personnel recommendations. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) The Board entered into an Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. The Board reconvened in Regular Session at 6:55 p.m. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept Administration's recommendation as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus- absent) A-7 ADJOURNMENT MOTION Dorothy moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-8 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES July 11, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent Rochelle Redus, Secretary Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nGregg Thompson, Administrative Director for Personnel/Special Services\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Employment and Transfers of Personnel Mr. Kirspel presented the employment and transfers of personnel. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to enter into an executive session. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Redus - absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 5:32 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 6:00 p.m. A-9 MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the Administration's recommendations for the employment and transfers of personnel. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Redus - absent) Trent Cox moved to adjourn the meeting. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Teague and Williams NAYS: None (Riley - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-10 Arkansas School Boards Association .Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive  Little Rock, AR 72202-3646 (501) 372-1415  Fax (501) 375-2454  1-800-482-1212  www.arsba.org MEMORANDUM June 23, 2006 TO: All Superintendents, Co-op Directors FROM: Kathy McFetridge, ASBA President \u0026amp; Dan Farley, Executive Director RE: 2006-07 ASBA Membership RECEIVED JUN2 8 2006 ASBA's programs and services are outlined in the enclosed flyer, which has been sent to all members. Membership in the association has never been as important. ASBA is here to serve you, your board, and your school district by providing you with all the help it can to make your work a little bit easier. Our mission is to make the brightest possible future for our children through the education we provide them. Working together as a united force, we can improve our schools and better serve our communities. The ASBA Board of Directors approved the current membership fee schedule at its April 20 meeting. Some districts, if they lost students, may see a decrease in their fees\nothers, who gained students, may see a slight increase. The fees area based on the revenues published in the \"Annual Statistical Report of the Public Schools of Arkansas,\" published by the Arkansas Department of Education. The scale consists of 10 brackets and is printed on the enclosed flyer. We look forward to a successful new year of working together to improve the academic achievement and well-being of Arkansas public school students. B - 1 Arkansas School Boards Association 808 Dr. Martin Luther King Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: 1-800-482-1212 Bill To North Little Rock School District Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent P.O. Box687 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Date Event/Item Description 7/1/2006 Membership 2006-07 ASBA Membership Due Upon Receipt Phone# Fax# E-mail Web Site l-800-482-1212 (501) 375-2454 arsba@arsba.org www.arsba.org B - 2 Invoice Date Invoice No. 6/30/2006 4626 P.O. No.: Event/Item ASBA Membership Qty Cost Amount l 1,867.00 1,867.00 Total $1,867.00 Payments/Credits $0.00 Balance Due $1,867.00 PROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES TOGETHER WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2007 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30,-2008 The Board of Directors of the North Little Rock School District No. 1 of Pulaski County, Arkansas, in compliance with the requirements of Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 and Amendment No. 40 and No. 74 of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas has prepared, approved and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the district in 2007 - 2008 together with a supporting tax rate. The proposed budget of expenditures includes:  Salary Fund Expenditures Instructional Expense Maintenance \u0026amp; Operation Expense Pupil Transportation Expense Other Operating Expense Nonbonded Debt Payment Bonded Debt Payment Building Fund Expense $ 45, 000,000 20,515,000 6,800,000 3,670,000 1,380,000 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Dedicated M \u0026amp; 0 (Current Expend/Capital Outlay) 420,000 1,548,000 2,000,000 1,600,000 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax rate (state and local) of 40.9 mills on the dollar of the assessed value of taxable property located in this School District. The proposed tax includes the uniform rate of 25.0 mills (the \"Statewide Uniform Rate\") to be collected on all taxable property in the State and remitted to the State Treasurer pursuant to Amendment No. 74 to the Arkansas Constitution to be used solely for maintenance and operation of schools in the State. As provided in Amendment No. 74, the Statewide Uniform Rate replaces a portion of the existing rate of tax levied by this School District and available for maintenance and operation of schools in this District. This total tax levy includes 28. 7 mills for maintenance and operation of school\n2.9 mills for dedicated maintenance and operation Millage (formerly current expenditure/capital outlay) dedicated for the purpose of purchasing school buses, purchasing furniture and equipment to support instructional programs, purchasing computer software, and renovating, repairing and equipping existing facilities\nand 9.3 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy and pledged for retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service Millage may be used by the District for other school purposes. This request represents no increase in the total tax from the previous year. Given this 20th day of July 2006 North Little Rock School District No. 1 of Pulaski County, Arkansas C - 1 Marty Moore Presidl\\t t of Board Rochelle Redus Secretary of Board I North Little Rock School District Local Revenue Current Taxes Pullback Delinquent Taxes Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Taxes Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source !Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State estate NUE OPERATIONS d eotal Revenu TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal Revenue y ATOTALFEDE 9J\"OTALREVE s Unrestricted-PL 874 Title I-B-4 ROTC Satellite Ed Research Erner Impact Aid Pgm Title I Title V-A Innovative Pgm Homeless Assistance Carl Perkins - Vocational Title 11-D Formula Grant Title VI -B Head Start Special Ed Preschool Medicaid Eisenhower Math/Science Title Ill - Eng Lang Acq Title IV-A Safe \u0026amp; Drug Free Comprehensive Sch Health Accountability RAL REVENUE NUE JUNE 2006 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $13,735,000.00 $0.00 $12,078,615.58 $6,530,000.00 $735,280.65 $6,178,911.28 $1,410,000.00 $64,374.78 $1,283,498.74 $150,000.00 $0.00 $311,991.32 $181,000.00 $15,866.64 $195,615.08 $42,000.00 $5,853.28 $68,216.66 $102,500.00 $57,433.23 $121,487.75 $360,000.00 $118,080.44 $899,347.46 $90,000.00 $8,324.64 $82,464.26 $819,990.00 $14,102.19 $108,279.96 $23,420,490.00 $1,019,315.85 $21,328,428.09 $13,000.00! $0.00! $8,004.97! $33,414,099.00 $3,409,249.00 $34,528,908.00 $0.00 $416,691.00 $829,872.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 $499,745.00 $0.00 $536,057.74 $4,866,499.00 $497,020.00 $4,680,512.00 $2,155,150.00 $0.00 $2,256,650.00 $4,825,000.00 $713,700.45 $6,737,033.84 $1,805,435.00 $5,425.00 $1,284,662.66 $136,000.00 $5,508.77 $48,788.39 $47,710,928.00 $5,047,594.22 $50,904,234.63 $71,144,418.00 $6,066,910.07 $72,240,667.69 $46,000.00 $98,817.41 $239,511.43 $1,523,253.00 $79,209.84 $1,512,090.74 $3,213,000.00 $326,242.10 $3,598,362.86 $2,500.00 $64,717.00 $64,717.00 $65,549.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $9,066.59 $92,639.79 $180,000.00 $0.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $229,261.00 $313,011.00 $3,175,702.00 $1,408,961.00 $3,175,702.00 $276,426.00 $0.00 $380,906.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $183,000.00 $202,587.00 $6,127.00 $202,587.00 $58,407.00 $0.00 $58,407.00 $1,871,018.00 $0.00 $2,098,268.00 $705,491.00 $0.00 $494,241.00 $361,000.00 $54,353.54 $473,574.24 $610,000.00 $0.00 $982,010.00 $16,976.00 $16,542.00 $16,542.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $0.00 $45,000.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 $19,834.83 $7,964,362.00 $1,789,028.13 $8,854,145.86 $83,891,033.00 $8,360,207.55 $86,444,778.58 0-1 YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $1,656,384.42 87.94% $351,088.72 94.62% $126,501.26 91.03% -$161,991.32 207.99% -$14,615.08 108.07% -$26,216.66 162.42% -$18,987.75 118.52% -$539,347.46 249.82% $7,535.74 91.63% $711,710.04 13.21% $2,092,061.91 91.07% $4,995.03! 61.58%! -$1,114,809.00 103.34% -$829,872.00 $7,250.00 19.44% -$36,312.74 107.27% $185,987.00 96.18% -$101,500.00 104.71% -$1,912,033.84 139.63% $520,772.34 71.16% $87,211.61 35.87% -$3, 193,306.63 106.69% -$1,096,249.69 101.54% -$193,511.43 520.68% $11,162.26 99.27% -$385,362.86 111.99% -$62,217.00 2588.68% $65,549.00 0.00% $27,360.21 77.20% $0.00 100.00% -$313,011.00 $0.00 100.00% -$104,480.00 137.80% -$3,000.00 101.67% $0.00 100.00% $0.00 100.00% -$227,250.00 112.15% $211,250.00 70.06% -$112,574.24 131.18% -$372,010.00 160.99% $434.00 97.44% $0.00 100.00% -$45,000.00 $45,165.17 30.52% -$889, 783.86 111.17% -$2,553, 7 45.58 103.04% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof ff ech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Property Other Objects Other Uses of Funds Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District JUNE 2006 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $34,874,548.00 $6,672,296.66 $36,954,715.16 $10,107,052.41 $2,016,823.29 $9,728,580.42 $10,422,770.60 $1,435,956.94 $10,300,991.69 $3,857,441.17 $590,622.18 $3,683,491.20 $59,261,812.18 $10,715,699.07 $60,667,778.47 $977,902.19 $96,466.15 $1,093,359.44 $979,384.54 $122,806.91 $948,306.55 $2,537,508.99 $200,604.04 $2,633,381.52 $4,669,020.15 $388,528.65 $4,184,872.52 $274,292.00 $158,752.90 $392,215.11 $1,005,410.84 $3,621.38 $648,288.70 $700,207.00 $0.00 $353,202.73 $11,143,725.71 $970,780.03 $10,253,626.57 $70,405,537.89 $11,686,479.10 $70,921,405.04 $1,599,207.00 $91,525.52 $1,228,772.42 $1,676,206.00 $16,267.00 $16,267.00 $9,635,909.95 $1,819,860.97 $6,605,237.43 $2,942,736.00 $345,578.47 $3,375,426.56 $86,259,596.84 $13,959,711.06 $82,147,108.45 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance Actual/Bud -$2,080,167.16 105.96% $378,471.99 96.26% $121,778.91 98.83% $173,949.97 95.49% -$1,405,966.29 102.37% -$115,457.25 111.81% $31,077.99 96.83% -$95,872.53 103.78% $484,147.63 89.63% -$117,923.11 142.99% $357,122.14 64.48% $347,004.27 50.44% $890,099.14 92.01% -$515,867 .15 100.73% $370,434.58 76.84% $1,659,939.00 0.97% $3,030,672.52 68.55% -$432,690.56 114.70% $4,112,488.39 95.23% Function Category 11 XX Reqular Proqrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Comoensatorv Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Support Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX SuPPort Services-Administration 24XX Support Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Support Services-Central 29XX Other Support Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Community Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 44XX Arch/Eng Services 46XX Bldg Acq/Constr Services ?XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Charqes GRAND TOTAL North Little Rock School District FUNCTION - JUNE 2006 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $27,427,290.72 $5,874,594.88 $29,057,768.43 $9,477,206.00 $1,914,420.13 $9,339,226.95 $2,077,304.00 $256,952.14 $1,750,248.05 $3,857,957.00 $1,065,344.82 $3,197,616.53 $3,200,050.51 $503,779.05 $3,180,613.18 $7,141,053.00 $1,112,614.53 $6,064,280.33 $5,587,492.92 $771,897.13 $4,948,728.89 $1,092,984.39 $81,191.02 $1,033,283.09  $4,337,794.80 $526,815.81 $4,330,008.98 $673,014.00 $49,311.92 $693,056.30 $6,521,692.50 $821,183.27 $6,598,121.37 $4,141,782.00 $314,442.24 $3,458,828.76 $1,494,281.00 $98,213.43 $1,386,114.56 $456,555.00 $35,450.43 $506,222.15 $3,615,511.00 $411,705.50 $4,031,855.69 $71,841.00 $30,444.18 $47,238.31 $68,243.00 $12,394.45 $120,078.09 $0.00 $16,267.00 $21,562.00 $0.00 $0.00 $195,000.00 $45,500.00 $0.00 $1,815.00 $1,676,206.00 $32,850.00 $42,112.00 $1,889,564.00 $29,839.13 $1,018,649.03 $1,270,000.00 $0.00 $1,124,680.76 $136,274.00 $0.00 $0.00 $86,259,596.84 $13,959,711.06 $82,147,108.45 0-3 %Ytd Budget Balance Actual/Bud -$1,630,477.71 105.94% $137,979.05 98.54% $327,,055.95 84.26% $660,340.47 82.88% $19,437.33 99.39% $1,076,772.67 84.92% $638,764.03 88.57% $59,701.30 94.54% $7,785.82 99.82% -$20,042.30 102.98% -$76,428.87 101.17% $682,953.24 83.51% $108,166.44 92.76% -$49,667.15 110.88% -$416,344.69 111.52% $24,602.69 65.75% -$51,835.09 175.96% -$21,562.00 -$195,000.00 $43,685.00 3.99% $1,634,094.00 2.51% $870,914.97 53.91% $145,319.24 88.56% $136,274.00 0.00% $4,112,488.39 95.23% North Little Rock School District SOURCE OF FUNDS  JUNE 2006 ' Current Month Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-categorical $67,849,075.08 $10,406,372.64 $66,526,589.02 $1,322,486.06 98.05% 003 Extended Day Programs $0.00 $2,413.42 $28,037.09 -$28,037.09 020 Alternative-Local $7,047.00 $50.55 $1,388.78 $5,658.22 19.71 ' 045 Summer School $58,375.00 $41,717.44 $68,435.69 -$10,060.69 117.23% 050 Camp Robinson Work Pgm $44,000.00 $1,980.39 $19,966.81 $24,033.19 45.38% 053 GIT Summer Quest $25,350.00 $25,532.18 $25,813.19 -$463.19 101.83% 055 Soft Drink Sales $207,352.31 $28,917.78 $127,029.77 $80,322.54 61.26% 066 Teachers of Tomorrow $0.00 $0.00 $525.00 -$525.00 075 Arkansas Arts Council $0.00 $0.00 $360.00 -$360.00 077 Walton Family Foundation $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 083 Ark Heritage/Wildwood $640.00 $0.00 $640.00 $0.00 100.00% 090 Yale 21st Century $25,ooo.od $3,266.17 $21,259.04 $3,740.96 85.04% 095 ADE Gates Grant $4,283.15 $0.00 $0.00 $4,283.15 0.00% 199 Summer Pre-K Program $0.00 $13,002.79 $13,002.79 -$13,002.79 213 Intensive School Improvement $9,000.00 $0.00 $3,990.36 $5,009.64 44.34% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $521,961.22 $45,255.49 $371,906.29 $150,054.93 71.25% 225 Technology Grant $1,724.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,724.00 0.00% 227 CPEP $71,710.00 $24,242.92 $42,824.81 $28,885.19 59.72% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $63,969.00 $37,670.48 $120,247.64 -$56,278.64 187.98% 250 Act 591 Residential $73,000.00 $9,300.00 $45,950.00 $27,050.00 62.95% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $729,627.00 $123,053.66 $757,146.04 -$27,519.04 103.77% 271 GfT Advance Placement $4,000.78 $0.00 $204.00 $3,796.78 5.10% 275 Alternative Leaming Environment $1,290,745.00 $236,719.19 $1,248,746.91 $41,998.09 96.75% 276 English Lang Learners $68,973.00 $7,506.63 $67,057.24 $1,915.76 97.22% 281 NSLA $2,710,070.00 $525,827.04 $2,893,899.17 -$183,829.17 106.78% 340 Workforce Start-up $28,090.00 $0.00 $577.65 $27,512.35 2.06% 365 ABC Preschool $2,198,770.08 $478,450.40 $2,243,853.94 -$45,083.86 102.05% 381 Smart Start Literacy $80,619.00 $4,384.27 $78,898.73 $1,720.27 97.87% - 392 General Facility Funding $564,409.00 $72,887.25 $585,853.26 -$21,444.26 103.80% 398 DHS Preschool Improvement $10,711.27 $2,182.40 $3,550.80 $7,160.47 33.15% 406 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $0.00 $49,117.00 $244,117.00 -$244,117.00 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $0.00 $2,390.05 $61,044.81 -$61,044.81 430 ROTC $120,000.00 $16,995.18 $122,868.49 -$2,868.49 102.39% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $242,547.76 $34,549.40 $271,087.56 -$28,539.80 111.77% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,490,638.39 $638,721.48 $2,223,633.21 $2,267,005.18 49.52% 504 Title I Program Improvement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $344,251.00 $251,091.06 $259,167.98 $85,083.02 75.28% 523 Title I Reading First $234,444.00 $168,142.52 $351,792.59 -$117,348.59 150.05% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $19,209.00 $1,428.82 $12,483.92 $6,725.08 64.99% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $131,053.54 $400.00 $80,311.64 $50,741.90 61.28% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $0.00 $15,317.36 $70,632.51 -$70,632.51 570 Carl Perkins Vocational $196,114.00 $67,751.92 $203,114.73 -$7,000.73 103.57% 595 Title 11-DE d Technology I $61,493.95 $58,071.70 $58,071.70 $3,422.25 94.43% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 I $1,780,741.00 $247,131.68 $1,332,208.55 $448,532.45 74.81% 703 Title VI-B Head Start $89,910.00 $15,130.90 $83,118.11 $6,791.89 92.45% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $823,280.00 $136,258.28 $712,194.37 $111,085.63 86.51% 720 Title VI-B Sliver Gr.:: ,t $99,254.00 $0.00 $0.00 $99,254.00 0.00% 750 Medicaid $288,382.00 $19,154.21 $163,702.42 $124,679.58 56.77% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $60,000.00 $7,197.99 $47,713.18 $12,286.82 79.52% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $534,343.31 $92,394.99 $407,461.83 $126,881.48 76.25% 761 Title Ill Eng Lang Acqui $11,662.00 $0.00 $13,969.72 -$2,307.72 119.79% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $73,586.00 $19,653.90 $75,075.95 -$1,489.95 102.02% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $24,837.40 $28,674.99 -$28,674.99 - 796 Workforce Investment Act $35,000.00 $3,242.13 $26,909.17 $8,090.83 76.88% GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $13,959,711.06 $82,147,108.45 $4,137,303.39 95.23% 0-4 $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of June, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service !.!Budget LI Expenses NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - July 20, 2006 ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS June Haynie Penny Elliott NAME: Administration, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Effective 7 /14/06 NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL Rose City Middle School, Principal Effective 7 /24/06, Category I, Step 10, 252 days NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Penny Elliott PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Rose City Middle School, Principal EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: BS- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/81 MA - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/90 Nevada-English 7-12, Speech \u0026amp; Drama, School Administrator K-12 Arkansas License pending reciprocity Chaparral High School, Las Vegas, NV - Principal, 2003 - 2006 Orr Middle School, Las Vegas, NV - Principal, 2001 - 2003 Cimarron-Memorial High School, Las Vegas, NV - Asst. Principal 1999-2001 Cimarron-Memorial High School, Las Vegas, NV - Administrative Dean 1997 - 1999 Cimarron-Memorial High School, Las Vegas, NV - English Teacher, 1991 - 1997 Oak Grove High School, North Little Rock, AR - English/ Theatre Teacher 1982 - 1991 Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Ken Kirspel, Superintendent of Schools CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS Kathy Arnold Sara Berryman Lori Brainerd Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Specialist Effective 6/14/06 Seventh Street Elementary, Reading Recovery Effective 7 /3/06 NLRHS East Campus, Special Education/Cheer Sponsor Effective 8/1/06 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS CONTINUED Karen Cobb Natalie Cope Rebecca Davis Whitney Fletcher Melanie Gilliam Anita Gray Cathie Huey Cassandra Jones Patrick Kirwin Anna Lowrance Patrick Miller Nancy Moore Jennifer Park Betty Powell Amber Runsick Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies Effective 8/13/06 Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade Effective 5/30/06 Amboy Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/12/06 NLRHS East Campus, Clinical Counselor Effective 6/20/06 Amboy Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/1/06 Indian Hills Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 6/22/06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, English Effective 5/30/06 Boone Park Elementary, First Grade Effective 8/7 /06 Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math Effective 5/30/06 Redwood Early Childhood Center, Pre-Kindergarten Effective 8/14/06 Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Effective 7 /10/06 Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education Effective 5/30/06 NLRHS East Campus, F ACS/Keystone Effective 6/30/06 NLRHS West Campus, French III \u0026amp; IV .38 FTE Effective 5/30/06 Belwood Elementary, Media Specialist .50 FTE Effective 8/1/06 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS AND RETIREMENTS CONTINUED Amanda Symancyk Paul Taylor Amboy/Meadow Park Elementary, Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Facilitator Effective 8/1/06 NLRHS East Campus, Band Director Effective 7/12/06 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Ruba Abdin From Amboy Elementary, Kindergarten To Amboy Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten Honnye Athanasiou ---- From Argenta Academy, Special Education To Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Michelle Baggett From Lynch Drive Elementary, Kindergarten To Crestwood Elementary, First Grade Mindi Disterdick From Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade To Lynch Drive Elementary, Special Education Suzanne Gilliam From Park Hill Elementary, ALE Classroom To Park Hill Elementary, Special Education Resource Nancy Greene From Special Services - Annex, Speech Therapist To Seventh Street Elementary, Speech Therapist Carolyn Hanks From Lynch Drive Elementary, Math Coach To Crestwood Elementary, Fifth Grade Gwen Hammonds From Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Social Studies To NLRHS West Campus, Social Studies Cindy Lann From Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade To Park Hill Elementary, Math Coach Deanna Mann From Amboy Elementary, Fifth Grade To Amboy Elementary, Math Coach Carrie Manning From Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade To Boone Park Elementary, Math Coach Denise Maxam From Amboy Elementary, Pre-Kindergarten To Amboy Elementary, Fifth Grade -P-3 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES CONTINUED Sara McAlister From Belwood Elementary, Special Education To Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Joy Nichols From Lakewood Middle School, Special Education To Argenta Academy, Special Education Lynda Sisco From NLRHS West Campus, Special Education To Special Services -Annex, Special Education Hearing Impaired Vicki Steadman From North Heights/Boone Park Elementary, Special Education To North Heights Elementary, Literacy Coach Eric Waldorf From North Heights Elementary, Second Grade To North Heights Elementary, Math Coach Joanie Walker From Amboy Elementary, Reading First Coach To Lynch Drive Elementary, Reading First Coach Melanie Wooldridge ---- From Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade To Indian Hills Elementary, Second Grade Susan Bruton Amy Buehlig Mindy Carroll Holly Crossman Raymond Girdler Arline Hemphill Hannah Hill NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Unassigned Elementary Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Special Services Department, Speech Language Pathologist Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 4, 190 days Tri-District Early Childhood, Speech Pathologist Effective 8/7/06, Category IV, Step 1,200 days Lakewood Middle School, PE/Health/ Athletics Effective 7 /31/06, Category I, Step 0, 200 days Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Math Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 2, 190 days P-4 - Matthew How Robin Johnson Araceli Johnston Rachel Jouvenaux Bruce Maddox Porsha Martin Angela McAlpin - Kelly Meyer Julie Mobley Marybeth Norcross Trinina Norris Megan Page Barrett Petty Tanya Phillips Tabitha Radford NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED North Heights Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category, IV, Step 9, 190 days Boone Park Elementary/North Heights Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 2, 190 days Glenview Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Secondary Math Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 2, 190 days Meadow Park Elementary, Kindergarten Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Belwood Elementary, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 12, 190 days Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 6, 190 days Lakewood Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 18, 190 days Poplar Street Middle School, Language Arts/Social Studies Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Amboy Elementary, Third Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 2, 190 days NLRHS East Campus, Math Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days NLRHS East Campus, Criminal Justice Teacher Effective 8/18/06, Category IV, Step 5, 195 days Special Services, Speech Language Pathology Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 2, 190 days P-5 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Barbara Rhodes NLRHS West Campus, Art Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category VI, Step 21, 190 days Leslie Riddick Unassigned Elementary Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 5, 190 days Randi Riggs Amboy Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days ' Rhonda Rook Amboy Elementary, Literacy Coach Effective 8/14/06, Category VI, Step 20, 190 days Anna Sanders Meadow Park Elementary, Fifth Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category V, Step 10, 190 days Erica Smith Unassigned Elementary Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 0, 190 days Jessica Spaeth NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Teacher Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 1, 190 days Gena Sparks Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education - Effective 8/14/06, Category I, Step 6, 190 days Gladys Swift Lakewood Middle School, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 0, 190 days Lindy Thompson Tri-District Early Childhood, Special Education Effective 8/14/06, Category II, Step 17, 190 days Sophia Vega North Heights Elementary, Second Grade Effective 8/14/06, Category IV, Step 2, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION: Susan M. Bruton Unassigned, Elementary Teacher BSE -UALR, Little Rock, AR 5/06 Early Childhood P-4 Redwood Early Childhood Center, North Little Rock, AR 8/05 - 3/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-6 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION AmyBuehlig Special Services Department, Speech Language Pathologist BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/99 MSE- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/02 Speech Language Pathologist P-12 NW AESC Early Childhood Program, Farmington, AR 10/03 - 6/05 Richardson Center, Fayetteville, AR 05/03 - 10-03 Meyer Pediatric Therapy Services, Rogers, AR 5/02 - 5/03 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Mindy E. Carroll Tri-District Early Childhood, Occupational Therapist BS - University of Central Arkansas, 12/03 MS - University of Central Arkansas, 8/05 State of Arkansas, Medical Board, Occupational Therapist ACCESS Schools, Little Rock, AR 8/05 - 8/06 Thelma Jasper, Coordinator Tri-District Early Childhood Program Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of ,Personnel Holly Crossman Lakewood Middle School, PE/Health/ Athletics BA- Lyon College, Batesville, AR 05/03 Non-Traditional Provisional License Pending Non-Traditional Licensure Program Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Raymond Girdler Ridgeroad Middle Charter School, Secondary Math BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/06 Secondary Math 7-12 Vilonia Junior High School, Vilonia, AR 8/04 - 12/04 Conway J-Jigh School East, Conway, AR 1/05 -5/05 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-7 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Arline Hemphill Lynch Drive Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - University of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 5/06 Early Childhood Education P-4 Lakewood Elementary, North Little Rock, AR 8/05 -3/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel ' Hannah Hill Lynch Drive Elementary, Second Grade BSE - Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, AL 4/04 License Pending Reciprocity Gadsden City Schools, Gadsden, AL 8/04 - 5/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Matthew How North Heights Elementary, Fifth Grade BA- University of California, Los Angeles, CA 12/97 M.Ed- National University, Los Angeles, CA 01/02 Early Childhood Education P-5\nGrades 5-6 Endorsement\nESL P-8 and ESL 7-12 Chino Valley Unified Schools, Chino, CA 8/03 -6/06 Pasadena Unified Schools, Pasadena, CA 9/02 - 6/03 Chino Hills Christian Schools, Chino Hills, CA 9/98 - 6/02 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Robin Johnson Boone Park/North Heights Elementary, Special Education BSE -Arkansas State University, Beebe, AR 5/06 Early Childhood Education P-4\nALP for Special Education McRae Elementary, McRae, AR 1/06- 5/06 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Araceli Johnston NLRHS West Campus, Spanish University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/93 Spanish P-8 and Spanish 7-12 Academics Plus Charter School, Maumelle, AR 8/04 - 8/06 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-8 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Rachel Jouvenaux Glenview Elementary, Special Education BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/06 Initial License Pending Mayflower Elementary, Mayflower, AR 3/06 - 6/06 Ida Burns Elementary, Conway, AR 11/05 - 3/06 Easter Seals Preschool, Little Rock, AR 9/05 - 10/05 Mayflower Elementary, 1/05 -4/05 Cabot Central Elementary, 9/04- 12/04 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Bruce Maddox NLRHS West Campus, Secondary Math BA - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/86 MA- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 3/96 Secondary Math 7-12 Des Arc High School, Des Arc, AR 8/04 - 6/06 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Porscha Martin Meadow Park Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/06 Initial Licensure Pending Florence Mattison International Elementary, Conway, AR 1/06- 5/06 Ida Burns Elementary, Conway, AR 9/05 -12/05 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Angela McAlpin Belwood Elementary, Special Education BSE - University of Arkansas, Monticello, AR 12/03 Early Childhood Education P-4\nALP for Special Education Jacksonville Middle School, Jacksonville, AR 12/03 - 5/05 Mayflower Elementary, Mayflower, AR 08/05 - 05/06 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-9 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION Kelly Meyer Indian Hills Elementary, Third Grade BSE - University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 5/00 License Pending Reciprocity Wilderness Oak Elementary, San Antonio, TX 8/05 - 5/06 Redland Oaks Elementary, San Antonio, TX 8/04 - 5/05 Cody Elementary School, San Antonio, TX 8/00 - 5/04 Sheryll Smith, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Jenna Mobley Amboy Elementary, Kindergarten BSE - Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 8/06 Initial License Pending Fox Meadow Elementary, Jonesboro, AR 1/06-5/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Julie Mobley Lakewood Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE -Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 5/84 MSE -Arkansas State University, Jonesboro, AR 5/97 Elementary 1-6\nMiddle School English 5-8 Piggott School District, Piggott, AR 8/84 - 6/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Marybeth Norcross Poplar Street Middle School, Language Arts/Social Studies BA - University of California, Davis, CA 6/83 Provisional Middle Level Education - Math, English, Science And Social Studies 4-8 Non-Traditional Licensure Program Bill Bowers, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Directo .. n,f Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-10 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Tranina Norris Boone Park Elementary, Fifth Grade BSE - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/05 Middle Level Education - Math, English, Science, and Social Studies 4-8 Ruth Doyle Intermediate, Conway, AR 8/04-12/05 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Megan Page Amboy Elementary, Third Grade BSE- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 12/03 Early Childhood Education P-4 Lincoln Consolidated School District, Lincoln, AR 8/04 - 6/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Barrett Wade McCoy Petty NLRHS East Campus, Math BA - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/03 Non-Traditional Provisional License Pending Non-Traditional Licensure Program D. Lee Tackett, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Tanya Phillips NLRHS East Campus, Criminal Justice BA- Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 12/98 MA- University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 04/01 Special Education Instructional Specialist P-4, Special Education Instructional Specialist 4-12\nCriminal Justice endorsement pending Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 08/05 - 06/06 D. Lee Tackett, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Tabitha Radford Special Services DepartrnPnt, Speech Language Pathologist BS - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/02 MA - University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, 5/04 Licensed Speech Therapist, ADE License Pending Allied Therapy, Ward, AR 8/04- 7/06 Developmental Therapy, Little Rock, AR 7/04- 12/04 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-11 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Barbara Rhodes NLRHS West Campus, Art BSE - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/69 MSE - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/03 Art P-8\nArt 7-12 Pulaski County Special School District, Little Rock, AR 8/77 - 6/06 Oak Grove High School, No. Little Rock, AR 9/70 - 6/72 Glen Junior High, Winston Salem, NC 8/69 - 1/70 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Leslie Riddick Unassigned Elementary Teacher BSE- Union University, Jackson, TN 5/01 MSE-Southeast Missouri State University, Cape Girardeau, MO12/05 License Pending Reciprocity Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Randi Riggs Amboy Elementary, Second Grade BSE- University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 12/05 Early Childhood Education P-4 Magness Creek Elementary, Cabot, AR 8/05 - 12/05 Marguerite Vann Elementary, Conway, AR 1/05 -5/05 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Rhonda Rook Amboy Elementary, Literacy Coach BSE- Southern State College, Magnolia, AR 5/75 MSE- Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 8/78 Elementary Principal K-9\nEarly Childhood Education P-4\nElementary Education K-6\nReading Specialist P-8 Sheridan School District, Sheridan, AR 705 - 6/06 Hope School District, Hope, AR 7 /03 - 6/05 North Little Rock School District, No. Little Rock, AR 7/01-6/03 Dawson Education Services Cooperative, Arkadelphia, AR 7 /99 - 6/00 Arkansas Better Chance Program, Little Roel.:: AR 1/98 - 6/99 William Jefferson Clinton Primary School, Hope, AR 8/95 - 1/98 Edith Brown Elementary School, Hope, AR 8/89 - 9-92 Yerger Middle School, Hope, AR 8/84 - 8/89 McRae Elementary School, McRae, AR 8/77 - 8/84 Fairview Kindergarten, El Dorado, AR 8/75 -8/77 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel -P-12 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: STUDENT TEACHING: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Anna Sanders Meadow Park Elementary, Fifth Grade BA - Hendrix College, Arkadelphia, AR 5/96 M.Ed. - University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR 5/99 Elementary Principal K-9\nMiddle School Social Studies 5-8\nElementary 1-6 Our Lady of Good Counsel, Little Rock, AR 8/97 - 6/06 FACT, Inc. El Dorado, AR 8/96-5/97 Rosie Coleman, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Erica Smith Unassigned Elementary Teacher BSE-Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 5/06 Initial License Pending Smackover Elementary School, Smackover, AR 1/06 - 5/06 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Jessica Spaeth NLRHS West Campus, Spanish BA - University of Central Arkansas, Conway, AR 5/05 Spanish P-8\nSpanish 7-12, English/Language Arts 7-12\nESL-P-8 Greenbrier Junior High, Greenbrier, AR 1/05 - 5/05 June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Gena M. Sparks Poplar Street Middle School, Special Education BSE - University of Houston, Houston, TX 6/02 License Pending Reciprocity Evans Middle School, McKinney, TX 8/04-6/06 Winship Elementary, Spring, TX 8/03 - 5/04 Lynn Lucas Middle School, Willis, TX 8/00- 5/03 Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel P-13 NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: NAME: PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: EDUCATION: LICENSURE: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION: Gladys Swift Lakewood Middle School, Special Education BS - University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, AR 8/76 MA- Webster University, Little Rock, AR 5/93 Health Education 7-12\nSecondary Physical Education 7-12  ALP for Special Education Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Melinda Kaye Thompson Tri-District Early Childhood Program, Special Education BSE - University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 5/82 Elementary 1-6\nSpecial Education Early Childhood Specialist P-4\nSpecial Education Hearing Impaired P-4\nSpecial Education Hearing Impaired 4-12 Allied Therapy, Sherwood, AR 1997 - 2006 Access School, Little Rock, AR 1996 - 1997 Victory Baptist School, Sherwood, AR 1995 - 1996 Hurst, Euless, Bedford Schools, Hurst, TX 1987 - 1988 Williams Academy, Fort Worth, TX 1984 - 1987 A Arkansas School for the Deaf, Little Rock, AR 1982 - 1984  Thelma Jasper, Coordinator Tri-District Early Childhood Program Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Services Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel Sophia Vega North Heights Elementary, Second Grade BA-Texas Lutheran University, Seguin, TX 12/99 MA- University of Texas, San Antonio, TX 12/04 License Pending Reciprocity John Glenn Elementary, San Antonio, TX 2004 - 2006 Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL TRANSFERS AND CHANGE~ Jeff Martello From Adm. Annex, Computer Technician To Administration, Software Support Specialist Effective 7 /21/06 P-14 NEW PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL PERSONNEL - Cedric Black Administration, Computer Operator Effective 7 /21/06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS Sharon Conner Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education Aide Effective 6/30/06 Linda Evans NLRHS West Campus, Custodian Effective 6/29/06 CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Elden Baxter From Plant Services, Substitute Custodian To NLRHS West Campus, Custodian Stacy Reed From Amboy Elementary, Lead Custodian To Lakewood Middle School, SAC Aide - NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Rebecca Reeves Lakewood Middle School, Nurse-Bachelor's Effective 8-9-06, Category 403, Step 4, 193 days P-15 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JULY BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER : 06-06-064 BID NAME : Copy Paper (3,000 cases) SOURCE OF FUNDING : District LOCATION: Warehouse Printing Paper Unisource Corporate Express * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended $86,700.00 $80,115.00 $72,660.00 ***** S-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT A AES P - ARKANSAS ASSN. OF A AES P - ARKANSAS ASSN. OF A AES P - ARKANSAS ASSN. OF AP EXAMS A PLUS EDUCATION A T \u0026amp; T A T \u0026amp; T A TO Z INHOME TUTORING A TO Z INHOME TUTORING AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC MEA MEA MEA MEA MSBO MTFACS/FACS INSERVICE ABC SCHOOL SUPPLY ABC SCHOOL SUPPLY ABC SCHOOL SUPPLY ABERNATHY COMPANY ACADEMIC COMMUNICATION ASSOC. ACADEMIC SUPERSTORE ACCESS SCHOOLS ACCESS SCHOOLS ACI PLASTICS ACT PUBLICATIONS ADEQ ADEQ ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA AEA FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT CREDIT UNION UNION UNION UNION UNION UNION T-- 1 AMOUNT .00 60.00 1,250.00 1,700.00 2,814.00 5,791.70 84.00 4 61. 72 5,910.30 2,700.00 222.85 58.22 1,285.11 503.02 158.12 590.58 34.00 510.00 318.80 75.84 850.00 20.00 200.00 374.81 127.63 353.87 316.80 37.50 276.30 3,900.00 3,600.00 368.67 500.00 150.00 150.00 11,303.45 11,822.90 9,318.02 88. 77 1,317.71 678. 96 189.60 189.60 50.00 2,477.00 2,414.50 2,414.50 1,839.50 1,839.50 CHK. NO. 0 57429 58056 58184 57245 57905 57488 57656 57833 58190 57120 57617 57379 57716 58007 58179 57701 57118 57405 57752 57829 57828 57506 57119 57430 57 616 57275 57257 57838 57145 57845 57434 57521 57148 57441 57773 57795 58039 57189 57878 57598 57747 57813 57081 57397 57609 57738 57782 57805 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. AFRICAN AMERICAN IMAGES 263.07 57224 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 36,575.29 57330 AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED 5,894.44 57564 AIMEE WRIGHT 76.48 57556 ALAN CROWNOVER 167.88 57133 ALAN CROWNOVER 317.93 58193 ALARMCO INCORPORATED 1,569.50 57552 ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT 14.43 57153 ALIGN .00 57072 V ALIGN .00 57083 V ALIGN .00 57108 V ALIGN .00 57116 V ALIGN .00 57388 V ALIGN .00 57403 V ALIGN .00 57420 V ALIGN .00 57428 V ALIGN .00 57585 V ALIGN .00 57594 V ALIGN .00 57601 V ALIGN .00 57614 V ALIGN .00 57719 V ALIGN .00 57730 V ALIGN .00 57743 V ALIGN .00 57750 V ALIGN .00 57764 V ALIGN .00 57774 V ALIGN .00 57786 V ALIGN .00 57797 V ALIGN .00 57809 V ALIGN .00 57814 V ALIGN .00 57822 V ALIGN .00 57827 V ALIGN ~oo 58010 V ALIGN .00 58018 V ALIGN .00 58030 V ALIGN .00 58040 V ALIGN .00 58055 V ALIGN .00 58183 V ALIGN .00 58247 V ALIGN .00 58259 V ALISHA HERRING 110.29 57344 ALL AMERICAN INC. 2,840.00 57620 ALL AMERICAN INC. 2,221.05 57830 ALL AMERICAN INC. 242.92 58186 ALL AMERICAN SPORTSWEAR 1,619.73 57972 ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 112. 77 57384 ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. 313.14 57717 ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. 2,430.70 57837 - ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING 2,505.00 57289 T- 2 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLISON CALLAHAN ALLTEL ARENA ALLTEL ARENA ALLTEL MOBILE AMANDA STUCKEY AMANDA SYMANCYK AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMERICAN COMPOSTING INC. AMERICAN COMPOSTING INC. AMERICAN RED CROSS AMERICAN RED CROSS AMERICAN TECHNICAL PUBLISHERS AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMSTERDAM PRINTING AMY VOLLMAN ANDRIA SMITH ANITA BELL ANN COWART ANNAN. VAMMEN ANNE PONDER APPLE COMPUTER APPLE COMPUTER INC AR BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARKANSAS ALTACARE ARKANSAS ART CENTER ARKANSAS AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS, ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENT CO ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT. OF LABOR ARKANSAS FLAG \u0026amp; BANNER, INC. T-- 3 AMOUNT 462.00 2,580.00 4,315.78 4,287.44 4.37 147.84 10,925.00 99. 96 233.88 43.14 58.56 38.68 43.42 332.00 2,442.25 606.96 425.00 11,600.00 425.00 9,650.00 9,650.00 6,700.00 6,700.00 192.07 140.87 110 .10 7.80 538.00 40.45 236.70 650.00 1,990.34 1,440.00 267.42 1,918.52 1,972.50 45,045.00 362.50 407.22 689 .13 110. 00 110. 70 319.00 2,865.25 2,712.60 25.00 425.00 75.00 36.44 CHK. NO. 57538 57957 57248 58223 57359 57313 58148 57136 57327 57355 57692 57940 58126 57227 57490 57220 57080 57396 57593 57608 57737 57781 57804 57128 57260 57307 57308 57933 57698 57530 57950 57866 57296 57162 57636 57858 58128 57492 57545 58178 57523 57161 57635 57857 58073 57270 57524 57256 58058 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT ARKANSAS LYMPHEDEMA \u0026amp; THERAPY ARKANSAS PARENTING EDUCATION ARKANSAS SAFE SCHOOLS ASSN. ARKANSAS SPANISH INTERPRETER \u0026amp; ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARMATUR EXCHANGE ARROW PLUMBING INC ARTIS LOFTON ASCD ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHELY MALLETT ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS BAM INSTITUTIONAL SALES BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-FEDERAL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BANK OF THE OZARKS-PAYROLL BARBARA KREMERS BARBARA LEE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKY WITCHER BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO T- 4 AMOUNT 360.00 30.00 150.00 333.25 744.35 647.00 1,308,019.12 60,002.87 7,024.22 135. 70 1,500.00 306.85 189.00 12,675.56 1,969.87 3,688.20 2.54 38.84 1,997.02 24.95 200.00 2,391.84 98,749.17 478,821.22 25,459.07 414,612.38 413,838.98 310,813.23 322,626.09 26,144.40 313,920.84 1,291,782.36 83,865.67 1,095,567.78 1,095,125.77 842,235.24 940,828.30 87,011.50 248.99 26. 42 503.78 4,594.52 205.47 63.94 70.78 926.05 126.90 147.19 422.54 CHK. NO. 57235 58174 57233 57569 57600 57749 58260 58261 58262 57460 58165 57959 57682 57123 57618 58057 58252 57347 57226 57436 57433 57986 57074 57390 57587 57603 57732 57776 57799 57824 57073 57389 57586 57602 57731 57775 57798 57823 57186 57109 57140 57624 57841 58063 58060 57840 58062 57252 57435 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLICK ART MATERIALS BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BMI EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BMI EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BOBBY D PERRY MD BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BRANDY NESSELRODT BRAYE VALENTINE BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA PARKER BRIAN HARVEY BRIGHT APPLE BROAD REACH BSW ADVERTISING BUDGET OFFICE FURNITURE BURGE PHOTOGRAPHY INC BUSINESS MACHINES SYSTEMS, INC BYE WAY BOOKS INC CA VINES ARKANSAS 4-H CENTER C.T.A. C.T.A. C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CAMBIUM LEARNING INC CAPITAL ONE BANK SIGNET BANK CARLTON-BATES CO. CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CATFISH CITY CATHERINE ALEXANDER CATRICIA HICKMAN CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CEI T- 5 AMOUNT 153.48 8,337.10 3,032.64 71.12 91. 30 29.91 19. 62 356.33 87.20 2,172.76 253.24 228.90 156.83 4,987.91 168.81 110.01 12.15 1,088.10 3,724.75 99.61 140.00 76.93 30.42 106.24 182.61 968. 75 133. 52 473.96 4,959.37 244.68 103.55 151.31 13,404.25 9,073.35 9,073.35 7,850.70 150.27 39.19 35.37 10.00 551.88 18.07 619.44 236.70 236.70 5,230.75 9,137.08 147.00 207.87 CHK. NO. 57623 57303 57548 57141 57842 58196 57647 57869 57126 57831 57378 57437 57142 57626 57094 57106 57107 57843 58064 57360 57917 57320 57557 57366 57887 57977 58201 57892 57253 57385 58189 58176 58187 57595 57744 57810 57440 5784 6 58076 57101 57147 57277 57498 57535 57529 57570 57982 58156 57216 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND 432.00 57923 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 26.08 57132 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 8,733.27 57836 CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES 21,802.50 57860 CENTRAL ALARM SYSTEMS INC 158.95 57903 CENTRAL ARKANSAS SPORTS 220.53 57102 CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. 1,654.16 57532 CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. 1,188.10 57953 CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. 287.62 58136 CEZIRAE THOMAS 100.00 57669 CHANNING BETE COMPANY INC 2,608.15 57631 CHANNING BETE COMPANY INC 1,128.78 58067 CHERYL HALL 16.62 57266 CHEYENNE INDUSTRIES 1,086.77 57229 CHILD CARE PROVIDERS FUND 50.00 57941 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 195.87 57150 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 367.98 57442 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 592.52 57630 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 3,350.95 57849 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 943.75 58066 CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP 183.97 58198 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 109.05 57709 CHILDRENS LIBRARY RESOURCES 13.98 57996 CHRISTEN BURKE PITTS 85.56 57788 CHRISTOPHER-GORDON PUBLISHERS 34.95 57487 CINTAS 128.18 57088 CINTAS 38.26 57407 CINTAS 128.18 57423 CINTAS 128.18 57816 CITY CREEK PRESS INC 64.18 57238 CLARION RESORT HOTEL 306.30 57279 CLARION RESORT HOTEL 238.20 57387 CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. 1,002.80 57207 CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. 1,526.00 57654 CLASSROOM DIRECT 376.66 57309 CLASSROOM DIRECT 471.50 57697 CLASSROOM DIRECT 2,296.00 57971 CLAUDIA MORAN 87.91 57350 CLEAN SOLUTIONS 347.00 57994 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 93.20 57290 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 73.55 57541 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 'i4. 80 57689 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 89.59 57962 CLEAR MOUNTAIN 58.15 58143 CLEMENTS \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES/ 16,267.00 57922 COMC ABLES 4,596.21 57861 COMCAST CABLEVISION 100.00 57622 COMCAST CABLEVISION 100.00 58194 - COMMUNICATION PLUS+ 356.50 57517 T- 6 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT COMMUNITY PRODUCTS LLC COMMUNITY PRODUCTS LLC COMPASS LEARNING COMPASS POINT BOOKS COMPUTER PREP CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS COSTUME CORNER COUNCIL FOR PROFESSIONAL CREATIVE DIVERSITY CRESTWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES CROW BURLINGAME CO CROWN TROPHY CRYSTAL EVANS CRYSTAL WOOD CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC CULLEN \u0026amp; CO PLLC CUMMINS MID SOUTH LLC CWI, PLC D \u0026amp; H DISTRIBUTING D \u0026amp; H DISTRIBUTING DAN RUSSELL DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA CHADWICK DANA MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANNY REED DANYIAL WILLIAMSON DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DARLA EARLES DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DATEK, INC. DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP T- 7 AMOUNT 937.00 880.00 129,179.95 578.30 2,078.33 152.23 191.25 117. 69 21,986.30 876.06 895.47 3,470.50 867.17 48.58 76. 00 5.99 47.38 305.89 1,464.60 208.36 160.44 32.37 13 .08 125.97 125.97 81. 30 42.86 2,235.00. 17,352.70 2,345.00 140.01 90. 45 91.10 1.15 4.69 160.33 20.00 121.87 594.00 29.14 96. 64 22.62 26,108.68 28.80 157.79 494.32 2,963.00 71. 08 2,963.00 CHK. NO. 5734 6 57991 57974 57504 58112 57768 57791 58034 57272 57525 57945 58130 58230 57885 58108 58069 57295 57677 58124 57526 57646 57531 57181 57408 57721 57754 57539 57463 57124 57619 57968 57155 57447 57787 58248 57361 57086 57687 57483 57286 58233 57182 57615 58185 58006 57084 57404 57421 57751 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT DAVID D. COOP DAWNE CARROLL DEALERS TRUCK EQUIPMENT DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBORAH ANDERSON DEBORAH COKER DEBORAH G DUNSTON DEBRA BUTLER DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA DENTAL DELTA EDUCATION DEMCO DEMCO DEMCO DENISE HOUGHTON DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DINAH ALLEN DISCOUNT DICTIONARIES DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DISCOUNT TROPHIES, INC. DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DISCOVER BANK DON ADAMS DONNA STEWART DORCUS HOUSE DOROTHY FARRIS DOYALENE WASSON DREW CAMP EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND EAST COAST WHOLESALE INC EAST SIDE ENTREES INC EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDS SUPPLY CO. T- 8 AMOUNT 2,963.00 61. 35 34.40 32.10 14.59 278.99 31.20 1,600.00 2.73 264.30 258.14 54,838.54 43,167.71 33,731.45 55,190.24 661.10 312.00 102.17 429.93 809.36 372,069.31 9.38 11,499.00 31. 01 6,562.16 672. 95 201.81 2,811.11 349.38 229.22 98.00 136.85 98.00 98.00 131.85 120.00 79. 56 62. 40 138.72 361.44 126.05 1,131.0C 131.94 17,232.00 450.00 300.00 891.62 443.33 54.15 CHK. NO. 58019 57300 57881 57351 57581 57219 58154 57577 57269 57249 57927 57112 57767 58033 58255 57920 57446 V 57632 58068 58224 58041 57852 58264 57154 57336 57276 57528 58134 57157 57093 57409 57425 57722 57755 57818 57284 57149 57930 57318 57832 57376 57690 58144 57657 57299 57694 57854 57158 57855 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF ELAINE OTTO ELAINE WOMACK ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELENA REYES-LOVINS ELIZABETH BROOKS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTS INC ERIC ARMIN INC. ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE ETA/CUISENAIRE EYE ON EDUCATION EYE ON EDUCATION FAIRY TALE FLORALS FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FERRELLGAS FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLISS FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRAN HARRIS FRAN JACKSON FREY SCIENTIFIC CO. FRIENDSHIP COMMUNITY CARE INC FULL COUNSEL PREPARATORY ACAD GALVIN WAITS GARRETT BOOK COMPANY GARY BUNN GEORGE TAYLOR GESCO COMPANYIN C GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHJX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX T- 9 AMOUNT 191. 61 638.54 107.15 7,235.61 50.00 400.00 701.96 5,504.68 236.70 236.70 389,686.62 292,545.02 228,463.28 377,802.86 25.00 2,014.05 717.81 394.24 5,637.22 352.32 69.90 126.80 353.16 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 115. 52 241.54 667.47 47.00 616.29 625.00 603 .11 1,013.88 295.64 1,339.94 618.56 52 6. 92 2,015.00 '.:,,456.00 103.96 751.60 79.91 16.38 51.06 552.46 952.99 CHK. NO. 58070 57159 57634 58071 57240 57931 57144 57844 57580 57467 57114 57772 58038 58257 57099 57280 57129 57163 57637 58074 57134 57839 58170 57413 57726 57759 58015 58024 57168 57639 58078 57494 57451 57979 57166 57450 58077 58225 57367 57167 57223 57668 57104 57565 57948 58205 57904 57328 57975 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX 842.92 58152 GLORIA SMITH 90.17 58005 GLOVERS TRUCK PARTS \u0026amp; 268.69 57453 GRAINGER 1,162.94 57241 GRAINGER 88.58 57500 GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES 1,688.19 57455 GRETCHEN LAUIPPA 360.00 57341 GWEN FITZPATRICK 11. 44 57862 HAND IN HAND DAY CARE 1,500.00 57613 HANDWRITING WITHOUT TEARS 520.00 57319 HARCOURT ACHIEVE 1,680.77 57357 HARCOURT ACHIEVE 3,928.36 57710 HARCOURT ACHIEVE 2,420.89 58241 HAROLD D STARK 94.38 57373 HAROLD D STARK 40.56 57715 HAROLD NASH 300.00 57050 V HAROLD NASH 100.00 58164 HELPING HAND CHILDRENS 1,711.25 57554 HIGHSMITH INC 2,100.20 57174 HIGHSMITH INC 2,701.84 57458 HIGHSMITH INC 1,173.07 58208 HOBBY LOBBY 684.75 57642 HOBBY LOBBY 187.52 57864 - HOME DEPOT/GECF 431.12 57509 HOME DEPOT/GECF 229.21 57674 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 476.58 57417 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278. 23 57727 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278.23 57761 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278. 23 58016 HOSTO \u0026amp; BUCHAN PLLC 278.23 58026 HOT SPRINGS TECHNOLOGY 440.00 57555 HOT SPRINGS TECHNOLOGY 2,970.00 58149 HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 561.42 57643 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR 2,000.00 57625 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 2,887.21 57335 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 367.41 57702 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 4,097.99 57985 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 421.08 58238 HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL 31. 23 57175 HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL 4.59 58081 I TECH AUDIO 907.30 57187 ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT 425.00 57414 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION SCHOOL 2,880.00 57645 IMPACT EDUCATION 10,250.00 58215 IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES 192.83 57131 INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC 435.00 57 680 INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC 70.00 58227 INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES 153.40 57454 - INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES 153.40 58204 T-10 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INN OF THE OZARKS INSIGHT MEDIA INSTRUCTIVISION INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNATIONAL READING ASSN J \u0026amp; B MUSIC SALES, INC. J \u0026amp; B SUPPLY COMPANY J L HEIN SERVICE INC JS PRINTING J. L. HEIN SERVICE, INC. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACQUELINE SUMLER JAMES R WILLIAMS JAMES W. WOODARD, JR JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANIS MASTERS JANN PHARO JEANNE P WILLIAMS JEFFREY MARTELLO JEFFREY MARTELLO JEFFREY MARTELLO JENNIFER CONNER JENNY OBANNON JERRY DOWDY JERRY DOWDY JERRY DOWDY JERRY DOWDY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY . T-11 AMOUNT 4 62. 50 3,465.00 300.00 2,950.00 2,950.00 2,502.50 2,502.50 333.76 229.95 496.73 130,704.36 2,496.69 1,387.33 71,954.91 55,151.65 446.16 136.00 136.00 136.00 136. 00 136. 00 61. 00 27.52 2,453.76 49,574.00 240.00 26,583.00 5,943.75 983.50 63.02 538.00 83.62 1,680.00 980.00 273.24 3,330.00 48 .13 67.92 257.58 52.81 173.23 236.70 237.87 36. 00 25.85 52.81 111.89 174.05 152.45 CHK. NO. 57079 57395 57592 57607 57736 57780 57803 57919 57273 58059 57302 57546 57696 57966 58146 58234 57412 57725 57758 58014 58023 57156 58117 57942 58168 57246 57993 57644 58082 57368 57921 57370 57571 57247 57264 57520 57254 58061 57209 57889 58216 57472 57326 57363 57583 57999 58244 57265 58228 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT JIMMIE DOTSON JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JODY EDRINGTON JODY EDRINGTON JODY EDRINGTON JOE COVEY JOHNS BURGIN JOHN TURNER SCHOOL SUPPLIES JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH E MCHUGHES ATTORNEY JOSH SPILLYARDS JOSTENS JOSTENS-THE GRAD SHOP JOURNEYWORKS PUBLISHING JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE CLEVELAND JUDY BROUGHTON JUDY BROUGHTON JUNE HAYNIE JUNIOR LIBRARY GUILD JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES JUST US KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAREN BREWER KAREN COLEMAN KAREN POWELL KARLA WHISNANT KASSANDRA WELLS KATHRYN HALE KATHY VANCE CHAMBERS KATIE VANDIVER KATIE VANDIVER KATIE VANDIVER KATY GEARHART HUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE T-12 AMOUNT 64.07 281. 37 281.37 281. 37 113. 94 149.04 3,374.51 50.00 2,000.00 134.78 50.35 50.35 50.35 50.35 50.35 128.00 69.04 52.32 1,414.80 592.44 5,781.54 327.23 5,781.54 297.23 5,781.54 1,216.88 236.70 241.80 252.38 280.80 1,770.00 372. 35 46.15 1,124.19 765.54 1,217.19 770.00 236.70 70.04 236.70 20. ~o 7 4. tj2 135. 25 378.70 236.70 538.00 111.07 201.14 50.26 CHK. NO. 57343 57090 57424 57817 57261 57518 57679 57926 57912 57358 57418 57728 57762 58017 58027 57978 57969 57924 58114 57100 57416 57427 57760 57821 58025 58222 57540 57958 58084 57898 57578 57851 57089 57178 57461 57870 57567 57576 57278 57491 58251 577C':_ 57274 57465 57466 57872 57135 57629 57848 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEATHLEY PATTERSON ELECTRIC KEITH FAULKNER KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KEVA RODGERS KEVIN MARTIN KEVIN MARTIN KEVIN MARTIN KIM PEARSON KIM PEARSON KIM REYNOLDS KIMBERLY JOHNSTON KIMBERLY STAFFORD KNOWBUDDYR ESOURCES KNOWLEDGE TREE KNOWLEDGE TREE KONE INC KRISTEN MADDOX KRISTIE RATLIFF KRISTIE RATLIFF KRISTIE RATLIFF KROGER #639 KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KRONOS KRONOS LAHARPES OFFICE FURNITURE LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKEWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LANCE BALLARD LARA HUMPHRIES LAURA JENNINGS LAURA WINTERS LEARNING RESOURCES T-13 AMOUNT 24.00 11. 23 500.21 178.75 500.00 443.76 10,919.86 2,816.50 593.17 4,027.36 2,951.39 29,665.37 4,405.13 31.98 36.00 52.81 64.82 145.08 130. 38 33.97 25.00 266.52 1,144.70 188.13 94.36 1,090.00 26.52 49.76 20.70 4.50 167.69 51.08 862.50 262.50 9,047.50 3,173.20 3,528.89 4,826.15 2,516.00 300.74 732.20 137.74- 526. 72 608.45 125.00 77.96 87.13 56.24 182.72 CHK. NO. 58065 58197 57117 57103 57386 57380 58008 58180 57711 57998 58123 58173 58243 57321 57364 58001 58246 57306 57970 57152 57110 58249 58151 57512 57935 57510 57305 57322 57558 58236 57251 57179 57638 58202 58085 57213 57484 57658 57891 58100 58217 57542 57691 57963 57673 57348 57125 57204 57317 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT LEARNING RESOURCES LEE TACKETT LESLIE HUFFMAN LETITIA MARTIN LETITIA MARTIN LETITIA MARTIN LIBRARIANS' BOOK EXPRESS LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LISA DOSS LISA DOSS LISA DOSS LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LONGS ELECTRONICS LONNELL D TIMS LORI PORTER LOWE'S LOWE'S LUNCHBYTE SYSTEM INC LYNCH DRIVE ELEM ACTIVITY LYNDA SISCO LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK LYNN CHADWICK M J COMMUNICATIONS MACHINE ADVANTAGE MAD SCIENCE OF CENTRAL MAGIC SPRINGS \u0026amp; CRYSTAL FALLS MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MARCIA CHAPPLE-DEAN MARCIVE, INC . MARCIVE, INC MARDEL #8 MARDEL #8 MARGARET VICKERS MARI INC. T-14 AMOUNT 18.43 462.00 87.67 18.34 234.00 8.98 800.83 316.93 832.83 5,118.34 7,260.52 143.18 581.30 834.06 544.03 11,297.50 607.31 571.84 194.25 236.70 524.20 538.00 134. 41 778.94 749.00 300.00 300.00 287.81 711. 64 310.00 395.91 100.00 145.47 15.99 96.20 408.64 9.38 43.60 1,674.00 616.00 532.00 30,833.33 77.03 54.45 34.68 52. 89 29.10 236.70 158.68 CHK. NO. 58235 57345 57184 57369 57714 58004 57876 57464 58087 57075 57391 57588 57604 57733 57777 57800 57825 57180 58086 57511 57675 57934 57191 58210 57648 57671 57237 57718 58181 57550 57294 57847 57513 57676 57789 57937 58253 57381 58095 58106 57331 57621 57288 57185 57650 57271 57684 57572 57944 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. MARIA TOUCHSTONE 83.23 57314 MARIA TOUCHSTONE 19.89 57553 MARIBEL SIEMS 770.00 57708 MARILYN BURNS EDUCATION ASSOC 790.00 57742 MARJEAN ROWE 146.68 57138 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 162.47 57268 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 94.87 57522 MARSHA SATTERFIELD 111. 03 58229 MARTHA NORTON 1,645.00 57354 MARY A. WILES 164.74 57205 MARY BETH COX 67.39 57310 MARY CAROLYN EAST 61. 55 57374 MARY KATHERINE BENTLEY 128.00 57867 MARY TAYLOR 25.00 58169 MATH SOLUTIONS PUBLICATIONS 1,813.54 58155 MATTHEW SEGO INC 2,888.95 57907 MBEA 1,185.00 57239 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 5,325.00 57340 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 6,255.00 57703 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 4,700.00 57988 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 4,600.00 58161 - MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 1,325.00 58162 MCCLURE LANDSCAPING 1,945.00 58163 MCM 69.88 57267 MELISSA CANNON 300.62 58127 MELISSA DOUGLAS 93.36 57202 MELISSA DOUGLAS 811.17 57479 MELISSA HANCOCK 75.66 57337 METHODIST DAY TREATMENT SCHOOL 33,770.00 58158 METHODIST DAY TREATMENT SCHOOL 2,850.00' 58159 METRO BUILDERS \u0026amp; RESTORATION 519.13 57127 METRO FOODS 13,220.50 57263 MICHAEL BLYTHE 45.65 57850 MICHAEL BLYTHE 134. 86 58199 MICHAEL HEAVNER 5,715.00 57925 MICHAEL MARSH 236.70 57471 MICHELLE BONES 172.49 57172 MICHELLE BONES 445.70 57456 MICHELLE BONES 125.99 58206 MICHELLE KEATON 56.00 57349 MIDAMERICA BOOKS 118. 77 57574 MIKKI EUBANK 1,077.79 57082 MILLENNIUM EDUCATION MUSIC 3,467.00 57633 MISSION SERVICE SUPPLY INC 3,060.33 57686 MISSION SERVICE SUPPLY INC 6,899.82 58232 MITCHS TIRE SERVICE 60.00 57562 - MOUNT ST MARY ACADEMY 200.00 57667 MR. WIZARD STUDIOS 60.90 58120 MRS CLARKS FOOD 1,439.00 57481 T-15 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT MU ALPHA THtTA MU ALPHA THETA MUSIC IN MOTION MUSIC THEATRE INTERNATIONAL N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NAEIR NANCY C. GREEN NANCY SETZLER NANCY SHEEHAN NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASC/NASSP NASCO NASCO NASCO NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL SCHOOL PUBLIC NBI INC NC CHILD SUPPORT CENTRALIZED NFHS NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRHS WEST CAMPUS NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WJ.\n:-'EHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK NLRSD-BACKGROUND GHECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED T-16 AMOUNT 529.60 7.00 80.80 40.00 244.85 34.99 1,118.63 127.60 40.00 432.00 41. 00 75.04 13.63 70.98 339.03 630.47 391.16 12.79 66.00 282.10 282.88 631.20 9,819.39 581. 93 36.28 357.96 133.20 5.95 325.00 1,495.00 137. 00 120.00 10.31 120.00 4,296.18 8,786.82 420.00 703.50 283.50 725.00 2,750.00 2,225.00 257.64 53.80 11,216.79 14,651.43 8,805.34 78,506.13 56,674.16 CHK. NO. 57164 57449 57259 57877 57190 57469 57651 58088 57505 57913 58119 58135 58263 57193 57282 57169 57452 57863 58091 57192 57652 57879 57194 58211 57470 57880 57195 58090 57203 57171 57415 58089 57196 57478 57236 57493 57664 57910 58113 57584 57713 58003 57599 57748 57771 57794 58037 57596 57745 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NORTH AMERICAN BOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH POINT FORD NORTHSIDE SALES COMPANY NORTHSIDE SALES COMPANY NOVA STAGGS O'REILLY AUTO PARTS OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OLIVIA MARTINEZ G:-1AR BROWN OMAR BROWN OMNI NEW HAVEN HOTEL AT YALE OTTER CREEK INSTITUTE OTTER CREEK INSTITUTE OUR HOUSE OXFORD GRAPHICS PACHECO OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT T-17 AMOUNT 35,040.08 151. 59 394.96 38.56 8,905.25 105.00 273.00 316.25 3,040.20 128.44 .56 316.44 277. 62 10.65 127.90 1,232.52 876.09 733.43 79,585.59 566.91 894.40 376.98 146.46 4.35 2,221.40 2,453.46 1,586.09 1,821.71 1,821.71 1,599.38 991.04 991.04 8,928.41 1,202.29 2,177.01 2,356.68 6,903.98 64. 62 64.62 64. 62 30.00 104.00 132. 00 1,696.80 537.00 179.00 93.60 136.93 16,384.86 CHK. NO. 57811 57197 57473 58092 58212 57551 57198 57199 57474 57105 57115 57419 57763 57796 58028 58258 57200 57448 57859 57468 57477 57653 57377 57568 57085 57406 57422 57720 57753 57815 58011 58020 57258 57515 57678 57938 58125 57095 57426 57819 57503 57183 57871 57243 57362 58175 57929 57188 57706 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 - ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. PACIFIC LEARNING 125.00 58195 PAM HANDLOSER 939.00 57332 PARK HILL FLORIST 51.78 57480 PARK HILL FLORIST 54.50 58214 PAT WONN 122.06 57932 PATRICIA MCMURRAY 77.22 57334 PAULA BRADLEY 236.70 57559 PAULA MCCARTHER 1,620.00 58226 PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING 54. 95  57649 PCI EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING 69.19 57873 PEARSON EDUCATION 1,576.07 57575 PEARSON EDUCATION 3,891.02 57704 PEARSON EDUCATION 10,507.71 57990 PEARSON EDUCATION 1,122.04 58166 PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES 2,801.25 57995 PENWORTHY COMPANY 382 .11 58002 PERFECTION LEARNING CORP. 714.08 58110 PERFORMANCE LEARNING INC. 743.35 57915 PERMA-BOUND 614.28 57173 PERMA-BOUND 1,324.21 57457 PERMA-BOUND 4,795.98 57641 PERMA-BOUND 70.74 58080 PERMA-BOUND 2,367.82 58207 PERSONNEL CONCEPTS 117. 85 58239 PETERSON CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK 333.84 57536 PETREVIA BOARDMAN 48.04 57960 PHOENIX LEARNING GROUP 104.45 57954 PILAR MURPHY 28.08 57339 PINNACLE POINTE HOSPITAL 41,120.00 58129 PIONEER DISTRIBUTING CO. 28,820.08 58094 PIONEER VALLEY EDUCATIONAL 566.50 57353 PIONEER VALLEY EDUCATIONAL 946.00 58171 PITTSBURGH PAINTS 433.15 57225 PITTSBURGH PAINTS 4,334.35 58107 PLATO INC 1,500.00 58157 PLAY WITH A PURPOSE 4 01. 35 57244 PLAY WITH A PURPOSE 273.70 58118 PLUMBING WAREHOUSE 2,587.29 57875 POE TRAVEL 614.70 57874 POPEYES CHICKEN 389.93 57234 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS 153.70 57533 POSITIVE PRO!:\u0026lt;CrIONS 165.45 58137 PRESTWICK HOUSE INC 154.48 57980 PRIMARY CONCEPTS 3,854.55 57325 PRINT CONNECTIONS PROMOTIONAL 505.76 57573 PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 2,455.48 57400 PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 2,192.74 57612 PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 2,192.74 57741 - PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 1,352.65 57785 T-18 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT AMOUNT CHK. NO. PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA 1,352.65 57808 PRO-ACT INC OBA 307.38 58138 PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS 253.00 57365 PROMOTIONS PLUS 1,157.53 57952 PROQUEST INFORMATION AND 79.95 57886 PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK 133. 06 57087 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES-RETIREMENT SY 3,725.00 57077 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY 1,385.28 57590 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY 936.48 57826 PUBLIC SCHOOL VEHICLE PROGRAM 120.00 57628 PURVIS BEARING SERVICE 27.01 57338 QUALITY PETROLEUM INC 4 04. 64 57459 RADIO SHACK 1,508.39 57210 RADIO SHACK 1,078.24 57655 RADIO SHACK 16.34 58097 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A. 180. 96 57091 RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A. 20.00 57092 RAINEY ELECTRONICS 164.20 58098 RAMSEY CHEMICAL \u0026amp; EQUIPMENT 119.88 57301 RAQUELL BARTON 19 .11 57792 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 143.17 57324 REALLY GOOD STUFF INC 1,124.55 58150 REBECCA GARDNER 236.70 57514 REBECCA R CARR 3,951.29 57304 RECORDED BOOKS LLC 6,032.06 57947 RED DOOR GALLERY 98.10 57890 RED ZONE ATHLETICS 12,542.11 57883 REDWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND 123.57 57964 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 309.05. 57212 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 349.39 57482 REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC 227.80 58099 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 57411 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62.61 57724 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 57757 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62.61 58013 REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC 62. 61 58022 RELLIA DILLINGER 76.79 57375 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 645.00 57228 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 587.23 57908 RENAISSANCE LEARNING INC 398.50 58109 RENEE' BONA 12.00 57372 REXEL DAVIES 133 .16 57160 REXEL DAVIES 170.77 58072 RHONDA BANKS 26. 52 57298 RHONDA BROWN 180. 96 57432 RHONDA BROWN 15.60 58188 RICHARD ALEXANDER 620.00 57401 - RICHARD ALEXANDER 490.00 57402 RITA LOVENSTEIN 42.31 57122 T-19 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT RIVENDELL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH RIVER CITY JANITORIAL SUPPLY RIVER CITY JANITORIAL SUPPLY RIVER VALLEY HORTICULTURAL RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY CO. RIVERSIDE BOX SUPPLY CO. ROBERT COX ROBERT GLOVER ROSE CITY MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND ROSEMARIE DRAKE SAGEBRUSH CORPORATION SAIED MUSIC CO SAIED MUSIC CO SALLY MARTIN SAMANTHA CURRAN SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SANDERS SUPPLY SANDERS SUPPLY SARA LOGAN SARA MCALISTER SARGENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC CO SARGENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC CO SAX ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SCANTRON CORPORATION SCHOLARS LEARNING CENTER SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY PUBLISHING SCHOOL AIDS SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOLWI DE INC  SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP T-20 AMOUNT 550.00 76.20 145.13 198.97 43.00 958.90 104.00 138. 79 117. 53 1,540.00 9,124.67 77 .17 70.59 98.01 37.17 380.18 120.00 7,700.90 160.18 511. 54 126.36 200.00 20.38 3,239.87 78.80 1,031.00 1,031.00 1,031.00 1,031.00 1,031.00 2,941.66 30,870.00 397.10 3,411.89 340.89 5,006.07 606.08 12,047.35 3,910.90 271.30 1,254.34 559.48 26,406.27 4,103.03 6.98 675.00 675.00 675.00 575.00 CHK. NO. 58102 57549 58147 57206 57485 58101 57232 57902 57292 57462 57311 57695 57965 57137 57139 57208 57888 58096 57356 57579 57534 57218 57946 58131 57659 57398 57610 57739 57783 57806 57211 58122 57352 57992 58240 57214 58103 58218 57342 57896 57215 57660 57895 58219 57627 57399 57611 57740 57784 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SETH SPEER SEVENTH STREET ELEM ACTIVITY SHANDRIA GORDON SHARA BRAZEAR SHARA BRAZEAR SHARON ELDRED SHARON HAVER SHARON HAVER SHEILA BAKER SHELLY JONES SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED SHERMAN ACQUISITION LIMITED SHERRY RATLIFF SHRED-IT SHRED-IT SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP SKILLS USA/VICA SOCCER PLUS SOCIAL STUDIES SCHOOL SERVICE SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHWEST SPORTING GOODS CO SPECIAL SHOW 2006 SPLASH FULL SERVICE CARWASH \u0026amp; SPORTSCENE OF ARKANSAS ST. MARY'S SCHOOL ST. PATRICK'S SCHOOL STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STATE BUSINESS SUPPLY STATE BUSINESS SUPPLY STEPHEN WARD STEVE CANADY SUMMIT LEARNING SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUPER DUPER INC SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUSAN HYDEN SUSAN MAY SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER T-21 AMOUNT 575.00 252.00 60.18 1,180.00 702.09 401.18 202.21 180.68 26.02 25.90 106.37 464.38 113. 60 159.89 146.25 357.50 1,364.90 431.64 12.50 325.08 47.73 274. 94 4,897.78 32.25 739.76 300.00 35. 94 270.59 1,152.00 8,064.00 2 61. 70 122.41 42.87 590.50 95.89 711. 65 800.00 59.52 62.55 5,151.72 383.20 334.88 340.48 629.71 115,142.90 231.50 236.70 11,699.96 22,136.03 CHK. NO. 57807 57853 57293 58167 57537 58139 57371 57497 58115 58177 58200 57096 57820 57250 57315 57973 57170 58079 57046 V 57961 57897 57997 58172 58242 57899 57316 57672 58209 57661 57662 57221 58104 57222 58105 57297 58145 57707 57894 57936 57663 57906 58220 57439 57486 57489 57177 57496 57165 58075 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT SYMTRAX CORPORATION T-SHIRT SHOP TARGET BUSINESS CARD SERVICES TASC TASC TASC TASC TASC TASC TASC TAYLOR M COLUMBUS TEACHER EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION TEACHER'S MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS DISCOVERY TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TELE TOUCH TEXAS INSTRUMENTS THE BRIDGEWAY THE COLLEGE BOARD THE EDUCATION PEOPLE INC THE FIELD SHOP THE GRAD SHOP THE LIBRARY STORE THE LIBRARY STORE THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE MCGRAW HILL COMPANIES THE NATIONAL BETA CLUB THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE TIMES THELMA JASPER THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMSON GALE TNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES INC. TODD HUFF TOM SNYDER PRODUCTIONS TOWNSEND PRESS BOOK CENTER TRACEE RAINEY TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY T-22 AMOUNT 450.00 13.35 361.34 116. 66 11,700.50 116. 66 10,964.61 10,964.61 8,626.75 8,626.75 132.00 300.00 2,100.00 515.68 33.90 682.70 26.93 113 .11 132. 80 7,324.43 1,156.98 1,176.00 105.37 1,300.00 1,350.00 690.00 999.88 84.93 731. 39 144.74 326.02 1,128.82 1,260.21 2,642.68 930.56 1,261.00 2,739.00 901.98 582.74 300.00 9.15 9,866.25 40.90 79.93 236.70 2,120.00 181.22 108.97 4,495.52 CHK. NO. 57981 57955 57230 57076 57392 57589 57605 57734 57778 57801 57865 57323 57560 57856 58160 57130 57834 57683 57943 57712 58000 58245 57431 57884 58133 57989 57566 57685 57987 57383 58009 57287 57688 57956 58141 57516 58203 57984 57901 57909 57939 57681 57121 57146 57443 58083 57151 57176 57143 . ' .... NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRI-STATES VIDEO AND TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TRIVIA MARKETING TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC TWIN CITY TRAILER SALES AND TYLER H LINDSEY US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US FUEL U S FUEL US POSTAL SERVICE U.S. TOY COMPANY INC. UALR UALR UALR READING RECOVERY UAMS UAMS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNITED WAY OF PU~ASKI COUNTY UNIV OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION UNIVERSAL MECHANICAL SERVICES UNIVERSAL MECHANICAL SERVICES UNIVERSAL MECHANICAL SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS T-23 AMOUNT 1,220.28 382.70 31.18 168.20 328.95 19,708.11 2,584.28 15,703.75 2,367.48 617.61 110. 33 128.00 3,526.15 4,211.60 2,764.70 5,811.16 3,859.42 2,874.36 5,607.30 15,793.28 10,734.86 8,347.20 15,254.32 101.84 204.03 204.03 204.03 204.03 204.03 246.85 129.13 1,581.58 152.50 825.64 825.64 4,800.00 20.00 8,340.80 2,500.00 1,496.85 1,039.70 847.14 550.00 548.05 4,935.92 3,335.15 1,865.10 17,540.00 1,150.00 CHK. NO. 57438 57217 57900 57255 57445 57949 58231 57382 57495 57911 57475 57868 57765 57790 58031 57111 57766 58032 58254 57113 57769 58035 58256 57098 57410 57723 57756 58012 58021 57543 57693 57281 57444 57561 57 699 57893 57097 57666 57 670 57597 57746 57812 58140 57527 57951 58132 57835 58191 58192 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC-VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VANDERBILT CENTER FOR SCIENCE VARSITY SPIRIT FASHIONS VICKI STEADMAN VICKI STEADMAN VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION VIRGINIA WALLACE VIVIAN HARRIS W PAUL BLUME WALCH PUBLISHING WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMARTC OMMUN:CTBYR C WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALSWORTH PUBLISHING CO. WANDA HAWKINS WANDA HAWKINS WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARD'S ASBESTOS REMOVAL INC WARDS NATURAL SCIENCE WATERFUL WONDERBEDS WEEKLY READER WEEKLY READER WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST MEMPHIS PAPER COMPANY WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES WHITNEY FLETCHER WILLIAM E THRASHER BOYS \u0026amp; WILLIE JACKSON WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION XEROX CORPORATION T-24 AMOUNT 3,360.40 3,847.60 2,499.60 5,915.66 598.30 912.26 787.31 3,034.45 825.00 31,719.63 805.00 27,578.63 27,613.63 18,206.13 18,206.13 50.00 4,200.00 131.12 149.29 149.29 67,251.66 20.51 164.42 1,687.50 2,552.38 3,386.51 5,007.70 1,796.04 1,002.53 1,518.42 1,532.97 29,343.08 129.63 100.00 1,694.42 32,850.00 4,250.02 1,175.02 64.14 817.50 217.22 4,161.75 557.37 24.79 500.00 1. 42 105. 42 239.56 997.25 CHK. NO. 57770 57793 58036 57201 57476 57882 58093 58213 57078 57393 57591 57606 57735 57779 57802 57394 57507 58116 57262 57519 57499 57285 57283 58142 57544 57329 57563 57700 57976 58153 58237 57502 57333 57983 57501 58029 57242 57665 57918 58121 57291 57916 57914 57582 57928 V 58250 58111 58221 57640 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 2006 ACCOUNT YOLANDA GIBSON YOLANDA GIBSON YOUTH HOME INC ZACH BARBER ZEECRAFT TECH AMOUNT 177. 90 4.20 6,490.00 104.00 52.00 CHK. NO. 57547 57967 57508 57231 57312 CHECK TOTALS FOR JUNE 2006 14,054,081.37 CHECK VOIDS FOR JUNE 2006 1,124.50 T-25 BOARD oF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA, ..#~~~ ~ ~~~..., :,\n, ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, September 21, 2006 5:00 P.M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President II. INVOCATION, Kiara Webb, Lynch Drive Elementary Fifth Grader, daughter of Ms. Kengla Webb III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Darrell Montgomery, Member Dorothy Williams, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS 1. Superintendent's Honor Roll - S. Brazear A. Indian Hills Elementary Staff and Parents B. NLRSD Maintenance \u0026amp; Custodial Staff 2. New Partners in Education - S. Brazear A. Kroger - Camp Robinson and Ridgeroad Middle Charter B. Treat Automotive U-Haul and Amboy Elementary 3. Special Recognition - S. Brazear A. NLRHS West Campus students in the Apple Program Page 2 - Board Agenda September 21, 2006 VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, August 17, 2006, 2006 5:00 P.M. (Regular)- Page A- 1 B. Thursday, September 7, 2006 5:30 P.M. (Special) - Page A- 5 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. Reorganization of the Board of Education - Chairman ___ _ Page B- 1 B. Consider Designation of the Superintendent as the Ex Officio Financial Secretary - Chairman ____ - Page B - 1 C. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider D. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report- G. Tucker E. Consider Elementary Science Textbook Adoption Committee - K. Lowe -Page C-1 F. Consider Spring 2006 Test Data- L. Martin G. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page R- 1 4. Consider building use requests - Page S - 1 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS None X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. B. C. Saturday, September 30, 2006 -9:00 A.M. -Board Workshop at J.W. Nutt Company Thursday, October 19, 2006 -6:30 P.M. -ASBA Region 8 Fall Meeting - Cabot High School Thursday, October 26, 2006- 5:00 P.M. Regular Board Meeting XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES August 17, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, August 17, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. There were no public comments. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer John Riley, Parliamentarian Teresa Burl, Member Absent Dorothy Williams, Member Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) and NLRHS- TV (video) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communications Specialist, presented Rochelle Redus, outgoing Zone 3 Board member, a plaque and thanked her for her six years of service for the students of North Little Rock. Each Board member expressed their appreciation for her work on the Board. Mary \"Cricket\" Hicks, NLRSD International Baccalaureate Coordinator, introduced three of the seven NLRHS West Campus students who received International Baccalaureate diplomas. Wade Fuqua, Nadia Claassen, and Katy Matthews explained their hours earned for college credit and their great scholarships. The Board congratulated and thanked each of them for choosing North Little Rock School District. A....:I. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the minutes of the July 20, 2006 (Regular) meeting as printed. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Scott Teague moved to accept the minutes of the July 31, 2006 (Special) meeting as printed. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Energy Education Reports Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, explained more information would be coming from Energy Education in November or December to fully explain the savings so far. Board members inquired if the city of North Little Rock would be able to give the district a discount on our electricity. Mr. Massey said he would meet with them to explore the possibility: Health Insurance Revisions (Board Policies COE and COE-CL) Greg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer, presented the proposal to increase the district's portion of insurance payment from $240.62 to $264.78. The district will pay the rate increase of the employees' insurance. This is a change to board policy CDE Insurance Coverage for certified personnel and board policy CDE -CL Insurance Coverage for classified personnel. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the revision to Board Policy COE - Insurance Coverage as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Trent Cox moved to accept the revision to Board Policy COE - Insurance Coverage as presented. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Date for Workshop The Board discussed a mutual best date and decided to have their workshop on Saturday, September 16, 2006 at the J.W. Nutt Brokers office on Crestwood in North Little Rock from 9:00 a.m. to I :00 p.m. Board members were requested to send any topics of interest to Mr. Kirspel for him to prepare the agenda for the workshop. Superintendent's Salary Revision MOTION John Riley moved to enter into an executive session. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) The Board entered into an executive session at 6:00 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 8:12 p.m. MOTION John Riley moved to increase Ken Kirspel's salary three and a half per cent (3 %)from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel requested approval of the consent agenda as printed. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEM Barry Kincl, Health Advisory Committee Chair, advised the Board the committee was meeting regularly and our district is in compliance completely with Act 1220. Mr. Kine! also stated Kevin Danaher, Director of Athletics, Health and Physical Education will be the new chair of the committee beginning in January 2007. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Teresa Burl moved to adjourn the meeting. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley and Teague None (Williams - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Marty Moore, President NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES September 7, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a special session on Thursday, September 7, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice President John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Absent None Others Present Mr. Ken Kirspel, Superintendent\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGreg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer\nDr. Angela Olsen, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall taped (audio) the meeting. Report from Certified Personnel Policies Committee Margie Snider, Certified PPC Chair, stated their committee met and unanimously passed the proposed change to Board Policy COE Insurance Coverage increasing the amount from $240.62 to $264.78. The committee will take a vote of the certified employees. Report from Classified Personnel Policies Committee Glenda Tucker, Classified PPC Chair, stated their committee met and unanimously passed the proposed change to Board Policy COE - CL Insurances Coverage increasing the amount paid by the district from $240.62 to $264.78. The committee will take a vote of the classified employees. A-5 2006 - 2007 School Year Budget Greg Daniels, Chief Financial and Information Services Officer, presented the final budget to A the Board for their approval. Mr. Daniels explained adjustments were made and duplications W removed since the budget was originally presented in the July 31, 2006 budget workshop. Board members asked questions of Mr. Daniels and also thanked him for the clarity of his report. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the 2006 - 2007 School Year Budget as presented. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: ADJOURNMENT MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None Dorothy Williams moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Marty Moore, President Act 671 of2003 AN ACT TO CLARIFY THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR DISBURSEMENTS BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS\nAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SECTION 1. Arkansas Code  6-13-618 is amended to read as follows: 6-13-618. Organization - Disbursing officer. (a) At the first regular meeting following the annual school election, the board of directors of each school district shall organize by electing: (1) One (1) of their number president\n(2) One (1) of their number vice president\nand (3) A secretary who may, but need not be, a member of the board. (b) (1) The board, by resolution adopted by majority vote, shall designate (1) one of its members who shall serve as the primary board disbursing officer of the district. (2) In addition, the board may designate one (1) or more board members as an alternate board disbursing officer in the absence of the designated primary board disbursing officer. (3) Such resolution must be filed with the county treasurer and the Director of the Department of Finance and Administration. (c) No warrant or check, other than food service or activity funds, shall be valid in absence of the following manual or facsimile signatures: (1) The designated board member serving as disbursing officer for the district, or the designated alternate\nand (2) The superintendent of the school district. SECTION 2. Arkansas Code  6-17-918 is amended to read as follows: 6-17-918. Issuing and countersigning warrants. (a) (1) It shall be the duty of the district superintendent of schools to serve as ex officio financial secretary. (2) All warrants and checks shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of 6-13-618(c) and 6-13-701(e). (b) The district superintendent of schools shall neither issue nor countersign any warrants or checks until he has determined that the warrants have been issued in conformity with  6-20-402, this subchapter, and other laws. B-1 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: KEN KIRSPEL, SUPERINTENDENT FROM: KA YE LOWE, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: ELEMENTARY SCIENCE/HEALTH TEXTBOOK ADOPTION COMMITTEE ' DA TE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Recommendation for the Elementary Science/Health Adoption Committee 2006-2007 Name School Grade Michelle Green Meadow Park Kindergarten Mary Carol Copeland Boone Park First Grade Natalie Akin Seventh Street First Grade Laura Showalter Amboy Second Grade Carrie Glover Indian Hills Second Grade Becky Kimbrough Lakewood Third Grade Steve Orobona Park Hill Third Grade Dawn Stane Belwood Fourth Grade Tammy Reeder Glenview Fourth Grade Matthew How North Heights Fifth Grade Renita Parker Pike View Fifth Grade Wanda Mccranie Crestwood Fifth Grade Allison Wesson Lynch Drive Special Ed Resource Sheryll Smith Indian Hills Principal Mary Lou Ferguson Glenview/North Heights Gifted LaCher Rockins Seventh Street Parent Laura Miller Park Hill Parent Paulette Blevins Administration Science Instructional Specialist C-1 I North Little Rock School District ocal Revenue Current Truces Pullback Delinquent Truces Excess Commissions Land Redemption Penalties \u0026amp; Interest on Truces Tuition-Summer School/Day Care Interest on Investments Soft Drink Sales Misc Rev From Local Total Local Revenue Revenue From Intermediate Source l Severance True Revenue from State Sources-Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding 0th Unrestr Grants-in-Aid Revenue from State Sources-Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M - Non-Instr Pgms Misc State Total Revenu estate NUE OPERATIONS d TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal TOTAL REVE y s NUE AUGUST 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $12,510,000.00 $827,475.13 $1,542,304.44 $6,250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,471,000.00 $25,784.28 $66,924.30 $310,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $185,000.00 $19,715.94 $42,422.38 $62,000.00 $795.00 $2,958.36 $105,000.00 ' $7,298.98 $6,998.98 $900,000.00 $90,739.90 $195,969.49 $79,000.00 $2,170.98 $2,170.98 $84,460.00 $38,067.09 $38,277.09 $21,956,460.00 $1,012,047.30 $1,898,026.02 $10,100.001 $0.00! $2,172.99! $35,477,276.00 $3,225,206.00 $3,225,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $534,639.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,903,623.00 $236,247.00 $238,076.00 $2,213,250.00 $534,600.00 $612,132.49 $6,980,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $381,715.00 $1,000.00 $189,207.00 $52,500.00 $12,219.34 $12,219.34 $50,545,003.00 $4,009,272.34 $4,276,840.83 $72,511,563.00 $5,021,319.64 $6, 1 TT ,039.84 $233,000.00 $31,256.35 $56,214.03 $1,550,000.00 $65,122.46 $122,819.55 $3,669,000.00 $65,751.97 $66,362.78 $7,181,864.00 $469,133.97 $469, 133.97 $85,145,427.00 $5,652,584.39 $6,891,570.17 0-1 %YTD Budget Balance Actual/Bud $10,967,695.56 12.33% $6,250,000.00 0.00% $1,404,075.70 4.55% $310,000.00 0.00% $142,577.62 22.93% $59,041.64 4.77% $98,001.02 6.67% $704,030.51 21.77% $76,829.02 2.75% $46,182.91 45.32% $20,058,433.98 8.64% $7,927.01! 21.51%! $32,252,070.00 9.09% $0.00 $2,000.00 0.00% $534,639.00 0.00% $4,665,547.00 4.86% $1,601,117.51 27.66% $6,980,000.00 0.00% $192,508.00 49.57% $40,280.66 23.27% $46,268,162.17 8.46% $66,334,523.16 8.52% $176,785.97 24.13% $1,427,180.45 7.92% $3,602,637.22 1.81% $6,712,730.03 6.53% $78,253,856.83 8.09% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOT AL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Prof/f ech Services Purchased Property Services Other Purchased Services Suoolies and Materials Property Other Objects Debt Service Total Other Expenditures OPERATING FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND BUILDING FUND FEDERAL FUND FOOD SERVICE FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District AUGUST 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-0 Actual $37,526,650.00 $793,810.86 $978,274.82 $9,846,135.00 $73,818.13 $107,791.58 $9,779,440.00 $474,447.93 $843,967.17 $3,975,887.00 $120,808.26 $197,002.16 $61,128,112.00 $1,462,885.18 $2,127,035.73 $1,421,058.00 $31,663.10 $130,012.12 $980,780.60 $65,694.83 $82,108.19 $2,600,000.00 $70,652.84 $456,506.10 $4,250,000.00 $774,797.09 $869,097.15 $2,208,614.00 $696, 123.53 $1,390,809.09 $700,000.00 $4,015.00 $15,744.00 $1,110,370.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,270,822.60 $1,642,946.39 $2,944,276.65 $74,398,934.60 $3,105,831.57 $5,071,312.38 $1,791,824.00 $82,085.10 $402,084.53 $5,530,900.00 $447,346.98 $735,412.23 $7,751,725.93 $125,229.96 $148,125.61 $3,212,423.00 $187,869.02 $222,104.76 $92,685,807.53 $3,948,362.63 $6,579,039.51 0-2 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaVBud $36,548,375.18 2.61% $9,738,343.42 1.09% $8,935,472.83 8.63% $3,778,884.84 4.95% $59,001,076.27 3.48% $1,291,045.88 9.15% $898,672.41 8.37% $2,143,493.90 17.56% $3,380,902.85 20.45% $817,804.91 62.97% $684,256.00 2.25% $1,110,370.00 0.00% $10,326,545.95 22.19% $69,327,622.22 6.82% $1,389,739.47 22.44% $4,795,487.77 13.30% $7,603,600.32 1.91% $2,990,318.24 6.91% $86,106,768.02 7.10% Function Category 11 XX Regular Proqrams-Elem/Sec 12XX Special Education 13XX Workforce Education 15XX Compensatory Education 19XX Other Instructional 21XX Suooort Services-Students 22XX Suport Services-Instruction 23XX Suooort Services-Administration 24XX Supoort Services-Sch Admin 25XX Suooort Services-Business 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services 27XX Pupil Transportation 28XX Support Services-Central 29.XX Other Support Services 31XX Food Services 33XX Communitv Service Operations 34XX Other Non-Instr Services 43XX Site Improvement Services 5XX Ed Spec Dev Services 46XX Bldg Acq/Constr Services 47XX Building Improvements 51XX LEA Indebtedness 53XX Payment to other LEA 55.XX Indirect Cost/Admin Charges GRAND TOTAL North Little Rock School District FUNCTION  AUGUST 2006 2006-2007 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $28,584,257.10 $830,197.95 $956,886.72 $9,561,331.69 $79,257.10 $80,815.20 $1,564,621.37 $96,678.60 $100,879.80 $4,340,644.20 $5,628.88 $5,628.88 $3,826,038.74 $65,416.14 $88,287.81 $6,055,139.19 $157,720.40 $190,561.38 $5,365,715.06 $224,819.14 $307,250.98 $1,210,728.13 $62,879.41 $114,585.02 $4,039,640.57 $273,935.77 $347,722.04 $1,428,158.93 $127,625.03 $188,845.21 $6,524,519.03 $458,717.21 $1,094,245.55 $3,547,667.77 $103,273.72 $529,407.26 $945,077.33 $82,836.79 $164,628.85 $436,103.89 $0.00 $0.00 $3,997,597.66 $211,812.66 $251,456.42 $47,274.41 $152.01 $209.68 $123,406.25 $9,307.68 $13,869.18 $938,867.80 $80,378.18 $368,443.43 $470.21 $0.00 $0.00 $12,225.33 $0.00 $0.00 $6,402,208.35 $1,075,571.04 $1,773,161.18 $1,923,825.10 $2,154.92 $2,154.92 $1,692,738.14 $0.00 $0.00 $117,551.26 $0.00 $0.00 $92~685,807 .53 $3,948,362.63 $6,579,039.51 0-3 %Yid Budget Balance ActuaVBud $27,627,370.38 3.35% $9,480,516.49 0.85% $1,463,741.57 6.45% $4,335,015.32 0.13% $3,737,750.93 2.31% $5,864,577.81 3.15% $5,058,464.08 5.73% $1,096,143.11 9.46% $3,691,918.53 8.61% $1,239,313.72 13.22% $5,430,273.48 16.77% $3,018,260.51 14.92% $780,448.48 17.42% $436,103.89 0.00% $3,746,141.24 6.29% $47,064.73 0.44% $109,537.07 11.24% $570,424.37 39.24% $470.21 0.00% $12,225.33 0.00% $4,629,047.17 27.70% $1,921,670.18 0.11% $1 ,692, 738.14 0.00% $117,551.26 0.00% $86,106,768.02 7.10% North little Rock School District SOURCE OF FUNDS  AUCUST 2006 Current Month Ytd Source of Funds Category Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual Budget Balance Actual/Bud 000 Non-categorical $67,861, 196.61 $2,492,919.05 $3,995,695.23 $63,865,501.38 5.89% 213 Intensive School Improvement $1,128.49 $0.00 $0.00 $1,128.49 0.00 223 Prof Development Act 59 $419,005.01 $22,762.28 $71,884.32 $347,120.69 17.16% 225 Technology Grant $1,626.91 $0.00 $0.00 $1,626.91 0.00% 227 CPEP $78,552.45 $300.97 $9,758.96 $68,793.49 12.42% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $85,953.48 $1,076.27 $1,076.27 $84,877.21 1.25% 250 Act 591 Residential $48,901.32 $0.00 $0.00 $48,901.32 0.00% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $982,979.62 $32,529.35 $42,914.08 $940,065.54 4.37% 271 G/f Advance Placement $4,523.03 $0.00 $0.00 $4,523.03 0.00% 275 Alternative Learning Environment $1,283,801.76 $17,056.45 $26,782.51 $1,257,019.25 2.09% 276 English Lang Learners $36,309.23 $2,982.01 $2,982.01 $33,327.22 8.21% 281 NSLA $2,303,528.84 $39,067.44 $46,443.60 $2,257,085.24 2.02% 365 ABC Preschool $2,409,866.65 $983.12 $4,991.26 $2,404,875.39 0.21% 381 Smart Start Literacy $74,838.77 $5,994.34 $11,310.20 $63,528.57 15.11% 392 General Facility Funding $571,534.22 $59,648.20 $83,606.88 $487,927.34 14.63% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $940.41 $0.00 $0.00 $940.41 0.00% 401 Academic Fae lmmed Repair $2,111,549.76 $698,090.73 $1,395,680.87 $715,868.89 66.10% 403 Academic Fae Transitional Pgrn $4,878,659.39 $447,346.98 $735,412.23 $4,143,247.16 15.07% 404 Academic Fae Partnership Pgrn $322,654.70 $0.00 $0.00 $322,654.70 0.00% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $4,123.22 $774.74 $774.74 $3,348.48 18.79% 430 ROTC $119,009.84 $7,762.46 $7,762.46 $111,247.38 6.52% 441 Title IV-B 21st Century $193,747.24 $10,877.64 $14,826.04 $178,921.20 7.65% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,106,564.85 $13,158.56 $20,978.65 $4,085,586.20 0.51% 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 523 Title I Reading First $294,198.13 $5,336.55 $5,336.55 $288,861.58 1.81% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $34,795.17 $549.23 $4,146.73 $30,648.44 11.92% 535 Title V-B Charter Schools $47,678.79 $4,865.04 $4,865.04 $42,813.75 10.20% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement . $67,652.16 $0.00 $0.00 $67,652.16 0.00% 570 Cart Perkins Vocational $202,278.45 $2,514.18 $6,715.38 $195,563.07 3.32% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,798,865.29 $7,279.01 $7,279.01 $1,791,586.28 0.40% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $879,728.52 $50,013.09 $50,753.18 $828,975.34 5.77% 750 Medicaid $169,627.41 $819.56 $1,619.56 $168,007.85 0.95% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $79,934.86 $5,694.49 $5,694.49 $74,240.37 7.12% 754 Javits - G/f Grant $9,404.10 $0.00 $0.00 $9,404.10 0.00% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $889,854.57 $12,189.75 $13,978.12 $875,876.45 1.57% 761 Title Ill Eng Lang Acqui $17,658.08 $985.00 $985.00 $16,673.08 5.58% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $56,080.41 $0.00 $0.00 $56,080.41 0.00% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $14,952.53 $2,410.66 $2,410.66 $12,541.87 16.12% 796 Workforce Investment Act $25,861.28 $0.00 $0.00 $25,861.28 0.00% 995 Soft Drink Acct $186,837.85 $2,375.48 $2,375.48 $184,462.37 1.27% GRAND TOTAL $92,685,807.53 $3,948,362.63 $6,579,039.51 $86,106,768.02 7.10% $80,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 NLRSD Actual to Budget Comparison As of August, 2006 Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service  Budget  Expenses Shanda Coleman Christopher Sierra NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Board Agenda - September 21, 2006 NEW ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL Lynch Drive Elementary, Assistant Principal Effective 9/22/06, Category I, Step 4, 207 days NLRHS East Campus, Assistant Principal Effective 9/8/06, Category I, Step 3, 207 days NEW ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION NAME: Shanda Coleman PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Lynch Drive Elementary, Assistant Principal\nEDUCATION: BA- Harding University, Searcy, AR 5/03 MA- Harding University, Searcy, AR 6/05 LICENSURE: Standard 5 year- Elementary 106 Initial three year - Building Administrator P-8 EXPERIENCE: Park Avenue Elementary, Assistant Principal, Stuttgart, AR 7/05 -8/06 Clary Elementary, Stuttgart, AR 8/00 - 6/05 RECOMMENDATION: Loretta Hassell, Lynch Drive Elementary Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Gregg Thompson, Administrative Director of Personnel NAME:\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_1766","title":"Court filings regarding motion to extend time and responses, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''.","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":["2006-07/2006-09"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Magnet schools","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion to extend time and responses, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''."],"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/1766"],"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":["31 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for extension of time and motion for Little Rock School District (LRSD) to show cause; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, two orders; Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Status of the PCSSD's Implementation of Plan 2000''; 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.     lllcc,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JIL CO EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  J. 8 2006 WESTERN DIVISION tr; ~F!/Ct o,  11011 M01111t:J,,.,._ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLA~ V. LR-C:-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 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 the 2005- 06 school year. The progress of those evaluations has been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD, the most recent of which was filed on June 1, 2006. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 1, 2006. 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers, and Read 180, cannot be completed without an electronic file of individual student results from the benchmark examinations administered by the State of Arkansas for the 2005-06 school year. The benchmark examination results are not yet available and will not be available until late July or early August. LRSD's Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) will require approximately two weeks to find and correct errors in the data set, once the data is received by PRE. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Literacy, 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. NORMES recently announced that the posting has been delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and names. PRE now expects to provide the QELI database to Dr. Ross by early August. 4. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. James Catterall, the experts hired by LRSD to conduct the four Step 2 program evaluations, estimate that they will be able to deliver draft program evaluations within six to eight weeks after receiving the benchmark and QELI data. The draft evaluations must then be reviewed and finalized in accordance with LRSD' s evaluation policy. Letters from Dr. Ross, Dr. Catterall and Dr. DeJamette explaining the need for more time are attached to this Motion. 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to ensure the delivery of useful program evaluations which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions about whether to 2 continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. Those decisions will be made in the Spring and will be effective for the 2007-08 school year. 6. LRSD has contacted counsel for the Joshua Intervenors concerning this Motion and was informed that the Joshua Intervenors would like to take additional time to consider their response. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the attached letters from Dr. Ross, Dr. Catterall and Dr. DeJamette, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of the time within which it must file Draft Step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year to and including October 15, 2006, and an extension of the time within which it must file final Step 2 program evaluations to and including November 17, 2006. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK . Christopher Heller (Ark. Bar No. 81083) 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 5011376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller 3 CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICE I certify that on July 18, 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.hagerneier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr: Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol A venue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller 4- JUL.25.2006 4:56PM JOHN W WALKER p A N0.473 P.2 Case 4:82.cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Flied 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN nm UNUED STATES DIS'IRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKICOUNTYSPECIALSCHOOL . DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION FOR. LRSD To SHQW CAUSE Come now the Joshua Intcrvenors who respectfully oppose the little Rock School District Motion to Extend Time and Motion For LRSD To Show Cause. On July 19, 2006, the court directed counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to promptly respond to the LR.SD s Motion for Extension of Time in which to file its Step 2 evaluations with the court now due Cl1 October 1, 2006. Three reasons ~ set forth by LRSD counsel: a) test data from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) will not be available for expert use prior to late July, 2006 with respect to three of the four programs beini evaluated; b) test data from the ADE regarding the fourth program will not be available until early August; and c) after receipt of the describ~ data, experts Drs. Ro$ and Catterall will need betWecn six and eight weeks 1D  prepare their draft repo~. Joshua opposes the LRSD s Motion for Extension of Time. 1oslma also submits that the LRSD Superintc:odent, Roy Brooks, and the IRSD as an entity, are in i. - --- - - - JUL.~~.Z006 4=56PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.473 P.3 Case 4:82-cv-00866--WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/2512006 Page 2 of 6 contempt of court for violating ex.press and implicit directives of the court. Joshua submit, the following additional reasons for their request for Hearing filed June 21, 2006 and for the district to be required to show cause. 1. The court s attention is directed to thr.ee previol.1$ orders which it entered: a) Order dated May 21, 1993; b) Order dated June 30, 2004; and c) Order dated November 29\", 2005. 2. In the Order dated May 21, 1993. the cou:tt compelled the LR.SD to consult with Joshua prior to making desegregation plan altercations. The compliance remedy constitutes an express des~egation plan obligation. Joshua contends that LRSD senior administrators Superintendent Roy Brooks, Deputy Superintendent Hugh Hattabaugh, and Associate Superintendent Olivine Roberts have directed the PRE staff on many occasions to have no cont.act with Joshua reguding PRE compliance remedy activities. The Superintendent s directive t.O the PRE Director Deiamette and hCl' staff was to thwart Joshua s ability to oblain infonnation. In makini known his intention not t.O allow substantive Joshua participation in the evaluation process, on information and belief, Dr. Roy Brocic.s dizcctly threatened to tcrmiDate the employment of Dr. DeJamcttc and her three statisticians if they collaborated and/or communicated with Joshua. He did this on more than one occasion. 3. The above stated LRSD senior officials have refused. to consult with Joshua insofar as the directed evaluation and assessIJ1ell.t process are concerned. This is in contrast to their regular consultations with the ODM monitors. 4. Joshua has souiht to obtain information about PR.E activity regarding plan ,implementation. When information has been requested by Joshua, LRSD has dela}'Cd the production of such information. On the other hand, when ODM requests certain data, UpOn 2 JUL ,25 . 2006 4 : 56PM JOHN W WALKER p A N0. 473 P.4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 6 - infonnation and belief: it is provided to the ODM without delay. In order to secure information in a timely fashiou, Joshua counsel began requesting infonnation through use of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AF OJA). This was done not because of any litigation concept, but rather to be sure that information believed to be necessary to Joshua s monitoring function -was provided. On information and belie~ PRE staff has indicated !hat it would provide the information requested by Joshua but LRSD senior ~strators, acting on advice of counsel, have refuse to allow it. S. The court s compliance remedy of June 30, 2004 sets forth in a very specific manner LRSD s charged duties regarding its desegregation obligations. See Section 2. 7 and 2. 7. l of LRSD s 1998 Education Plan. The obligation of the district is to assess/evaluate kt; programs pursuant to Section 2. 7 designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students. The court further directed that the LRSD prepare Step 2 evaluations of key - 2. 7 programs. The LRSD s commitment was to take appropriate action in the form of either modifyina how the program is implemented or replacing the program. During an evaluation team meeting on or about April 18, 2006, the senior administrators of LRSD did not indicate that any of the alleged key programs evaluated for the 2004-200S school year \\Wuld be replaced or discontinued. However, on information and belief, the LRSD, through Associate Superintendent Olivine Roberts, has indicated that the programs previously evaluated in compliance with the Court s order and those cUII\"ently being evaluated are not key programs. She has subsequently implemented nine new programs which she has identified as being key. One of the programs has , been assessed by PRE. If the propms previously evaluated or those currently being evaluated are not key programs, then this is another example of LRSD s noncompliance with the court s 3 - - - - --- JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 N0.473 P.S Page 4 of 6 order of June 30, 2004. It is important to note that the evaluation tasks ordered by the Court, or for that pUipose any programs undertake.n by the district are necessarily hampered by the unavailability of a competent database. 6. The court s June 30111 Order directed LRSD to permanently embed a comprehensive assessment process into its curriculum and ins~tion program. To that end. LRSD, on the initiative of Dr._ DeJamette, engaged Dr. Victoria Bernhardt as an expert. Her work and that of PRE have been and are being impeded by deficient, incompetent data from the I.RSD. This is due to LRSD s refusal to make the necessary financial commitment to obtain the necessary da1a base for Dr. Bernhard and PRE to perform their assessment and evaluation tasks. As of this date, LRSD is unable to make assessments or evaluations of key 2.7 programs whatever they are! LR.SD thus remains recalcitrant and resistive to appropriate professional implementation of the court c1irted re?11edy. Joshua notes again that the senior adminfar:rators ofLRSD continually - seek to undercut the court ordered compliance ~y. 7. The Order of November 29, 2005 required the LRSD to promptly inform the court and parties when it learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reasun. Joshua. as well as LRSD counsel, learned on June 13, 2006 that the LRSD could not meet eJCPected deadlines for filing Step 2 evaluations. Rather than request an extension of time as directed by the court, LRSD filed a status report on Jwie 28, 2006. See initial letters from the experts which are appended to the LRSD motion for extensiai of time. It is obvious that LRSD implored those letter writers to renew and slightly change the wording in their one month earlier , coirespondencc. See also the July letters from. the experts attached to the Motion for Extension ofTime. 4 ------- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4032 Filed 07/25/2006 N0.473 P.6 Page 5 of 6 8. Joshua submits that LR.SD s waiting for more than a month to inmrm the court that it needed an extension of time for the filing of required evaluations amounts to contempt of court. 9. The court is essentially faced with the same situation this year that it was faced with lastyeazwhen the court posed five questions to the LRSD. The answers ofLRSDare essentially the same now as then. This makes LRSD s conduct more deliberate and its .implementation evasive, dciiant_and in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Joshua respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order setting a bearing for LR.SD to show cause why it should not be held. in contempt of the previous court orders. Joshua further requests that the senior administrator, of LRSD be required to show cause why they should not be held in Contempt of Colin. Joshla request that the hearing on thi; motion be prompt, i.e., within the next two weeks. Respectfully submitted, /s/Jobn W. Walke,r __________ ___.John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 S0l-374-3758 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jo!,nwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 CERTIFlCATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that on this 2si11 day of July, 2006 the follCJWini motion has been filed using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record. /s/Jobn W. WalJss: s JUL. ,:::, . a::Mb 4: !::\u0026gt;!:\u0026gt;1-'M JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: F\u0026lt;1X: Re: N0.473 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Artomey at Law 1723 Ero-adway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) J7.:f-3i58 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET '( {)6\"' b BO~ OM - Jf)1ra ti~ I -371.-t:J /1)0 P.1 Sender: J; /w, tJa.i /ur YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [_ _ (.including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIV$ ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501)\"374-3758\u0026gt;\" ---- - - --- The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomey privileged and confldenrinl inform~oo intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not rhe intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it ro the intended rei;ipienr, you nl'e hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying oftbis communication is strictly prohibited. !fyou. have received mis communication in.error, please immediate notify us by teleptlone, and remm the original message ro us at the above address via the U.S. Post.ii Service. Thanlc you. IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW OfflCEOF PLAINTIFnisEGREGATION ; oNITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 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 July 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. D. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 W'4fiHMW@fflfiltst1MfaffMffi'tRMkiWW :~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;:....';: ...... ., ' ~ . : ' ; :: ~ ~ l ' ... ._. . . ' - .~ ~ .:' ; I  .... ' . ~-' ~ - - . . '  -.H, .... ,--,..  ' - '  '~ ri~=~ i::t:r;-:1:~::- :- \\~t;;:,..=-:::-\"j -!.(.:.;_~\\.:~ ~-::;. ;:: r-1 1:. --:=.:T:t)fG..-- . - ,. ~:~ ~ ~~ ;- ,, '/~-~ ,.. ~  , . ~~!'~~:~-;-,-.} .~~: --?) ~ ,:,,:,\u0026gt;: ~~~ - ~:.J71 ,J_:~~._;~!}L~ Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2006 E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered.by th\u0026amp;Court 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. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG _2_- 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS With considerable reluctance, LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4029) is GRANTED. It appears to me that the delay is occasioned by a third party which is not a party to this litigation. I find this frustrating, but I do not believe I have authority to enjoin the third party to move more expeditiously -- even if a hearing revealed that its delay is not based upon good cause. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE e . . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. AUG 2 - 2006 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOHITOffiNG ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Joshua's Motion for a Hearing and Motion for LRSD to Show Cause (Doc. No. 4018) are DENIED for the time being. According to Joshua's allegations, the lawyer's for LRSD have failed confer with Joshua's lawyers even after requests for consultation. I make no finding on this allegation, but in the interest of keeping this case on track I direct that counsel for both parties \"meet and confer\" forthwith, with a representative or representatives of the ODM present. Concerns of Joshua's counsel should be fully aired at this meeting. If the lawyers for these parties cannot agree upon a \"meet and confer'' date, time, and place, they are directed to advise me by fax-letter no later than 5 p.m., this Friday, August 4, 2006. In other words, the date, time, and place is to be agreed upon before 5 p.m. this Friday. The \"meet and confer'' session(s) should be held soon thereafter. The ODM should report to me as soon as reasonably possible after the \"meet and confer'' session(s). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 28 United States Court of Appealf - - . FILED ::.--: EAsT U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ERH DISTRICT ARKANSAS Allf, IO 2006 No. 04-2923 -~MES W.~3; CLERK Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, v. Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official .Capacity as a Merribei'ofthe Board of Education of the Little Rock * * * * * * *   * * * * * *  * DEPCLERK I I I I / Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 28 School District, A Public Body; George * Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D. Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and . . * in his Official Capacity as a member of  * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2-   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 28 The Little Rock School District(LRSDfapp:e,a, from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary (status. We affinn. ' I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. I, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-47 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, - 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the di_strict court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed _that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-200 I school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the  Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 28 Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into subs~ntial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong. 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 and the2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- - ' r. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 28 II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD \"partially unitary with regard to all . aspects of its operations, because it has substantially complied with all sections of the  Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. 7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2. 7 .1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. ofEduc. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 28 gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( l) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. IT People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d l 073, l 076 (7th Cir. 200 l) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we ex~ine LRSD' s compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 7 of 28 ( l) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2. 7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an ''Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Learning Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy ( various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development (all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 8 of 28 Plan\" in response to section 2.7. l. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7 .1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2. 7. I. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had implemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students'\" under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at IO 18. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7. I of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- e  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 9 of 28 achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find thatLRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited pa~sage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of the new curriculum in Engli~h ~anguage arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the Nationat' Science Foundation project aimed at . improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Mt at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" hh at 1077. -9- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 10 of 28 In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long tenn, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perfonn some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district court set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   . B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 11 of 28 C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.l and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the ''Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by 8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. l!L at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B and the evaluations of -Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented U)lder  2. 7,\" id. at l 076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp;Urban Dev., 807 F.2d 1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretatiori that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 12 of 28 leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. . . . If there is any ambiguity in the . .. order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD' s Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated that LRSD would \"[c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m ]aintain written records of. .. the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted iri program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 13 of 28 On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its -self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic programs\" (e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Leaming, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 14 of 28 D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs . ... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programs because, on its face, nothing in 2.7. l of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform \"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2. 7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7 .1 obligations. -14- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 15 of 28 LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court; however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel--even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% ofthetotalnumberofseats inLRSD'sclassrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland y. N.J. Dep't of -15- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 16 of 28 Corr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\" A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7. l of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for _two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy, i will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: 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 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 -16- i.. u Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 17 of 28 experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 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 .... 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 years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 program$ 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 -17- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 18 of 28 someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 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 of 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 relieveLRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 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 2004-05 school year and 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, Junel, 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. -18- ii_ . ...,. . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 19 of 28 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. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 20 of 28 filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy th~ requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 21 of 28 are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come ~los~,~-t,0.5!,_~sing !he line between proper j1!sJci9i.aL ,.2, _,_,.._..,. ...\" \"*~~-..~ -;.r.\"'...,:.,... .. .:\u0026amp;.-- ~ --  ~~-r..,,. .. ~, .~ ., - . 1  enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the,  m osition of requirements that r---= ~ ,. _ ,..,..... .   .,. ~ ~   ..- .1. '\"t.~.\"'- ...... --~- :.,,.:...~3,, :,_~c,fsa...:, ,~,,.;.~ ; find no warrantfo that undeftakirig~ did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed ------,-.. ,---~,r-.r,:: ..... '--, -.--\"' w--.-.- ~,r:-.-,,,~-t.~ to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 22 of 28 ,, Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD--not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2. 7 .1 program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2.7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpa1d.\"' Id. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- ..  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 23 of 28 ,,.Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way reH7~ing the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the coi;hmitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the f R~vised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from I Jhe ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, / requirements that may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision I at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Ian but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the d-istr-ict -cou-rt a-bus-ed -its d-isc-ret-ion =in im osing t.he. 2.00-4. R-em~edy-. ~ .. ~-- ......~ . - A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472,475 (8th Cir.1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F.3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 24 of 28 Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312F.3d 952,958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ. Dep 't of Corr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)). As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- ...  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 25 of 28 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 . Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire - a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2. 7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement_by stating, \"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\" ofLRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- Case 4:82..:cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 26 of 28 However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those tenns are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the tenns agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new tenns in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement . .. in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but~ would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e) available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4037-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 27 of 28 be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- A TR Ct: C1)PY OF Tiff ORIGl::-;'AL MICH_!,.::._L E.. c; _.\u0026gt;,SS. CLER~ UNrrE.D ::-T.:, TES COl-RT OF APPEALS :~~lt~'.A~l~f qa.u- UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 Gene Jones Associate Monitor Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor August 16, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring U.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager ARKANSAS 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 . 0. ~~~ 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 DMSION RECEIVED OCT 2 2006 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al DEFENPANTS 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 September 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 9225 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 ---- - - - . ------ - - - - -- -- --- - - --- - - RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 2006  OFFICEOf LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL  PLAINTIFFSDESEGREGATI0NM0NIT0RING 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 D~cember 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the foliowing 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 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_178","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part one","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["William Gordon Associates"],"dc_date":["2006-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part one"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/178"],"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.EARKdANSAuS DcEPARaTMEtNT ilOnfF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mali  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL September 12, 2006 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I am writing in follow-up to an earlier letter dated November 17, 2005, in which I advised the Court and the parties that the Arkansas Department of Education had contracted with Gordon and Associates to conduct a feasibility study as required by 26 of Act 2126 of the 85th General Assembly. I am enclosing a copy of the completed feasibility study for your information. Should you or any of the copied parties have any questions or comments, please contact my office at your convenience at 501-682-4227. Si,rely\n,0 ~~'4 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education Enclosure cc: T. Kenneth James, Ed.D., Commissioner of Education Mark Hagemeier, Attorney General's Office Chris Heller, Attorney for Little Rock School District John Walker, Attorney for Joshua Intervenors Sam Jones, Attorney for Pulaski County Special School District Steve Jones, Attorney for North Little Rock School District Mark Burnette, Attorney for Knight Intervenors The Honorable Will Bond, State Representative Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring- Pulaski County Special School District Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring- North Little Rock School District Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - Little Rock School District 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 1047629_1 Arkansas Feasibility Study A Report Submitted to Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Education By William Gordon Associates\nSaluda, North Carolina William M. Gordon Percy Bates David E. Bartz William R. Gordon Charles L. Patin, Jr. June 30, 2006 Contents Topics Page Executive Summary ................................................... A I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski. County School Districts: One School District North of the Arkansas River- Act 2126 of 2005,  26(1) ......................................... 6 A. Student Assignments ........................................ 7 B. Facilities .............................................. '. . . 11 C. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. Building Level Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3. Central Administration ......... : ...................... 20 D. Transpo1iation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 III. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: Two School Districts North of the Arkansas River - Act 2126 of 2005,  26(2) ....................................... 22 A. The Reconfigured North Little Rock School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 a. Classroom Teachers ............................. 28 b. Building Level Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 c. Central Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4. Transpotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B. New Jacksonville School District ............................. 35 1. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2. Facilities ........................................... 37 3. Financial Considerations .............................. 39 4. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 a. Classroom Teachers ............................. 41 b. Building Level Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1048408_1 c. Central Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5. Transportation ....................................... 44 6. Governance ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 IV. Feasibility of ReC'rganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: One School District South of the Arkansas River -Act 2126 of 2005, 26(1) and (2) ................................. 45 A. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B. Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 C. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 1. Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2. Building Level Administrators .......................... 54 3. Central Administration ................................ 58 D. Transportation ............................................ 58 V. Effect of reorganization on Desegregation - Act 2126 of 2005, Section 26(3) .................................... 59 VI. Plan for Umtary Status for the Three Existing School Districts in Pulaski County to End the School Desegregation Litigation: Act 2126, Section 26( 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 A. The cutTent status of school desegregation in Pulaski County . . . . . . . 66 B. A limited analysis as to where the existing school districts stand on the road to unitary status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2. Faculty and Administrative Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3. Facilities ........................................... 71 \"4. Transportation ....................................... 71 5. Extra-curricular and student activities .................... 72 C. What is unitary system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 VII. Unitary Status: How to End the School Desegregation Litigation in Pulaski County ................................................ 77 A. A post-unitary status three school district approach for ending the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County ............... 79 1048408_1 11 AD Feasibility Study .e B. A post-unitary status four school district approach for ending the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County ............... 81 C. Why a post-unitary three new school district approach is not feasible .............................................. 82 VIII. Recommendations and Conclusions: Ending the ongoing school desegregation litigation ............................................ 85 Conclusions ......... , ................................................ 91 Attachments 1048408_1 Brief Biographical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Specific Language of Legislation Creating this Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . B North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . C Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 . . . . . . . . D North Little Rock\n:_,chooDl istrict Faculty Assignments 2005-06  ..... . ...... E Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 ........ F North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 ................ G Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . H 'Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 ................... I Building Capacities for Each of the Three Districts ....................... J Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K Little Rock School District Adminishators 2005-06 ...................... L \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement\" by Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon, 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (January 31, 2002) ............................. M Ill \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts\" by William M. Gordon and David E Bartz, 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (July 1, 1993) .................................. N Exhibits Schedule of Meetings Necessary in Conducting the Study ................. 1 Facilities Analysis - Pulaski County Special School District ................ 2 1048408_1 IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY William Gordon Associates was engaged to conduct a feasibility study for the Arkansas Department of Education. 1 The purpose of the study was to conduct an analysis to evaluate and determine the most feasible public school district structure that will best meet the educational needs of students in Pulaski County and to provide recommendations as to how the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County might be ended. Specifically, we were asked to address the following: The possible consequence of the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one school district south of the river.  The feasibility of eliminating the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form three school districts, including one school district south of the Arkansas River and two school districts north of the river with one comprised of the Jacksonville area. Whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District would further desegregation efforts of all of the school districts. Propose a plan to pursue the end of school desegregation in Pulaski County.  Meet with all relevant parties to the contract over the life of the project to coordinate the development, implementation, and management of the project. 'William Gordon Associates is comprised of Dr. William M. Gordon, Dr. Percy Bates, Dr. David E. Bartz, Mr. William R. Gordon, and Charles L. Patin, Jr., Esq. A brief biographical information as to each member of the team is found in Attachment A. 1052141_1 A Data were collected from a wide variety of sources within Pulaski County. Because results from the study would likely have broad impact throughout the county, every effort was made to gather information from people who might be affected by the study's recommendations. This was accomplished through a series of meetings with individuals, groups, receipt of recommendations from organizations, and a wide variety of stakeholders. A complete list of the meetings is attached to the report. The study commenced in November 2005, and was completed in June 2006. Team members made eight onsite trips to Pulaski County during this time period for interviews, meetings, and for the collection of information and data. Findings: One School District North of the Arkansas River. 1052141_1 The existing North Little Rock School District has 19 schools (20  buildings) and 9,580 students. The reconfiguration would add 26 schools and 13,677 students for a total enrollment of 23,256 students. The racial composition would go from 36.3% white, 58.8% black, and 4.9% other minorities students to 47.1 % white, 48.3% black, and 4.6% other minorities students. The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770 teachers. The addition of the 26 schools would require the employment of approximately 990 additional teachers for a total of 1,760 teachers. The racial composition of the teachers for the reconfigured school district would change modestly from the current 82.7% white, 16.2% black, and 1. 1 % other minorities teachers to 81.9% white, 17.4% black, and 1.2% other minorities teachers. B The existing North Little Rock School District employs 41 principals and assistant principals. The addition of the 26 schools would increase the number of principals and assistant principals in the reconfigured school district by 52 for a total of 91 with a racial composition of 51. 7% white and 48.3% black principals and assistant principals.  The reconfigured North Little Rock School District would require a central administration of approximately 58-66 central administrators.  The reconfigured North Little Rock School District bus fleet would increase from 89 to 163 buses. It also would acquire 2 additional bus compounds for a total of 3. This reconfiguration would involve combining four distinct communities (cities) into a single school district. While it would be possible to make such a reconfiguration, it would create a new school district that would be the second largest school district in the state of Arkansas. In our judgment, such a reconfigured school district would be difficult to manage due to both its geographic size and the lack of a commonality of interest among the communities that would constitute the reconfigured school district. The existing North Little Rock School District looks upon itself as a community school district with a strong identity with schools and the community it serves. Accordingly, in our judgment it would not seem prudent to reconfigure the school district to include all areas of Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River. 1052141_1 C 1052141_1 Two School District North of the Arkansas River. A Reconfigured North Little Rock School District -  The existing North Little Rock School District has 19 schools (20 buildings) and 9,580 students. The reconfiguration would add l3 schools and 6,763 students for a total enrollment of 16,343 students. The racial composition would go from 36.3% white, 58.8% black, and 4.9% other minorities students to 43.7% white, 51.7% black, and 4.6% other minorities students.  The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770 teachers. The addition of the l3 schools would require the employment of approximately 493 additional teachers for a total of 1,263 teachers. The racial composition of the teachers for the reconfigured school district would change modestly from the current 82.7% white, 16.2% black, and 1.1 % other minorities teachers to 82.6% white, 16.7% black, and .7% other minorities teachers.  The existing North Little Rock School District employs 41 principals and assistant principals. The addition of the 13 schools would increase the number of principals and assistant principals in the reconfigured school district by 27 for a total of 68 with a racial composition of 52.9% white and 4 7 .1 % black principals and assistant principals. The reconfigured North Little Rock School District would require an increase in central administrators of approximately 5-7 central administrators. The reconfigured North Little Rock School District bus fleet would increase from 89 to 159 buses. It also would acquire 1 additional bus compound located at Oak Grove. D Jacksonville School District - The Jacksonville School District would have 13 schools and a student enrollment of 6,914 of which 55.0% (3,806) would be white and 40.3% (2,786) black, and 4.7% (322) other minorities students.  Five of the 13 schools are rated as in need of extensive renovation or replacement.  The Jacksonville School District would require 497 teachers. If the teachers pre_sently assigned in the existing Pulaski County Special School District schools that would be transferred into the Jacksonville School District are employed by the new school district, the racial composition of the teachers would be 80.1 % (398) white,.19.9% (95) black, and .8% (4) other minorities teachers. Each school would have at least 2 black teachers if the current teaching assignments are continued by the new school district. The Jacksonville School District would have 26 principals and assistant principals, 13 white and 13 black if current building level administrative assignments are continued by the new school district.  The Jacksonville School District would be in need of a central administration consisting of 19 to 27 central administrators. Of the two options for reconfiguration of school districts no1ih of the Arkansas River, a reconfigured North Little Rock School District and a newly created Jacksonville School District present a more favorable arrangement and one that would be, in our judgment, more likely to address the educational needs of students attending schools north of the Arkansas River. A reconfigured North Little Rock School District would not be expanded beyond its ability to operate efficiently and would retain much of its community identity. Creation of 1052141_1 E - a Jacksonville School District would allow members of the greater Jacksonville community the opportunity to have their own school district. 1052141_1 One School District South of the Arkansas River. A Reconfigured Little Rock School District -  The existing Little Rock School District has 49 schools and 26,312 students. It is the largest school district in the state of Arkansas. As reconfigured, the Little Rock School District would add 10 schools and 4,650 students for a total of 30,962 students. The racial composition of the reconfigured school district would go from 24.0% white, 68.7% black, and 7.3% other minorities students to 28.1 % white, 65.0% black, and 6.9% other minorities students. The existing Little Rock School District employs 2,027 teachers. The addition of 10 schools would require the  employment of approximately 379 additional teachers. The racial composition of the reconfigured school district teachers would only modestly change. The existing Little Rock School District employs 96 principals and assistant principals. Adding 10 schools would increase the number of principals and assistant principals by 18 for a total of 114 building level administrators with a racial composition of 48.3% white and 51.7% black building administrators.  The increase in students and schools in the reconfigured Little Rock School District would require an insignificant increase, if any at all, to the existing central administration.  The reconfigured Little Rock School District's bus fleet would require an additional 160 buses for a total of 519. The reconfigured school district would also acquire an additional bus compound. F There is logic to expanding the Little Rock School District to include all areas of Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River. Unlike the area north of the river, Little Rock is the only city sc th of the Arkansas River. It is a rapidly expanding municipality. The reconfiguration envisioned in Act 2126 of 2005 would have a positive impact on desegregation. The Impact of the Reorganizations on the Ongoing School Desegregation Litigation: Because each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County remains under federal judicial supervision in the ongoing school desegregation litigation, any reconfiguration of these school districts would require an order from the federal district court. The existing school districts operate in part or whole under interrelated consent decrees. Pursuant to - controlling federal jurisprndence, a modification of a consent decree in institutional reform litigation, such as the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County, may only be approved under certain conditions. We find that none of those circumstances appear to exist at this time. Absent the existence of circumstances conducive to modification of the existing consent decrees, the reorganizations outlined in Act 2126 are not legally feasible in the context of the ongoing school desegregation litigation. Other factors also are present that suggest that reorganization is not feasible at this time. Dissolution of the Pulaski County Special School District and the inclusion of its dismembered tenitory into either two or three new school districts would result in a requirement that the newly created school districts undertake completion of any unmet desegregative obligations of the dissolved school district. This, of course, would retard the 1052141_1 G - progress toward unitary status that has already been made by the existing Little Rock and North Little Rock schoo1 districts, and would be contrary to applicable federal jurisprudence relating to creation of new school districts. In addition, there is language in the interrelated consent decrees that suggests that the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock school districts are entitled to remain in existence as independent and sovereign at least until such time as they have met their obligations under their consent decrees. For these reasons, we do not believe that it is feasible to reorganize the existing school districts in Pulaski County so as to reconfigure them into either two or three new school districts so long as they continue under federal judicial supervision in the ongoing school desegregation litigation. Unitary Status: The legislation \\.lnder which we were engaged did not require us to conduct an extensive and exhaustive desegregation audit of the kind required for litigation. Neve1iheless, we did collect considerable amounts of information and data so as to enable us to prepare this study. Based upon the information and data collected and our analysis of it, we are of the opinion that the three existing school districts have satisfied the desegregative obligations imposed by the constitution and appear to be in substantial compliance with the de:,egregation obligations contained in their consent decrees. It is for these reasons that we strongly suggest at this time that each of the existing school districts pursue unitary status and termination of federal judicial supervision. 1052141_1 H The Little Rock School District is rapidly approaching unitary status. Upon acceptance by the federal district court of an evaluation regarding its final desegregative . obligation, it will be posed to file a motion to end its involvement in the ongoing school desegregation litigation. The North Little Rock School District is in the process of preparing its case for unitary status and an end to its involvement in the litigation. The Pulaski County Special School Board is presently taking a different approach to unitary status. It has instructed its desegregation attorney to file a motion for partial unitary status. Even if successful, this approach would not end in whole the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. We surmise that at least one reason for this approach is a fear on the part of the school board that full unitary status and an end to the school district's involvement in the litigation might result in the dissolution of the school distiict as contemplated in Act 2126. It is for this and other reasons that we recommend below that an assurance be given to the Pulaski County Special School District that should it pursue and be declared unitary, and should all federal judicial supervision be relinquished, the school distiict will continue to exist in some shape or form. Recommendations: We make the following recommendations: 1052141_1 Agreements to pursue full unitary status - Each of the three existing school districts must agree to seek full unitary status. This will require that each existing school district evaluate where it stands in terms of meeting, to the extent practicable, their obligations under their respective consent agreements and addressing an area or areas in which compliance has not been fully met. Such I 1052141_1 an evaluation will initially require input from each existing school district. To facilitate this input, the discussions among the state and school district attorneys should in.voJve participation by school system superinrendents and a representative of each school board. Efforts to engage the Joshua Intervenors - The Joshua Intervenors have sent two conflicting signals as to their position onending the school desegregation litigation. On the one hand, they have indicated an intention to interpose an objection to any effort by the three existing school districts to seek a declaration ofunitary status and an end to the school desegregation litigation. On the other hand, in response to a question posed by a member of the legislature during a committee meeting the Joshua Intervenm-s' attorney indicated some willingness to cooperate in ending the litigation in the event unspecified benefits derived from the litigation are retained once the litigation is ended. Accordingly, a good-faith effort should be made to engage the Joshua Intervenors to determine ,rhether it is feasible to accommodate their interests. If that course of action fails to bear fruit, preparations must be made for adversarial proceedings.  Decision as to whether experts should be retained - If adversarial proceedings are inevitable, a determination should be made as to whether school desegregation experts should be engaged to assist in presenting the cases to be put forward by the existing school districts. Experts, unlike fact witnesses, are in a position to offer opinion testimony to the court. If experts are to be utilized, they should be engaged as early as possible to allow adequate time in which to conduct a thorough desegregation audit and prepare for trial. Retention of the reconfigured Pulaski County Special School Dist1ict - In order to assure that the Pulaski County Special School District will seek full unitary status and an end to its pa1iicipation in the school desegregation litigation, there will need to be in place J 1052141_1 some mechanism to guarantee that in a post-unitary status setting the school district will continue in existence in some shape or form. Creation of a Jacksonville School District - Agreement must be reached on the creation of a Jacksonville School District. As among the governmental parties to the school desegregation litigation this will primarily involve the question of the boundaries of the new school district and a transitional period in which necessary steps will be taken to bring the new school district into full operational status. Phase-out of M-to-M transfers - Students enrolled in schools pursuant to majority-to-minority transfers as of the end of the school year in which the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County is ended should be permitted to complete their level of education studies. Students enrolled in elementary grades (K through 5) should be permitted to remain enrolled in their M-to-M elementary school through compl~tion of the fifth grade. The same would hold for middle school students and hi.gh school students. Retention of the stipulation magnet schools - We recommend that consideration be given to continuing the existing stipulation magnet schools in the Little Rock School District as county-wide magnet schools once the school desegregation litigation is ended. These schools offer expanded educational opportunities and should interject an element of diversity into the student population of the Little Rock School District that should be continued. Equality of educational opportunity- In order to promote an equal educational opportunity for all high school students, a concerted effort should be made to offer, in addition to state required courses, the same elective course offerings in all regular and comprehensive schools. A reasonable teacher/pupil ratio can be used to determine when a particular course will be taught in a K particular school. At the middle and elementary school levels, course offerings in art, music, and other areas customarily offered to younger students should be offered in all regular and comprehensive middle and elementary schools. Emphasis on school choice and targeted recruitment of students - In order to prepare students for life in a diverse world and workplace, emphasis should be placed on a targeted recruitment of students under the state's school choice law. Schools with limited levels of diversity (socio-economic, ethnic, and/or racial) should be encouraged to actively recruit school choice students in different communities in an effort to assure, to the extent practicable, as diverse a student population as possible. Student Discipline - Policies must be retained where pe1missible or new policies adopted to assure that student discipline is administered in a non-discriminatory manner without regard to sex, race, ethnic origin, sexual 01ientation, or mental or physical disability. Every effort should be made in the administration of student discipline to keep students in school. Phase-out of state funding - Agreement will be needed on a fomrnla for the phase-out of state funding for the three existing school districts and the new Jacksonville School Dist1ict. A five year decreasing formula should be adequate to assist the four post-unitary status school distticts in making the transition to self-sufficiency and ending the state's desegregation funding obligations. In order to implement certain of the above recommendations in a post-unitary status setting, enabling legislation will be necessary. We recommend that all necessary legislation be enacted prior to the filing of the unitary status motions and that the effect of such legislation be made contingent upon the entry of an order of the federal district court 1052141_1 L - declaring that each of the existing school districts is unitary, dissolution of all outstanding orders and injunctions, and termination offederaljudicial supervision over the affairs of the three existing school districts in Pulaski County. 1052141_1 The legislation should address the following areas: Creation of a Jacksonville School District and reconfiguration of the Pulaski County Special School District-Legislation in this area will need to address the following with respect to a new Jacksonville School District: (a) the boundaries of the new Jacksonville School District\n(b) the disposition of facilities, equipment, materials of instruction, movable property such as buses and other vehicles, and joint use of common facilities such as the transportation yard in the Jacksonville area\n( c) a transitional period prior to operation of the Jacksonville School District in which school board member election districts must be drawn, school board elections must be held and a school board seated, selection of a superintendent and employment of a school system staff (assistant superintendent(s), directors, coordinators, etc.), employment of teachers and support personnel and adoption of salary schedules, ( d) settlement and apportionment of any outstanding debt obligations of the Pulaski County Special School District, ( e) other necessary measures that must be in place prior to operational status of the Jacksonville School District. The legislation also will need to address similar issues with respect to the remaining portion of the Pulaski County School District. For example, if Arkansas law does not provide that the term of an elected official may not be shortened, new election districts for school board members and an election will be required during the period of transition. County-wide magnet schools - Legislation might be considered to establish the current stipulation magnet M schools as county-wide schools. The legislation would need to address the percentage of seats in these schools that would be assigned to students residing in the Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special, and Jacksonville school districts and preferences for such seats where an insufficient number of students from a school district fail to meet the seating allocation provided for a particular school district. (This envisions a totally race-neutral criteria based exclusively on the residence of the students' parents, custodial parent, or legal guardian.) Phase-out of state funding for M-to-M transfers -A five year phase-out of state funding should be more that sufficient to fund a phase-out of majority-to-minority transfers. At the high school level, funding would phaseout at the end of the fourth year. At the middle school level, grades six through eight, funding would be required for three years. At the elementary level, funding would phase-out in no more than five years. Our recommendations addressing the equality of educational opportunity, school choice and recrnitment, and student discipline may be implemented through a post-unitary status agreement among the parties and the adoption of implementing school board policies. Conclusions: 1052141_1 Our study, in its various sections, reaches the following conclusions: Based upon the limited scope of our analysis, the three existing school districts in Pulaski County appear to be unitary.  A Jacksonville School District should be created.  In order to create a Jacksonville School District, the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County must be ended and control of the existing school districts restored to state and local control. N 1052141_1 The school desegregation litigation can only be ended if each of the existing school districts moves for, and is successful, in obtaining unitary status, dissolution of all outstanding orders and injunctions of the federal district court, and termination of federal judicial supervision.  An incentive must be given to the Pulaski County School District that should it file a motion for full unitary status and relinquishment of all federal judicial supervision it will not, thereafter, be dissolved by the state of Arkansas.  The state of Arkansas must take a leadership role in bringing the existing school districts together to move for unitary status and an end to the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. Every reasonable effort should be made to enlist the participation of the Joshua lntervenors into the process of seeking an end to the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County with a view, if possible, to a joint motion to end the litigation. 0  ARKANSAS FEASIBILITY STUDY I. Introduction William Gordon Associates, in response to a Request for Proposal issued by the Arkansas Department of Education pursuant to Act 2126 of 2005, Section 26, undertook a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if the Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist.\" The scope of the study was to specifically address and evaluate the follow: 1051802_1  The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and the redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one school district south of the Arkansas River.  The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and the redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to fom1 three school districts including a Little Rock School District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock School District north of the Arkansas River, and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River.  Whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District under Option 1 or Option 2 would further desegregation efforts of the school districts and help all school districts in gaining unitary status and ending the school desegregation litigation.  To study and propose a plan to pursue the end of school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. 1 1See Attachment B: specific language creating this study. A bi-racial team consisting of four educators with extensive expertise in the area of school desegregation and a practicing attorney with experience in the area of school desegregation law began the study in November 2005. As we undertook this task, it was apparent that the study would involve two distinct areas. The first area was to examine and make recommendations with respect to the creation of either two or three school districts that would replace the existing school districts in Pulaski County and to determine whether creation of the new school districts would further desegregation efforts and, thus, help all of the school districts to gain unitary status and an end to the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. The second area was to devise a plan to end the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. In gathering data for the first area of the study ( addressed in Sections II through V relating to the creation of new school districts and their impact on desegregation), we met with a large number of individuals and groups from throughout the county, representatives of the Departments of Education and Justice, members of the Legislature of the State of Arkansas, representatives of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special school districts, members of teacher and school support staff organizations, business leaders, attorneys representing parties to the ongoing school desegregation litigation, and persons engaged in monitoring implementation of the outstanding consent decrees in the litigation. 2 The team endeavored to meet with all groups and individuals who expressed a desire to be 2See Exhibit I: listing of various meetings attended by one or more members of the study team. 1051802_1 2 - heard. Meetings also were scheduled by the team with persons we felt might be of assistance to us in gathering needed information for our analysis. These meetings enabled the team to gather a wide range of community input. In addition to these meetings, we collected data from each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County on student enrollments, faculty and administrative assignments, transportation, course offerings, school finances, pertinent studies completed by other agencies or groups, and reports prepared by the Arkansas Department of Education. Finally, we conducted a facilities analysis of each school in the Pulaski County Special School District 3 and toured throughout the county in an effort to familiarize ourselves with the various communities and their geographic locations in relation to each other. The second area of our study, addressed in Sections VI and VII, relates to a plan to end the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. To fully analyze this portion of the study, we were mindful that the existing school districts within Pulaski County remain under federal judicial supervision 4 and currently operate under consent decrees. 5 At this point in time, each of the school districts is at a different stage in achieving unitary status. The Little Rock School District is rapidly approaching unitary status and could be declared unitary once its evaluation for improving the achievement of black students is accepted by the federal 1051802_1 3See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of each of the Pulaski County Special School District's schools. 4Li1tle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. LC-C-82-866. 5Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989. 3 district court. The North Little Rock School District has achieved unitary status in the area of student assignments. Its school board recently instructed its attorney to file a motion for unitary status coverin_g all remaining facets of its operations and its consent decree obligations. Our review of the data collected, while not as extensive as the data that would be collected in connection with a formal desegregation audit in anticipation of adversarial proceedings, suggests that the North Little Rock School District has met all of its desegregation obligations and should be in a very good position to put forward its motion for unitary status and tennination of federal judicial supervision. The Pulaski County Special School District has not sought unitary status in connection with its current desegregation obligations under its consent decree. Recently, it instructed its - . - attorney to file a motion for partial unitary status on certain of its obligations. -Here, again, our review of the data collected, although not as exacting as a formal desegregation audit, suggests that if the school district were to file a motion for unitary status as to all of its obligations and relinquishment offederaljudicial supervision it could forcefully argue that it is in substantial compliance and has discharged its obligations to the extent practicable. The issue with respect to the Pulaski County School District is what incentive does it have to seek unitary status and an end to its involvement in the ongoing school desegregation litigation when faced with legislation addressing its possible dissolution. The federal district court has already rendered a decision preventing the Jacksonville community from breaking 1051802_1 4 - away to form its own school district. 6 In addition, the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement contains a \"recognition of autonomy\" clause that arguably safeguards the existence of the school district until such time as it has achieved unitary status with respect to all of its desegregation obligations. Under these circumstances the issue framed above can be restated as one of: \"Why should the Pulaski County Special School District seek to end its involvement in the ongoing school desegregation case so long as there exists the threat that upon doing so it will be dissolved?\" In Section VII of the study, we address what can be done to provide the Pulaski County Special School District with an incentive to move for unitary status and a complete termination of Federal judicial supervision, while at the same time showing that by doing so a new Jacksonville School District may become a reality. Finally, in Section VIII of the study we provide our recommendations, based upon our best judgment, as to what steps should be taken to end the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. 6Little Rock St.:hoolD istrict v. Pulaski County Special School District and Mova11ts/J11te111eGnorresg Bollen, et al., No. 4.82-CV-00866WRW (August 18, 2003). 1051802_ I 5 II. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: One School District North of the Arkansas River -- Act 2126 of 2005,  26(1)6 Act 2126 of 2005,  26(1), authorizing the feasibility study, required an evaluation of: The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one school district south of the Arkansas River. 7 Even though Act 2126 does not specify that the North Little Rock School District be reconfigured to include the northern portion of Pulaski County, the most logical approach would be to expand the existing North Little Rock School District. The North Little Rock School District has an existing operating structure that is effective. It is the only operating school district, other than the Pulaski County Special School District, that is located north of the Arkansas River. Thus, this portion of the study analyzes the feasibility of dividing the Pulaski County Special School District at the Arkansas River. It is premised on reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District to include all of Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River. As reconfigured, a new school district would be created that would include the cities of North Little Rock, Sherwood, Maumelle and Jacksonville, together with the rural areas, the Little Rock Air Base, and Camp Robinson. 6 One school district south of the Arkansas River is discussed in Section IV of the study. 7Section 26( I) Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist,\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27,2005. 1043675-1 6 A. Student Assignments. The existing North Little Rock School District has 1 high school (with two campuses), 4 middle sc~!s, and 14 elementary schools. It has a student enrollment of 9,580, with a racial composition of 3,475 (36.3%) white, 5,629 (58.8%) black, and 475 (4.9%) other minorities. 8 Reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District to include all areas of Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River would add 26 schools and 13,677 students to the existing school district. Table 1 shows the student enrollments and racial composition of the existing Pulaski County Special School District's schools north of the Arkansas River that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 1 Student Enrollment and Racial Composition of the 26 Schools That Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Data Schools White Black Other Jacksonville High School 569 (50.4%) 522 (46.2%) 38 (3.4%) North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1%) 245 (39.1%) 24 (3.8%) Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1 %) 41 (4.1%) Total High Schools 2,000 (45.5%) 1,533 (42.8%) 138 (11.7%) Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1%) 29 (4.3%) Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) Total Middle Schools 1,467 (53.9%) 1,132 (41.6%) 121 (4.5%) Total 1129 897 627 1018 3,671 892 447 668 ill 2,720 8See Attachment C: the 2005-06 student enrollment and racial composition of the North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 7 Schools White Black Other Total Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30.5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1%) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) ill Total Elementary Schools 4,008 (55.0%) 2,937 (40.3%) 341 (4.7%) 7,286 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 7,475 (54.7%) 5,602 (41.0%) 600 (4.3%) 13,677 It can be detem1ined from Table l that the racial composition of the students transfen-ed from the existing Pulaski County Special School District would be 54.7% white, 41.0% black, and 4.3% other minorities. Table 2 shows the enrollments by race for the reconfigured North Little Rock School District that includes all of the schools north of the Arkansas River. Table 2 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District to Include all of the Pulaski County Special School District's Schools North of the Arkansas River - Ilased on 2005-06 School Year Schools Jacksonville High School North Little Rock High (East) North Little Rock High (West) North Pulaski High School Oak Grove High School 1043675-1 ,vhitc 569 (50.4%) 587 (38.7%) 647 (44.0%) 525 (58.5%) 358 (57.1%) 8 Black 522 (46.2%) 867 (57.2%) 761 (51.8%) 337 (37.6%) 245 (39.1%) Other 38 (3.4%) 63 (4.1%) 61 (4.2%) 35 (3.9%) 24 (3.8%) Total 129 1517 1469 897 627 - Schools White Black Other Total North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) 897 Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1 %) 245 (39.1%) 24 (3.8%) 627 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1%) 41 (4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 3,234 (48.6%) 3,161 (47.5%) 262 (3.9%) 6,657 Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1%) 29 (4.3%) 668 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1%) 175 (82.9%) 2 (1.0%) 211 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) ill Total Middle School 2,231 (46.3%) 2,378 (49.3%) 213 (4.4%) 4,822 Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30.5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Bayou Melo Elemer,'.ary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 Boone Park Elemc.1tary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crestwood Elementar\n288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8 (2.1%) 384 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) I (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19 (3.6%) 534 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 325 (56.5%) 45 (7.2%) 575 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41 (12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9(4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%)  89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16(3.1%) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 (84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3(1.0%) 317 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 - Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 1043675-1 9 -  Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 5,485 (46.6%) 5,692 (48.3%) 600 (5.1%) 11,777 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 10,950 (47.1 %) 11,231 (48.3%) 1,075 (4.6%) 23,256 Reconfiguration of the North Little Rock School District to include all of the schools north of the Arkansas River would increase enrollment from 13,677 to 23,256 students. The racial composition of the reconfigured school district would be 47.1 % white, 48.3% black and 4.6% other minorities. Based on the 2005-06 enrollment data for the existing Pulaski County Special School District 9 and the 2005-06 enrollment data for the existing North Little Rock School District, 10 it can be determined that the racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would increase in white enrollment from 36.3% to 47.1 % and decrease in black enrollment from 58.8% to 48.3%. The composition of the other rnino1ities would remain essentially the same. Thus, a reconfiguration of the North Little Rock District that would include the portion of the existing Pulaski County Special School District north of the Arkansas River may be viewed as having a positive desegregative impact. 9 See Attachment D: the 2005-06 student enrollment and racial composition of the Pulaski County Special School District. - 10 See Attachment C: the 2005-06 student enrollment and racial composition of the North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 10 B. Facilities. The majority of the 14 facilities that comprise the existing North Little Rock School District were built in the 1950s and 1960s. According to school district personnel, these facilities have been well maintained and are in overall good condition. Reconfiguring the school district to include all of the schools north of the Arkansas River would involve the addition of 27 schools 11 comprised of 4 high schools, 5 middle schools, and 19 elementary schools. As a group, the buildings that would be added from the existing Pulaski County Special School District have not been maintained as well as the schools in the existing North Little Rock School District. 12 When evaluating the overall quality of the school buildings a rating scale of l to 5 was used for each school in the existing Pulaski County Special School District. A school rated as a Category l school is considered to be an excellent facility that is well maintained and is not in need of any significant remodeling or repair. Conversely, a school rated as a Category 5 school is a very poor facility that is in need of major renovation and/or repair and could, in many instances, be considered for closing and/or replacement. Table 3 shows the capacity, percent of capacity used, student enrollment, and rating category of each schoo'I that would be transfetTed from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. 11There could be some confusion as to the actual number of schools because the Jacksonville Middle School has been divided into a boys school and a girls school. The two facilities occupy the same site. 12 See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of each of the Pulaski County Special School District's schools. 1043675-1 11 - Table 3 The 27 Pulaski County Special School District Schools That Would Be Transferred to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Schools Ca~acitv Capacity Enrollment Rating Used 2005-2006 Jacksonville High School 1360 83% 1129 5 North Pulaski High School 1050 85% 897 3 Oak Grove High School 1130 55% 627 5 Sylvan Hills High School 1120 91% 1018 4 Jacksonville Middle (Girls) 1970 45% 892 5 Jacksonville Middle (Boys) 5 Maumelle Middle School * 1360 33% 447 l Northwood Middle School 1030 65% 668 3 Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 66% 713 5 Adkins Elementary 526 46% 242 2 Arnold Drive Elementary 453 65% 295 3 Bayou Meto Elementary 697 62% 430 3 Cato Elementary 800 44% 349 2 Clinton Elementary 840 80% 672- 1 Crystal Hill Elementary 870 91% 794 1 Dupree Elementary 498 60% 298 3 Hanis Elementary 906 29% 266 3 Jacksonville Elementary 850 68% 575 5 Oak Grove Elementary 626 52% 324 4 Oakbrooke Elementary 553 78% 433 3 Pine Forest Elementary 554 92% 512 l Pinewood Elementary 677 69% 470 2 Scott Elementary 294 45% 131 5 Sherwood Elementary 561 71% 401 3 Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 70% 425 3 Taylor Elementary 566 67% 378 2 Tolleson Elementary 561 52% 291 5 *Maumelle Middle School opened in 2005-06 housing 6th and th grade students. It will add 81 \" grade students for the 2006-07 school year. It should be noted in Table 3 that five of the nine secondary schools that would be added to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District are Category 5 schools and one is a Category 4 school. Category 5 secondary schools, especially high 104361\n.1 12 - schools, are far more costly to replace or renovate than elementary schools. The five Category 5 secondary schools identified in Table 3 -- Jacksonville High School, Oak Grove High School, Ja. onville Middle School (boys and girls), and Sylvan Hills Middle School -- should be considered for replacement. The elementary schools that would be added to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District are in much better condition than the secondary schools. However, three of the 17 elementary schools are Category 5 schools. Of the three, Jacksonville Elementary School should be considered for replacement. Scott Elementary School should be closed and its students reassigned. The third Category 5 elementary school, Tolleson Elementary School, will need significant remodeling or replacement if it is to continue in existence. Otherwise, it might be closed and its students reassigned to another school. Oak Grove Elementary School is a Category 4 school that will need extensive remodeling. Of the remainiDe l 3 elementary schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District, 3 are Category 1 schools, 4 are Category 2 schools, and 7 are Category 3 schools. Several of these schools will need remodeling and/or repair~ but as a group they are in good condition. C. Personnel. 1. Clas:::room Teachers. Transferring all of the existing Pulaski County Special School District's students living north of the Arkansas River to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District will require the employment of additional teachers. It is logical that those teachers who would like to transfer to the I 0-13675-1 13 - reconfigured North Little Rock School District from the existing Pulaski County Special School District should be allowed to do so. - The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770 teachers who are assigned to its 20 schools. 13 Reconfiguring the North Little Rock District by as many as 27 schools and 13,676 students may require as many as 990 additional classroom teachers for a total of 1,760. Table 4 identifies the teachers, by race and school, who are employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District. 14 Table 4 Teachers, by Race and School, Currently Employed in the 27 Schools That Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 North Pulaski High School 56 (83.6%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) Q 97 Total High Schools 229 (82.4%) 49 (17.6%) 0 278 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13 (27.1%) 0 48 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 {16.4%) Q fil Total Middle Schools 181 (80.8%) 43 (19.2%) 0 224 Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4(17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 13See Attachment E: the total number of teachers, by race and school, employed by the North Little Rock School District for the 2005-06 school year. - 14See Attachment F: the total number of teachers, by race and school, employed by the Pulaski County Special School District for 2005-06. I 043675-1 14 - Schools White Black Other Total Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9(17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) l (4.3%) 23 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) l (5.3%) 19 Jacksonville Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) l (7.7%) 0 13 Shenvood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4 (21.1%) _Q 12 Total Elementary Schools 394 (80.7%) 89 (18.2%) 5 (1.1%) 488 TOT AL TEACHERS 804 (81.2%) 181 (18.3%) 5 (.5%) 990 It can be determined from Table 4, with the exception of Maumelle Middle, Scott Elementary, and Dupree Elementary schools, that all of the schools that would be transferred have three or a minimum of at least 13% black faculty members. Table 5 shows the composition of the faculties of the schools that would comprise the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 5 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments to Include All of the Pulaski County Special School District North of the Arkansas River Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School North Little Rock High (East) North Little Rock High (West) North Pulaski High School Oak Grove High School Sylvan Hills High School Total High Schools Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 10-l3675-I 43 (71.7%) 76 (90.5%) 85 (82.5%) 56 (83.6%) 46 (85.2%) 84 (86.6%) 390 (83.9%) 39 (76.5%) 35 (72.9%) 15 17 (28.3%) 8 (9.5%) 18(17.5%) 11 (16.4%) 8 (14.8%) 13 (13.4%) 75 (16.1 %) 12 (23.5%) 13 (27.1%) 0 60 0 84 0 103 0 67 0 54 _Q 97 0 465 0 51 0 48 - Schools White Black Other Total Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.6%) 2 (4.1%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) 0 28 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 {83.6%) 10 {16.4%) Q fil. Total Middle Schools 311 (81.0%) 71 (18.4%) 2 (.6%) 384 Amboy Elementary 24 (92.3%) l (3.8%) I (3.8%) 26 Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (I 1.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9(17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) I (4.3%) 23 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Hanis Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (5.3%) 19 - Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%). 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Jacksonville Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.36(\u0026lt;,) l (2.8%) 35 Lakewood Elementary 24(100%) 0 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) l (3.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) I (7.7%) 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) l (3.6%) 0 28 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 {78.9%) 4 {21.1%) Q 12 Total Elementary Schools 740 (81.2%) 160 (17.6%) 11 (1.2%) 911 TOTAL TEACHERS 1,441 (81.9%) 306(17.4%) 13 (1.2%) 1,760 - 1043675-1 16 Even though the number of teachers needed would increase from 770 to 1,760, the racial composition of the teaching staff of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would remain virtually unchanged. The racial composition of the teaching staff of the existing North Little Rock School District is 82.7% white, 16.2% black and 1.1 % other minorities. It can be determined from Table 5 that the racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would be 81.9% white, 17.4% black and 1.2% other minorities. 2. Building Level Administrators. The existing North Little Rock School District has 41 principals and assistant principals 15 assigned to the school district's 20 schools. The 27 existing Pulaski County Special School District school buildings north of the Arkansas River have 52 principals and assistant principals. Table 6 shows the location of the building level administrators that are assigned to the 27 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 6 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the 27 Schools That Would Ile Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District into the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools Jackson High School North Pulaski High School Oak Grove High School Sylvan Hills High School Total High Schools White 3 (75%) 1 (33.3%) (100%) 1 (33.3%} 7 (58.3%) Illack l 2 (66.7%) 0 2 (66.7%} 5 (41.3%) Other 0 0 0 Q 0 Total 4 3 2 l 12 15See Attachment G: listing of building level and central office administrators in the North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 17 - Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville Middle School 2 (100%) 0 0 2 (Girls) Jacksonville Middle Sctmol 0 2 (100%) 0 2 (Boys) Maumelle Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (51.0%) 0 2 Northwood Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills Middle School 0 3 (100%) Q l Total Middle Schools 4 (26.4%) 7 (63.6%) 0 11 Adkins Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Arnold Drive Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meto Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Cato Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Clinton Elementary 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crystal Hill Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Dupree Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Harris Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Jacksonville Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oakbrooke Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Pine Forest Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Pinewood Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Scott Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%0 0 2 Sylvan Hills Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Taylor Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Tolleson Elementary I (100%) 0 Q l Total Elementary Schools 13 (44.8%) 16 (55.2%) 0 29 TOTAL SCHOOL 24 (46.2%) 27 (53.8%) 0 52 ADMINISTRATORS It can be determined from Table 6 that 22 of the 27 schools that would be transferred into the reconfigured North Little Rock School District have at least one black administrator. Three schools, with more than one white administrator, do not have a black administ alor. There are 8 schools without a white administrator, and 2 of these have more than one black administrator. 1043675-1 18 - Table 7 shows the building level administrators currently assigned to the 47 schools that would comprise the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 7 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the Schools in the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Jackson High School 3 (100%) 0 0 3 North Little Rock High (East) 3 (60.0%) 2 (40.0%) 0 5 North Little Rock High (West) 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 5 North Pulaski High School 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Oak Grove High School 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sylvan Hills High School 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) Q l Total High Schools 12 (54.5%) 10 (45.5%) 0 22 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Lakewood Middle School 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Maumelle Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (51.0%) 0 2 Northwood Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street Middle School 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Ridgeroad Middle School 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Rose City Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills Middle School 0 3 (I 00%) Q l Total Middle Schools 10 (45.5%) 12 (54.5%) 0 22 Adkins Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Amboy Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Arnold Drive Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meto Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Belwood Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Cato Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Clinton Elementary 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crestwood Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Dupree Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Glenview Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Harris Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 - Jacksonville Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Lakewood Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 1043675-1 19 Schools White Black Other Total Lynch Drive Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Meadow Park Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Heights Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oakbrooke Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Park Hill Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1  Pike View Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Pinewood Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Scott Elementary 1 (l00%) 0 0 1 Sherwood Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%0 0 2 Sylvan Hills Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Taylor Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Tolleson Elementary 1 (100%) Q Q l Total Elementary Schools 25 (53.2%) 22 (46.8%) 0 47 TOTAL SCHOOL 47 (51.7%) 44 (48.3%) 0 91 ADMINISTRATORS It can be determined from Table 7 that the number of building level administrators in the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would increase from 52 to 91. Table 7 also shows that there would be an increase in the percentage of black building level administrators when compared with the existing percentage of black building level administrators in the Pulaski County Special School District. 3. Central Administration. Increasing the existing North Little Rock School District to 23,256 students, 41 school facilities, 1,760 teachers, and 91 building level administrators would require a totally different organizational structure for the reconfigured school district. The reconfigured school district would require additional central office facilities and a significantly larger central administrative staff. - The new school district would require, at a minimum, a central administration I 043675 I 20 - comparable in size to the existing Little Rock School District which consists of 58-66 central administrators -- a superintendent, 4-5 assistant or associate superintendents, a public affairs officer, a chief financial officer, 18-20 directors, 18-20 coordinators, and 15-18 specialists. Thus, the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would require an increase in central administrators of two to three times the present size. D. Transportation. The existing North Little Rock School District has a fleet of 89 buses. The fleet is located in a single compound within the municipal limits of the city of North Little Rock. The fleet has 39 buses that serve the school district's regular enrollment, 16 for special needs students, 22 for M-to-M transfer and magnet school students, and 12 that are held in reserve. The existing Pulaski County Special School District has 163 buses located north of the Arkansas River. This fleet is housed in two bus compounds, one located in Jacksonville and the other in Oak Grove. The Oak Grove compound does not have maintenance facilities. The Pulaski County Special School District fleet north of the river consists of 63 buses used for regular education students, 25 for special needs students, 18 for gifted and talented education students, 30 for M-to-M transfer and magnet school students, and 27 that are held in reserve. With the creation of a new North Little Rock School District there would be a need to transfer all of the buses and the two bus compounds from the existing Pulaski County Special School District north of the Arkansas River to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 21 - III. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: Two School Districts North of the Arkansas River - Act 2126 of 2005,  26(2) 16 Act 2126 of 2005, 26(2), authorizing the feasibility study, required an evaluation of: \"The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock School District north of the Arkansas River, and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River.\" 17 This portion of the study analyzes the feasibility of dividing the existing Pulaski County Special School District at the Arkansas River, reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District by making it larger, and creating a new school district in the Jacksonville community area. The reconfigured North Little Roc_k School District . . would be expanded beyond its present size by adding the comml!nities of Sherwood, Sylvan Hills, Oak Grove, Maumelle, and the rural areas west of the Jacksonville community. The new Jacksonville School District would include the city of Jacksonville, the Cato area, the Little Rock Air Base, and the rural area north of the city. Dissolution of the Pulaski County School District, together with an expansion of the North Little Rock School District and creation of a Jacksonville School District, would create two new school districts no1ih of the Arkansas River. 16 One district south of the river is discussed in the section immediately below. 17 Section 2.0 I, Item I., Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27, 2005. 1043675-1 22 - A. The Reconfigured North Little Rock School District 1. Student Assignments. The existing North Little Rock School District has 1 high school (with 2 campuses), 4 middle schools, and 14 elementary schools. Reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District in a two school district reorganization north of the Arkansas River would add 13 schools comprised of 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools. Table 8 identifies the 13 schools, and their enrollments, that would be transferred from the dissolved Pulaski County Special School District 18 to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 8 Student Enrollment, by Race, of the 13 Schools That Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Data Schools White Black Other Total Oak Grove Hi-gh School 358 (57.1%) 245 (39. l %) 24 (3.8%) 627 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1%) 41 (4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 906 (55.1 %) 674 (41.0%) 65 (3.9%) 1,645 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) ill Total Middle Schools 611 (52.7%) 489 (42.2%) 60 (5.1%) 1,160 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1%) 512 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 18See Attachment D: listing of the Pulaski County Special Schools District's schools and 2005-06 student enrollments. 10~)675-1 23 Sylvan Hills Elementary Total Elementary Schools TOTAL ENROLLMENT 238 (56.0%) 2,152 (54.4%) 3,669 (54.3%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 1,653 (41.8%) 278 (4.1%) 2,816 (41.6%). 278 (4.1 %) 425 3,958 6,763 Based on the 2005-06 enrollment data, the reconfigured North Little Rock School District student enrollment 19 would be expanded by 6,763 students from 9,580 to 16,343. The racial composition of the existing North Little Rock School District is 36.3% white, 58.8% black, and 4.9% other minorities. The racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would have a slightly greater white enrollment and a slightly smaller black enrollment. Its enrollment would be 43.7% white, 51.7% black, and 4.6% other minorities. This may be viewed as having a positive desegregative impact. Listed in Table 9 are the student enrollments, by race, for the reconfigured No1ih Little Rock School District. Schools Table 9 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District (Less Areas for New Jacksonville School District) Based on Student Enrollment 2005-06 White Black North Little Rock High School (East) 587 (38.7%) 867 (57.2%) North Little Rock High School (West) 647 (44.0%) 761 (51.8%) Oak Grove High School 358(57.1%) 245 (39.1%) Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1%) Other 63 (4.1%) 61 (4.2%) 24 (3.8%) 41 (4.1%) Total High Schools 2,140 (46.2%) 2,302 (49.7%) 189 (4.1 %) Total 1517 1469 627 1018 4,631 19See Attachment C: listing of the No1th Little Rock School District's schools and 2005-06 student enrollments. 1043675-1 24 - Schools White Black Other Total Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School (Charter) 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1%) 175 (82.9%) 2 (1.0%) 211 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) m. Total Middle Schools 1,375 (42.2%) 1,735 (53.2%) 152 (4.6%) 3,262 Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 Boone Park Elementary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crestwood Elementary 288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8(2.1%) 384 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) I (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19(3.6%) 534 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41 (12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9 (4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1%) 512 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 ,(84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3 (1.0%) 317 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Total Elementary Schools 3,629 (43.0%) 4,408 (52.2%) 412 (4.8%) 8,449 TOT AL ENROLLMENT 7,144 (43.7%) 8,445 (51.7%) 753 (4.6%) 16,342 It can be determined from Table 9 that the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would have three high schools with over 1,000 students and one with 627 students. The reconfigured school district would be expanded by two middle schools, the new Maumelle Middle School and Sylvan Hills Middle School. There I 043675-1 25 would be nine additional elementary schools ranging in size from the 131 student Scott Elementary SC'hool to the 749 student Crystal Hill Elementary School. 2. Facilities. The school facilities that comprise the existing North Little Rock School District range in age from 82 years (Park Hill Elementary School built in 1924), to 36 years (Lynch Drive Elementary School constructed in 1970). Most of the school district's schools were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Table \\ 0 shows the capacity, amount of capacity used, student enrollment, and rating category for the 13 schools that would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 10 The 13 Pulaski County Special School District Schools That would be Transferred to the North Little Rock School District 20 Schools Capacity Capacity Enrollment Rating Used 2005-2006 Oak Grove High School 1130 55% 627 5 Sylvan Hills High School 1080 66% 713 4 Maumelle Middle School* 1360 33% 447 1 Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 66% 713 5 Clinton Elementary 840 80% 672 1 Crystal Hills Elementary 870 91% 794 1 Harris Elementary 906 29% 266 3 Oak Grove Elementary 626 52% 324 4 Oakbrook Elementary 533 78% 433 3 Pine Forest Elementary 554 92% 512 1 Scott Elementary 294 45% 131 5 Sherwood Elementary 561 71% 401 3 Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 70% 425 3 *Maumelle Middle School is a new school that opened for the 2005-06 school year. 20See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of each of the Pulaski County Special School District facilities made by William Gordon \u0026amp; Associates. A school rated as Category 1 is a school evaluated as excellent and not in need of significant remodeling or repair. A Category 5 school is a very poor facility in need of major repair or replacement. 10436751 26 It can be determined from Table l O that three of the schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District are rated as Category 5 schools. Oak Grove High School, a Category 5 school, is in the worst condition. The school was constructed in 18 separate buildings consisting mostly of four classroom pods. The buildings are poorly designed and, for the most part, the classroom space is inadequate. This school needs to be replaced. The other two Category 5 buildings, Sylvan Hills Middle School and Scott Elementary School, should be considered for replacement. The Sylvan Hills Middle School has several buildings that have not been properly maintained and are in poor condition. Remodeling this 1955 school might be as expensive as rebuilding it. Scott - Elementary School would be located in the extreme eastern edge of the reconfigured North Little School District. The school is in poor condition with an enrollment of only 131 students. Although the school is somewhat remote, consideration should be given to closing it. At the other extreme, there are four Category l schools that would be transfened to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. The Maumelle Middle School is a new facility that opened for the Fall of 2005. It is an excellent 6th - 8th grade facility cunently housing 447 - 6th and ?111 grade students. The 8th grade, presently assigned to Oak Grove High School, will be assigned to Maumelle Middle School for the 2006-07 school year. The other Category l schools - Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary, and Pine Forest Elementary schools - are in very good condition. Clinton and Crystal Hills elementary schools were built in the 1990s t043675-1 27 and Pine Forest Elementary School was built in 1973. The remaining six buildings are Category 3 and Category 4 structures. The Category 4 schools are sound structures, but need significant remodeling. The Category 3 schools are older buildings that are sound structures, but need some remodeling as well. 3. Personnel. a. Classroom Teachers. Reconfiguring the- North Little Rock School District by an additional 13 school~ and 6,763 students would create a need for additional teachers. There are 493 teachers employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District 21 who are assigned to the 13 schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770_ teachers in its 20 schools. 22 When adding 13 schools from the existing Puiaski County Special School District, the number of teachers needed in the new school district would be 1,263, an increase of 39.0%. Table 11 identifies the teachers, by race and school, presently employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District in the 13 schools identified for transfer. 21See Attachment F: the total number of teachers, by race, by school, employed by the Pulaski County Special School District. 22See Attachment E: the No1ih Little Rock School District's present 2005-06 teaching staff by race and school. 1043675-1 28 - - Table 11 Teachers, by Race, by School, Currently Employed in the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) 0 97 Maumelle Middle School _ 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) 0 61 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (13.7%) 0 52 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (9.6%) 19 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) _Q 26 TOT AL TEACIIBRS 406 (82.4%) 86 (17.4%) 1 (.2%) 493 With the exception of Maumelle Middle School and Scott Elementary School, Table 11 shows that all of the schools being transferred have at least four black teachers comprising between 13.4% and 36.8% of each schools' faculty. Table 12 shows the composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School Dist1ict teaching staff by school and race. I 043675-1 29 - Table 12 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Facu.lty Assignments Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 76 (90.5%) 8 (9.5%) 0 84 North Little Rock High (West) 85 (82.5%) 18(17.5%) 0 103 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) _o_ 97 Total High Schools 291 (86.1 %) 47 (13.9%) 0 338 Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.5%) 2 (4.2%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) 0 28 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) _o_ fil_ Total Middle Schools 196 (81.3%) 38 (16.8%) 2 (.8%) 236 Amboy Elementary 24 (93.5%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 26 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (11.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) 1 (2.8%) 35 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (13.7%) 0 52 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8%) l (9.6%) 19 Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%) 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Lakewood Elementary 24 (100%) 0 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) l (3.6%) 0 28 - 10436751 30 - Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Total Elementary Schools 556 (80.7%) 126 (18.3%) 7 (1.1%) 689 TOT AL TEACHERS 1,043 (82.6%) 211 (16.7%) 9 (.7%) 1,263 When Table 12 is compared with Table 11, it can be determined that there is virtually no change in the racial composition of teachers when the 13 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools' faculties are combined with the existing North Little Rock School District faculties. The racial composition shown in Table 11 for the 13 transferred schools is 82.4% (406) white, 17.4% (86) black, and .2% (1) other minority. The racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District shown in Table 12 is 82.6% (1,043) white, 16.7% (211) black, and .7% (7) other minorities. It should be noted that there are three schools -- the new Maumelle Middle School, Redwood Pre-School, and Lakewood Elementary School -- that are not assigned any black teachers. Four schools have only one black teacher. The remaining 26 schools each have a number of black teachers. b. Building Level Administrators. The existing North Little Rock School District presently has 41 principals and assistant principals. 23 Adding the 13 schools from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District increases the number of p1incipals and assistant principals 23See Attachment G: listing of central office and building level administrators by school employed by the North Little Rock School District for the 2005-06 school year. 10~3675-1 31 - by 27, from 41 to 68. Table 13 shows the building level administrators that are currently assigned to the 13 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools that would be transferred. - Table 13 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred into the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Oak Grove High School 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sylvan Hills High School 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 4 Maumelle Middle 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills Middle 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Clinton 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crystal Hill 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Harris 0 I (100%) 0 1 Oakbrooke 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest 1 (100%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Scott 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) _Q I TOTAL SCHOOL 12 (44.4%) 15 (55.6%) 0 27 AD Mll\\TJSTRAT O RS Where more than one building level administrator is assigned to a school, at least one is white and one is black with the exceptions of Oak Grove High School and Sylvan Hills Middle School. In the three schools with only one building level administrator, one is white and two are black. Table 14 shows the building level administrators assigned to the schools in the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 32 Table 14 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the Schools In the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Agenta Academy 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Little Rock-East 3 (60.0%) 2 (40.0% 0 5 North Little Rock-West 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 5 Oak Grove High Schoo1 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sylvan Hills High School 2 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 1 Total High Schools 9 (52.9%) 8 (47.1 %) 0 17 Lakewood Middle School 2 (66.7%) I (33.3%) 0 3 Maumelle Middle School I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street Middle School 2 (66.7%) I (33.3%) 0 3 Sylvan Hills Middle School 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Ridgeroad Middle School I (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Rose City Middle School I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 _1 Total l\\1iddle Schools 7 (43.8%) 9 (56.2%) 0 16 Amboy Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Belwood Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Clinton Elementary 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crestwood Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Glenview Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 1 Han-is Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Lakewood Elementary I (100%) 0 0 I Lynch Drive Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Meadow Park Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I North Heights Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Oakbrooke Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Park Hill Elementary I (100%) 0 0 I Pike View Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Pine Forest Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Redwood Pre-School I (100%) 0 0 1 Scott Elementary I (100%) 0 0 I - Seventh StTeet Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sherwood Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 1043675-1 33 Sylvan Hills Elementary Total Elementary Schools TOT AL SCHOOL ADMINISTORS I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 20 (57.1 %) 15 (42.9%) 36 (52.9%) 32 (47.1 %) _Q_ 0 0 _2_ 35 68 The 13 schools added to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would add 27 building level administrators for a total of 68 building level administrators with a racial composition of 52.9% (36) white and 47.1 % (32) black. c. Central Administration. 24 The existing North Little Rock School District currently employs 57 central administrators. They consist of a superintendent, deputy and assistant superintendents, a financial officer, a legislative affairs officer, together with directors, coordinators, and specialists. With the reconfiguration of the school district to include 33 school buildings and 16,343 students, there would be a need to expand central administration by approximately five to seven people comprised of directors, coordinators, and specialists. 4. Transportation. The existing North Little Rock School District has a fleet of 89 buses. It consists of 39 buses that serve the school district's regular enrollments, 16 for special needs students. There are also 22 buses for the Mto- M transfer and magnet school students. Twelve buses are held in reserve. The existing Pulaski County Special School District has 165 buses located north of the Arkansas River. There are two bus compounds, one located in the 24See Attachment H: listing of central office and building level administrators by school employed by the Pulaski County Special School District for the 2005-06 school year. 1043675-1 34 - Jacksonville area and the other at Oak Grove. The Oak Grove compound does not have maintenance facilities. There are 26 Pulaski County Special School District buses that deliver students to the 13 schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. In addition, there are approximately 31 Pulaski County Special School District buses that transport special needs students, talented and gifted and Mto- M transfer and magnet students. With the creation of a new North Little Rock School District there would be a need to transfer approximately 70 buses from the existing Pulaski County -Special School District. The bus compound located at Oak Grove would also need to be transferred. B. New Jacksonville School District. One of the specific charges of this feasibility study is to examine the feasibility of redrawing district boundaries to create two school districts, an expanded North Little Rock School District and a Jacksonville School District, north of the Arkansas River. 25 Under this charge, the establishment of a reconfigured North Little Rock School District is examined immediately above. Jacksonville is a city with a population of approximately 30,000 persons. It is separated both geographically and commercially from the cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock. The existence of the Little Rock Air Force Base accounts for a 25Section 2.0 I, Item I., Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27, 2005. 1043675-1 35 - substantial portion of the city's economic base. Within the Jacksonville community there is strong support for a separate school district. For many years the community, with the ass~stmce of the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce, has formulated committees that have been active in developing plans and soliciting support for a separate school district. Two feasibility studies were commissioned to determine the viability of a separate Jacksonville School District. 26 Proponents have been unable to establish a separate Jacksonville School District due to legal requirements imposed upon the existing Pulaski County Special School District in the ongoing school desegregation Ii tigation. 27  1. Student Assignments. The Jacksonville School District would have an enroH1,.1ent of 6,914 students and involve 13 schools: The students and facilities would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District. Table 15 lists the 13 schools that would be transferred to the new Jacksonville School District by race and enrollment. Table 15 New Jacksonville School District Based on 2005-06 Enrollments Schools Jacksonville High School North Pulaski High School Total High Schools White 569 (50.4%) 525 (58.5%) 1094 (54.0%) 522 (46.2%) 337 (37.6%) 859 (42.4%) 38 (3.4%) 35 (3.9%) 73 (3.6%) Total 1129 897 2026 26The studies were prepared by Educators Consulting Services, Inc., of Conway, Arkansas in July 1978 and November 2002. 21Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al., No. LRC- 82-866. 1043675-1 36 - Jacksonville Middle Schvol 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1%) 29 (4.3%) 668 Total Middle Schools 856 (54.9%) 643 (41.2%) 61 (3.9%) 1560 Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 42 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30.5%) 23 (7.8%) 95 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 30 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 49 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 1,856 (55.8%) 1,284 (38.6%) 188 (5.6%) 3,328 TOT AL ENROLLMENT 3,806 (55.0%) 2,786 (40.3%) 322 (4.7%) 6,914 Based on the 2005-06 enrollment data, the racial composition of the Jacksonville School ~istrict would be 55.0% white, 40.3% black, and 4.7% other minorities. This racial composition approximates the racial composition of the existing Pulaski County Special School District which is 53.7% white, 41.7% black, and 5.6% other minorities. 2. Facilities. There would be 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the new Jacksonville School District. Each of these schools was visited and evaluated for this study. 28 Six schools were built between 1951 and 1957, four between 1962 and 1968, three between 1973 and 1976. 28See Exhibit 2: a school by school evaluation of each of the Pulaski Special School District's schools. I 0~3675-1 37 Table 16 lists the schools that would be transferred to the Jacksonville School District, their capacity, 2005-06 student enrollment, percent of capacity being utilized, and an evaluation of each facility. The evaluation scale used is the same Category 1 to Category 5 scale discussed earlier. A school rated as a Category 1 school is an excellent facility that is well maintained and is not in need of any significant remodeling or repair. A Category 5 school is a very poor facility that is in need of major renovation and repair and could be considered for closing or replacement. Table 16 Facility Ratings for the 13 Pulaski County Special School District Schools that Would Be Transferred to the New Jacksonville School District, including Capacity, Capacity Used, and Enrollments Based on 2005-06 Enrollment Data Schools Capacity Capacity Used Enrollment Rating (2005-06) Jacksonville High School 1360 83% 1129 5 North Pulaski High School 1050 85% 897 3 Jacksonville Md! School (Girls) 1970 45% 892 5 Jacksonville Md! School (Boys) 5 Northwood Middle School 1030 65% 668 3 Adkins Elementary 526 46% 242 2 Arnold Drive Elementary 453 65% 295 3 Bayou Meto Elementary 697 62% 430 Cato Elementary 800 44% 349 2 Dupree Elementary 498 60% 298 3 Jacksonville Elementary 850 68% 575 5 Pinewood Elementary 677 69% 470 2 Taylor Elementary 566 67% 378 2 Tolleson Elementary 291 52% 561 5 It can be noted from Table 16 that Jacksonville Middle School, and Adkins and Cato elementary schools are operating at less than 50% capacity. Five of the schools that would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District have been evaluated as Category 5 schools. Jacksonville High School, a Category 5 1043675-1 38 school, is a crowded and poorly designed building that should be replaced. It is in need of a new roof, upgraded wiring adequate to run computers and other technology, modifications to meet federal Americans With Disabilities Act requirements, updated technology, remodeled science laboratories, and remodeled restrooms. The Jacksonville Middle School consists of two Category 5 buildings. The original facility - the Jacksonville Junior High School -- was constructed in 1952. It is currently used as a boys' campus. The Jacksonville Middle School building, constructed in 1970, is currently used as a girls' campus. These facilities need to be replaced. There are two other Category 5 buildings, Jacksonville Elementary School built in 1963, and Tolleson Elementary School built in 1951, that are in very poor condition and cm,dd be replaced. 3. Financial Considerations. The Jacksonville School Dishict should receive sufficient operational funding through the state's school aid formula and local property taxes to operate effectively and efficiently. Because the largest portion of a school district's operating budget is personnel and associated costs, the extent to which the Jacksonville School District can keep these expenses reasonable is likely to impact its financial solvency. A review of the 2002 study conducted by ECS Planning and Management Services of Conway, Arkansas, entitled \"Feasibility Study for Forming an Independent School District in North East Pulaski County Detached from the Pulaski County Special School District,\" together with interviews with personnel from the Arkansas Department of Education and administrators in local 1043675-1 39 school districts knowledgeable of school finance, leads to the aforementioned conclusion. Personnel from the Pulaski County Assessor's Office indicate that residential housing being constructed on the Little Rock Air Force Base--which would be in the Jacksonville School District--is being built by a private contractor. Thus, property taxes will be collected for the residential units on the Little Rock Air Force Base as they are completed. It is our understanding that over the next seven years as many as 5,000 new or refurbished residential units will be placed on the property tax rolls of the county. Approximately two-thirds of this property tax would go to the local school district. The financial impact of the Little Rock Air Force Base on the Jacksonville School District, in addition to the property tax issue just discussed, would be approximately $4,500 per student according to information received from personnel with the Little Rock Air Force Base. This, of course, would be advantageous to the operational funding of the school district. However, personnel from the existing Pulaski County Special School District indicate that the actual money received from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Impact Aid Program for the 2005-06 school year was $287,633.77. While we do not know the actual number of students that these funds were based on, it does not appear that the Pulaski County Special School District received $4,500 for each student. Financial costs of replacing and refurbishing some of the schools that would be transfened from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the 1043675-1 40 Jacksonville School District may be a challenge. While the schools are presently functioning as educational facilities, certain of them are in need of replacement, others are in need of signifi t remodeling or repair, and others will require other improvements. The willingoess of the residents of the Jacksonville School District to pass a bond referendum to improve the facilities will determine the extent to which needed replacements, refurbishings, and improvements can be made. In meetings with citizen groups and others from or representing the city of Jacksonville, it was made clear that the city has utilized sales taxes to build certain municipal facilities. Assuming it is legal to use such a procedure for funding improvement of school buildings, this may be another avenue that the Jacksonville School District might utilize for facility needs. We are uncertain, however, as to whether Arkansas law pen11 its the use of funds of one political subdivision for the benefit of another political ,,\nubdivision or, if such inter-political subdivision funding is pem1itted as a cooperative endeavor, whether municipal tax dollars may be used to fund capital improvements for another political subdivision where portions of it are situated outside the municipality's corporate limits. 4. Personnel. a. Classroom Teachers. With the transfer of 6,914 students and 13 schools from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the new Jacksonville School District, there will be a need for 497 teachers in the new school district. Table 17 identifies the teachers, by school and race, employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District identified for transfer. I 043675-1 41 - - Table 17 Teachers, by Race, by School, Currently Employed in the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred from Pulaski County Special School District to the New Jacksonville School District Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 North Pulaski High School 56 (86.3%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13(27.1%) 0 48 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) 23 Jacksonville Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) 1 (2.8%) 35 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4 (21.1%) 0 12 TOT AL TEACHERS 398 (80.1 %) 95 (19.1 %) 4 (.8%) 497 The racial composition of the faculties of the 13 schools (14 buildings) that would be transferred is 80.1 % (398) white, 19.1 % (95) black and .8% ( 4) other minorities. The racial composition of the existing Pulaski County Special School District faculties 29 is 80.2% white, 19.4% black and .4% other minorities. Thus, the faculty for the Jacksonville School District would mirror the faculty composition found in the existing Pulaski County Special School District. It also should be noted that all of the schools in the Jacksonville School District would have at least two black faculty members if existing faculty assignments are maintained. 29See Attachment F: the racial composition of the faculty assignments in the Pulaski County Special School District. I 043675-1 42 - b. Building Level Administrators. There are 26 building level administrators employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District 30 in the 13 schools that would comprise the Jacksonville School District. Table 18 shows the building level administrators who are presently assigned to the 13 schools. Table 18 Building Level Administrators Presently Assigned to the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred to the New Jacksonville School District Based on 2005-06 Building Level Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 3 (75%) I (50%) 0 4 North Pulaski High School I (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Northwood Middle School I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Adkins Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Arnold Drive Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Bayou Meto Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Cato Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Dupree Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Jacksonville Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Pinewood Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Taylor Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Tolleson Elementary I (100%) 0 _o_ l TOTAL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 13 (50%) 13 (50%) 0 26 Assuming the present building level administrative structure remains in tact, the Jacksonville School District would require 26 principals and assistant p1incipals. c. Central Administration. The Jacksonville School District would need a central administration. Because the existing North Little Rock School District is only a little larger than the proposed Jacksonville School District, it 30 See Attachment H: listing of administrators currently employed by the Pulaski County Special School District. 1043675-1 43 can be projected that the central administrative staff will need to be approximately the same size. The ~-entral administrative personnel needed to administer the proposed new school district ~-..-:u mclude: a superintendent, 3 to 5 assistant superintendents or administrative directors, a chief financial officer, 4 to 6 directors, 2 to 4 supervisors, and 8 to 10 coordinators. There are competent central administrators and non-certificated staff currently employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District. This pool of professionals should be given the opportunity to seek employment with the Jacksonville School District. The Jacksonville School District would require between 550 and 600 non-certified support personnel. - 5. Transportation. Currently, 16 buses transport students to North Pulaski High School and 18 transport students to the Jacksonville high and middle schools. There are also 36 special needs and M-to-M transfer and magnet school buses that are used to transport students living in the proposed Jacksonville School District attendance area. With the creation of the Jacksonville School District and programs more localized to its schools, there is the possibility of eliminating the need for several of these buses. 6. Governance. The Jacksonville School District will reqmre special legislation for its creation and governance. Apportionment for the purpose of establishing school bo\n:ird election districts will be needed, together with an election for members to the school board. A transition period will be required prior to the commencement of the operations of the Jacksonville School District. 104)675-1 44 IV. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: One School District South of the Arkansas River - Act 2126 of 2005, 26(1) and ill In pertinent part, Act 2126 of 2005, Section 26( 1) and Section 26(2) authorizing the feasibility study, required an evaluation of: The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River .. 31 This requires an examination of the feasibility of dividing Pulaski County at the Arkansas River and reconfiguring the Little Rock School District to include all of the schools south of the river. Such a reconfiguration would create a new school district. The existing Little Rock School District is the largest school district in the state of Arkansas. It has 48 schools with an enrollment of 26,312 students. It\" is located primarily within the corporate limits of the city of Little Rock but its boundaries are not coterminus with those of the city. Unlike Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River where there are several small cities, Pulaski County south of the river has only one city, Little Rock, which is rapidly expanding through annexations. A. Student Assignments. The existing Little Rock School District has 5 high schools, 8 middle schools, 32 elementary schools and 3 alternative schools. Included within this number of 31Section 2.01 (I) and (2), Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27, 2005. 1043675-1 45 - schools are 6 stipulated magnet schools 32 that are part of the settlement agreement in the ongoing school desegregation litigation. The racial composition of the existing Little Rock School District is 24.0% (6,316) white, 68.7% (18,086) black and 7.3% (1,910) other minorities students. Reconfiguring the Little Rock School District to include all of the existing Pulaski County Special School District schools south of the Arkansas River will add 10 schools and 4,650 students. Table 19 shows the student enrollment and racial composition of the 10 schools that would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured Little Rock School District. Table 19 Student Enrollment and Racial Composition of the 10 Schools That Would be Transferred from the Pulaski County SchQol District to the Expanded Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Data Schools White Black Other Total Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Baker Elementary 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1%) 529 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Landmark Elementary 139 (44.1%) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%) 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) ill TOT AL ENROLLMENT 2,375 (51.1%) 2,048 (44.0%) 227 (4.9%) 4,650 32 A stipulated magnet is a magnet school established by the federal district court as part of March 28, 1989 settlement agreement in the Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special Sc/zoo! District No. LR-C-82-866. 1043675-1 46 - It can be determined from Table 19 that the racial composition of the students transferred from the 10 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools would be 51.1 % white, 44.0% black and 4.9% other minorities. Table 20 shows the student enrollment of the reconfigured Little Rock School District when the existing Pulaski County Special School District's schools south of the Arkansas River are added. Table 20 Expanded Little Rock School District That Includes the 10 Pulaski County Special School District's Schools South of the Arkansas River Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Schools White Black Other Total Central High School 1033 (42.7%) 1273 (52.6%) 116 (4.7%) 2422 HaU High School 150 (10.8%) 1083 (78.0%) 155 (11.2%) 1388 J.A. Fair High School 127 (10.9%) 1006 (86.1 %) 36 (3.0%) 1169 McClellan High School 50 (5.8%) 779 (90.2%) 35 (4.0%) 864 Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 Parkview High School (Stipulated) 33 496 (43.9%) 559 (49.5%) 74 (6.6%) 1129 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Accelerated Leaming (9-12) 18 (14.0%) 109 (84.5%) 2 (1.5%) 129 Alternative Leaming Center (H.S.) 5 (2.5%) 193 (96.5%) 2 (1.0%) 200 Total High Schools 2,521 (29.0%) 5,711 (65.7%) 455 (5.3%) 8,687 Cloverdale Middle School 27 (4.2%) 491 (77.2%) 118(18.6%) 636 Dunbar Middle School 218 (26.9%) 531 (65.5%) 62 (7.6%) 811 Forest Heights Middle School 121 (17.9%) 531 (78.6%) 24 (3.5%) 676 Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Henderson Middle School 65 (10.3%) 503 (79.8%) 62 (9.9%) 630 Mabel vale Middle School 77 (12.6%) 519 (84.7%) 17 (2.7%) 613 Mann Middle School (Stipulated) 365 (42.9%) 429 (50.5%) 56 (6.6%) 850 Pulaski Heights Middle School 307 (41.8%) 411 (56.0%) 16 (2.2%) 734 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 33 Stipulated refers to the stipulated magnets provided for in the settlement agreement. 1043675-1 47 - Southwest Middle School 19(4.1%) 419 (91.1%) 22 (4.8%) 460 Alternative Leaming Center 5 (5.7%) 80 (92.0%) 2 (2.3%) _n Total Middle Schools 1,761 (21.9%) 4,475 (71.2%) 433 (6.9%) 6,669 Baker Elementary 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bale Elementary 23 (6.9%) 273 (81.7%) 38(11.4%) 334 Baseline Elementary 17 (5.7%) 219 (74.0%) 60 (20.3%) 296 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1%) 529 Booker Arts Elementary (Stipulated) 253 (41.7%) 324 (53.4%) 30 (4.9%) 607 Brady Elementary 40 (10.2%) 332 (84.3%) 22 (5.5%) 394 Carver Elementary (Stipulated) 211 (39.6%) 290 (54.4%) 32 (6.0%) 533 Chicot Elementary 34 (6.0%) 418 (74.1%) 112 (19.9%) 564 Cloverdale (Closed 10-24-05) 7 (6.2%) 85 (75.2%) 21 (18.6%) 113 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Dodd Elementary 8 (3.7%) 162 (74.7%) 47 (21.6%) 217 Fair Park Elementary 38 (29.2%) 86 (66.2%) 6 (4.6%) 130 Forest Park Elementary 309 (75.9%) 81 (19.9%) 17(4.2%) 407 Franklin Elementary 10 (2.3%) 427 (97.0%) 3 (.7%) 440 Fulbright Elementary 445 (70.3%) 152 (24.0%) 36 (5.7%) 633 Gayer Springs Elementary 15 (4.5%) 301 (90.4%) 17 (5.1%) 333 Gibbs Elementary (Stipulated) 117 (39.4%) 158 (53.2%) 22 (7.4%) 297 Jefferson Elementary 294 (66.5%). 142 (32.1%) 6 (1.4%) 442 Landmark Elementary 139 (44.1%) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%1 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Mabelvale Elementary 50 (14.8%) 257 (76.0%) 31 (9.2%) 338 McDermott Elementary 115 (25.1%) 296 (64.6%) 47 (10.3%) 458 Meadowcli ff Elementary 42 (11.6%) 289 (79.6%) 32 (8.8%) 363 M.L. King Elementary 187 (30.2%) 409 (66. l %) 23 (3.7%) 619 Otter Creek Elementary 154 (26.6%) 374 (64.5%) 52 (8.9%) 580 Pulaski Heights Elementary 167 (50.0%) 152 (45.5%) 15 (4.5%) 334 Rightsell Elementary 4 (2.2%) 178 (96.7%) 2(1.1%) 184 Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) 371 Rockefeller Elementary 107 (22.4%) 358 (75.1 %) 12 (2.5%) 477 Romine Elementary 28 (7.7%) 290 (79.5%) 47 (12.8%) 365 Stephens Elementary 11 (2.0%) 527 (96.3%) 9 (1.7%) 547 Terry Elementary 185 (28.2%) 375 (57.2%) 96 (14.6%) .656 Wakefield Elementary 20 (4.1%) 366 (74.5%) 105 (21.4%) 491 Washington 78 (12.1%) 516 (80.1%) 50 (7.8%) 644 Watson Elementary 7 (1.5%) 419 (91.5%) 32 (7.0%) 458 Western Hills Elementary 48 (16.8%) 220 (76.9%) 18 (6.3%) 286 Williams Elementary (Stipulated) 177 (38.5%) 233 (50.7%) 50 (10.8%) 460 I 043675-1 48 - Wilson Elementary 15 (5.4%) 242 (87.7%) 19(6.9%) 276 Woodruff Elementary 17 {7.1%) 219 {92.0%) 2 {.9%) 238 Total Elementary Schools 4,409 (28.3%) 9,948 (63.7%) 1,249 (8.0%) 15,606 TOT AL ENROLLMENT 34 8,691 (28.1 %) 20,134 (65.0%) 2,137 (6.9%) 30,962 The reconfigured Little Rock School District would have an enrollment of 30,962 with a racial composition of28.1% (8,691) white, 65.0% (20,134) black and 6.9% (2,137) other minorities. The reconfigured school district would have an increased white enrollment (28.1 %) and a decreased black enrollment (65.0%) from the existing Little Rock School District. The percentage of other minorities would decrease from 7.3% to 6.9%. Thus, inclusion of the existing Pulaski County Special School District's schools south of the Arkansas River into the reconfigured Little Rock School District can be viewed as having a positive desegregative impact. B. Facilities. Ten schools in the existing Pulaski County Special School District are located south of the Arkansas River. These facilities would be included as part of the reconfigured Little Rock School District. The schools transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District would include 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 6 elementary schools. Five of these schools were built in the 1950s with the oldest, Fuller Middle School, built in 1950. The newest school, Bates Elementary School, was built in 2000. 34See Attachment I: the 2005-2006 enrollment and racial composition of the Little Rock School District. I 043675-1 49 Table 21 shows the capacity, 35 capacity used, student enrollment, and rating category for each school. 36 Table 21 Facility Ratings for the 10 Pulaski County Special School District Schools That would be Transferred to the Little Rock School District Schools Capacity % Capacity Enrollment Rating Used 2005-2006 Robinson High School 770 88% 674 4 Mills High School 1130 86% 972 3 Fuller Middle School 1360 56% 758 4 Robinson Middle School 650 64% 414 5 Baker Elementary 428 87% 374 3 Bates Elementary 863 61% 529 1 College Station Elementary 439 46% 201 4 Landmark Elementary 711 44% 315 2 Lawson Elementary 372 81% 302 3 Robinson Elementary 544 68% 371 2 It can be noted in Table 21 that three of the four secondary schools are either Category 4 or Category 5 schools. Robinson Middle School, built in 1959, is a Category 5 school that should be considered for replacement. Robinson High School, built in 1980, is a Category 4 school. It has a new six classroom wing but the school is in need of additional classrooms and remodeling. Fuller Middle School was built in 19 53 and has had two additions consisting of 19 classrooms built in 1991 and 22 additional classrooms and a remodeled front constructed in 1993. Although the school has had recently built additional classrooms, it is still in need of significant District 3\nSee Attachment J: listing of the building capacities for each of the three school districts. 36See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of all of the schools in the Pulaski County Special School 50 - remodeling. Five of the ten schools are operating at less than two-thirds of their rated capacity, with two at less than 50% of their rated capacity. The reconfigured Little Rock School District will have nine elementary schools with fewer than 300 students. Three of the nine have enrollments of 201 or less -College Station Elementary School with 201 students, Fair Park Elementary School with 130 students, and Rightsell Elementary School with 184 students. These schools could be considered for closing with reassignment of students to contiguous schools or retained to provide additional capacity in the event resident students should return from school transfers outside the school district. C. Personnel. 1. Classroom Teachers. Transferring all of the Pulaski County Special School District's students and schools south of the Arkansas River to the reconfigured Little Rock School District would require the employment of additional classrooms teachers. The existing Pulaski County Special School District employs a qualified group of teachers and there is logic in allowing those teachers to be considered for employment in the reconfigured Little Rock School District. The existing Little Rock School District employs 2,027 teachers. 37 The addition of the Pulaski County Special School District schools south of the Arkansas River will require the employment of an additional 3 79 teachers. 37See Attachment K: the Lit1le Rock School District's 2005-06 teaching staff by race and school. 1043675-1 51 - Table 22 identifies the teachers, by school and race, employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District in the 10 schools identified for transfer. Table 22 Teachers, by Race and School, Who are Currently Employed in the 10 Schools that Would Be Transferred from Pulaski County Special School District to the Expanded Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 0 76 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 0 55 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 0 38 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 0 23 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 0 40 College Station Elementary 20 (74.1%) 7 (25.9%) 0 27 Landmark Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Lawson Elementary 17 (85.0%) 3 (15.0%) 0 20 Robinson Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) Q 23 TOT AL TEACHERS 294 (77.6%) 85 (22.4%) 0 379 It can be determined from Table 22 that the schools transfen-ed to the reconfigured Little Rock School District from the existing Pulaski County Special School District 38 have an overall black teacher composition of 22.4%, with not less than a 13 .0% black teacher assignment in each school. Table 23 shows the composition of the faculties of the schools m the reconfigured Little Rock School District. 38See Attachment F: the Pulaski County Special School District's 2005-06 teaching staff by race and school. 10~3675-1 52 - Table 23 Reconfigured Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Total Central High School 103 (66.0%) 53 (34.0%) 156 Hall High School 66 (62.9%) 39 (37.1%) 105 J.A. Fair High School 57 (64.0%) 32 (36.0%) 89 McClellan High School 41(51.3%) 39 (48.7%) 80 Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 76 Parkview High School 59 (69.4%) 26 (30.6%) 85 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 54 Total High Schools 430 (66.7%) 215 (33.3%) 645 Cloverdale Middle School 23 (37.7%) 38 (62.3%) 61 Dunbar Middle School 35 (57.4%) 26 (42.6%) 61 Forest Heights Middle School 37 (57.8%) 27 (42.2%) 64 Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 55 - Henderson Middle School 32 (50.8%) 31 (49.2%) 63 Mann Middle School 33 (50.0%) 33 (50.0%.) 66 Mabelvale Middle School 43 (74.1%) 15 (25.9%) 58 Pulaski Heights Middle School 46 (78.0%) 13 (20.0%) 59 Southwest Middle School 16 (30.8%) 36 (69.2%) 52 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 38 Total Middle Schools 333 (57.7%) 244 (42.3%) 577 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 23 Bale Elementary 20(71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Baseline Elementary 10 (38.5%) 16 (61.5%) 26 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 40 Booker Arts Elementary 39 (70.9%) 16(29.1%) 55 Brady Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Carver Elementary 29 (69.0%) 13(31.0%) 42 Chicot Elementary 33 (75.0%) 11 (25.0%) 44 College Station Elementary 20 (74.1 %) 7 (25.9%) 27 Dodd Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Fair Park Elementary 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 9 Forest Park Elementary 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) 26 Franklin Elementary 14 (36.8%) 24 (63.2%) 38 Fulbri\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\u003eWilliam Gordon Associates\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_179","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part two","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["William Gordon Associates"],"dc_date":["2006-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part two"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/179"],"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\nATTACHMENT \"A\" Brief Biographical Information: Dr. David E. Bartz Dr. Percy Bates Dr. William M. Gordon Mr. William R. Gordon Mr. Charles L. Patin, Jr. RESIDENCE: The Meadows 520 Rutland Place Charleston, Illinois 61920 Phone: (217) 345-4490 Cell: (217) 259-5201 Fax: (217) 348-5461 VITA (For Desegregation Only) DAVID E. BARTZ OFFICE: 2320/2327 Buzzard Hall Eastern Illinois University Charleston, Illinois 61920 Phone: (217) 581-6668 Cell: (217) 259-5201 Fax: (217) 581-6673 E-mail: cfdebl@edu.edu E-mail: debartz@eiu.edu PERSONAL INFORMATION: Date of Birth: 2/5/46 Marital Status: Wife - Deborah Ann Children - Brett (9-26-79), Dallas (1-11-85), Cody (1-14-87) CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois Professor of Educational Administration (Emeritus) (Since August, 1978) EDUCATION: Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan B.S. Degree - Business Education Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan M.A. Degree - General School Administration and Supervision MOTT Leadership Program, Flint, Michigan (Credit via Western Michigan University) Ed.D. in Educational Leadership EMPLOYMENT: Secondary Teacher and Community School Director Galien, Michigan (900 students K-12) Assistant Junior High Principal Dowagiac, Michigan (4,400 students K-12\n1,000 in J.H.) Junior High Principal Caledonia, Michigan (2,100 students K-12\n500 in J.H.) 6/15/06 1967 1969 1972 January, 1968- June, 1969 July, 1969- June, 1970 July, 1970- June, 1971 David E. Bartz EMPLOYMENT: (cont.) MOTT Leadership Program, Flint, Michigan (NOTE: This was not employment, but residence for Ed.D.) Leader of Personnel Skill Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (18,000 students K-12) Assistant Director of Research and Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (18,000 students K-12) Acting Director of Research and Development Kalamazoo, Michigan (17,000 students K-12) Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services Kalamazoo, Michigan (17,000 students K-12) Professor Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois Desegregation Consulting Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan Pontiac Urban League, Pontiac, Michigan Decatur Public Schools, Decatur, Illinois Eau Claire Public Schools, Eau Claire, Michigan Caddo Parish, Shreveport, Louisiana Champaign Public Schools, Champaign, Illinois East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois Ladue Public Schools, St. Louis, Missouri State of Missouri, Office of Attorney General (St. Louis Area) State of Missouri, Office of Attorney General (Kansas City Area) Page 2 July, 1971- August, 1972 August, 1972- June, 1973 June, 1973- June, 1976 July and August, 1976 September 1976- August, 1978 September, 1978 through present 1972 1975 1979 1979-1981 1980 1980, 1981 1980, 1981\nand March, 2000 to March, 2004 1981 1981 I 1982, 1983 1981, 1982 1985 Woodlawn Hills School District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1982 David E. Bartz Consulting, Desegregation (cont.) Sacramento Public Schools, Sacramento, California Superintendents' Council for the Tri-Districts (Benton Harbor, Coloma, and Eau Claire, Michigan) lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan Lubbock Public Schools, Lubbock, Texas Urbana Public Schools (Race Relations) Coloma Public Schools, Coloma, Michigan Newport News, Virginia, Public Schools Midland, Texas, Independent School District (Unitary Status) Dallas, Texas, Independent School District Pulaski County Arkansas (Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special School District) Expert Witness Desegregation Consulting, Desegregation Page 3 1986 1985, 1986 1991 1991, 1992, 1993 1978 through 2001 1994 1995 October, 2001 to April, 2003 November, 2005 to present Federal District Court, St. Louis, Missouri 1982 St. Louis Desegregation Case Federal District Court, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1982, 1996, 1998 Benton Harbor, Coloma, \u0026amp; Eau Claire Desegregation Case Federal District Court, Lubbock, Texas 1991 Federal District Court, Dallas, Texas 2003 Book The Effects of School Desegregation on Achievement and Motivation. Co-edited with Martin L. Maehr, JAi Press\nGreenwich, Conn., March. 1984 David E. Bartz United States Federal Court for the Western District of Michigan - Judge Douglas W. Hillman and the Executive Director of the Court's Appointment Community Education Council (James F.A. Turner) Award for Significant Leadership Role with Respect to Support of the Court's Desegregation Plan in the Berry Case (Benton Harbor, Eau Claire, and Coloma, Michigan) Additional Activities 41 Articles Published 46 Presentations at the National Level 26 Presentations at the State Level 26 Presentations at the Regional (within state) Level Page 4 1984 Dr. PERCY BATES EDUCATION Ph.D. M.A. B.S. PRESENT POSITION 2244 Pinegrove Ct. Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Home (734) 665-8341 Office (734) 763-9910 Fax (734) 763-2137 Email: pbates@umich.edu Educational Psychology, University of Michigan, 1968 Major Concentration: Special Education Vocational Rehabilitation, Wayne State University, 1961 Major: Rehabilitation Counseling Minor: Special Education Biology, Central Michigan University, 1958 Minors: Sociology, Psychology Director PEO-Programs for Educational Opportunity (Desegregation/Equity Assistance Center), School of Education, University of Michigan  Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1987 - Present Professor of Education University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Member, The Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity m Athletics, United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 2002-2003 Division Director, Curriculum, Teaching and Psychological Studies, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1984-1987 Deputy Assistant Secretary and Director, Office of Special Education, United States Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1980-1981 Assistant Dean, Service and Institutional Relations and Professor of Education, University of Michigan, 1973-1980 Associate Professor and Chairperson, Program in Special Education, University of Michigan, 1969-1973 Assistant Professor and Director, Mental Impainnent Teacher Training Program, University of Michigan, 1965-1969 Psychologist, Boys' Training School, Whitmore Lake, Michigan, 1963-1964 Psychologist and Director, Program in Educable Mentally Impaired, Ypsilanti Public Schools, 1961-1964 Teacher, Special Education, Detroit Public Schools, 1959-1961 - Page2 SELECTED RELATED ACTIVITIES \u0026amp; HONORS. Recipient, 2005 Harold R. Johnson Diversity Service Award Member, National Council for the Project on Equal Education Rights (PEER), 1991-present Chair, Higher Education Commission, National Alliance of Black School Educators, 1989-1993 Member, Executive Board, Father Patrick Jackson House, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1997- present Member, Academic Perfonnance Committee, University of Michigan, 1986-1989\n1990-present Member, Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics, University of Michigan 1986-1989\n1990-present LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION: PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Association on Mental Retardation American Educational Research Association American Psychological Association Council for Exceptional Children Michigan Psychological Association K-12 Pennanent Teaching Certificate School Psychologist Licensed Psychologist - State of Michigan National Alliance of Black School Educators National Association for Multicultural Education National Association for School Desegregation RECENT SELECTED PRESENTATIONS \"Resolving Societal Conflicts through Traditional Techniques-Are They Working?\" Program for Conflict Management Alternative Seminar. Rockford (IL) School District, Issues relating to over-representation of minorities in Special Education through desegregation efforts. Kansas City, Kansas, Controlled Choice, Is It Effective In Desegregation? RECENT GRANTS AND AWARDS Title IV, Equity Assistance Center Awards, 2002-2005 Title II, Improving Teacher Quality (MI) State Activities Competitive Grant Program. 2003-2005 Dwight D. Eisenhower Higher Education Professional Development Grant, Family Math, Family Science, Playtime Is Science, 2000-2001 Kellogg Foundation - Closing the A\u0026lt;\n.hievement Gap, 2001-2002 Percy Bates Page 3 SELECTED CONSULTANCIES Darlington County South Carolina School District. Developing a Magnet School to Reduce Racial Isolation, On-going Consultation, Expert Witness. East Baton Rouge School District, Court Appointed Education Monitor. Evaluated Magnet School Program and proposed changes for improvement with Dr. William Gordon. Highland Park Board of Education. Consultant to the Superintendent, School Psychologist. Assessment and managing at-risk students. Hunter College, New York, New York. Consultant to the Dean of Education. Evaluated program in Special Education and programs to prepare teachers for urban areas. Michigan Department of Social Services, Special Education with hard to place adoptive children, Flint, Michigan. University of Alabama, Consultant to the Dean of Education and Chairperson of Special Education in the development of a Ph.D. program. U.S. Department of Justice, Review Desegregation Cases, re: Unitary Status. EDITORIAL CONTRIBUTIONS Reviewer, Book - \"Academically Gifted,\" McGraw Hill. Reviewer, Book - \"Children in Dual Settings,\" Longman Press. Reviewer, Book - \"Planning for Choice,\" New England Center for Equity Assistance. Reviewer, Book - \"Toward Accountability of Teachers, Accountability in American Education. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS \"Controlled Choice: A New and Effective Desegregation Method,\" in Charles v. Willie, U.S. Department of Education and Programs for Educational Opportunity, presented at the Magnet School/Desegregation Workshop, Miami, FL, January 1995. \"Proceedings of the Magnet School/Title IV Desegregation Programs,\" U.S. Department of Education and Programs for Educational Opportunity, presented at the 1993 Conference in Washington, DC, December 1993. Bates, P. \u0026amp; Gardner, J. Emmett. Attitudes and Attributions on Use of Microcomputers in School by Students Who are Mentally Handicapped, March 1991. Bates, P. \"Desegregation: Can We Get There From Here?\" Phi Delta Kappan, September 1990. Page4 Bates, P., Brame, W., Darden, J. \u0026amp; Dawson, M. The State of Black Michigan 1989. Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University, 1989. Bates, P. \"Black and White High School Dropout Rates in Michigan: The Inequality Persists,\" The State of Black Michigan: 1989, East Lansing, Urban Affairs Programs, Michigan State University, submitted March 1989. Bates, P. \u0026amp; Wilson, T. Effective Schools: Critical Issues in the Education of Black Children, Ann Arbor, National Alliance of Black School Educators [in press]. Bryant, B., \u0026amp; Bates, P. \"The Future of Black Americans Depends Upon Intermediate and Long-Term Structural Programs.\" Submitted to The Journal of Negro Education, July, 1988. \"The Challenge of Evaluation and Documentation\" in Bert Sharp (ed.) Directions for Teacher Education, National Support Systems, University of Minnesota, 1982. Mainstreaming: Our Current Knowledge Base (ed.), National Support Systems Project, University of Minnesota, 1981. \"The Role of Special Education in the 1980's: An Existential Question,\" Counterpart, Nov., 1980. \"Exceptional Children in Intermediate and Secondary Science Programs\" (with Edward Hoffman and Terry West), Science Education, February, 1978. \"Anatomy of a Dean's Project,\" in Judy Grossenick and Maynard Reynolds (eds.), Negotiations of Teacher Education, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. \"Implications of Mainstreaming for Teacher Education,\" in Percy Bates, Terry West, and Rudolf B. Schmerl (eds.), Mainstreaming: Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. \"Mainstreaming: An Overview,\" in Percy Bates, Terry West, and Rudolf B. Schmerl (eds.), Mainstreaming: Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives, Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. Mainstreaming Problems, Potentials, and Perspectives (ed.), (with Terry West and Rudolf B. Schmerl), Leadership Training Institute, University of Minnesota, 1977. \"Parents - A Valuable Resource for Training Teachers to Work with the Special Child,\" Mental Retardation, April, 1976. \"A Systems Approach to a Taxonomy of Disadvantagement,\" (with Jesse Gordon and Don Harrison), Manpower Science Inc., 1973. \"Critical Review: The Right to an Appropriate Education,\" in Lawrence A. Kane, Julius Cohen, David Penrod and Thomas Shaffer (eds.) The Mentally Retarded and the Law, Mac Millan, 1973. \"James and John,\" Guide to Mental Retardation, Peach Enterprises, Warren, Michigan, 1973. \"Through Different Eyes,\" Guide to Mental Retardation, Peach Enterprises, Warren, Michigan, 1973. WILLIAM M. GORDON * Has been actively involved in school desegregation planning since 1968. * Has drawn over 80 school desegregation plans and has served as an expert witness in over 250 trial and hearings. * Was one of the first desegregation planners to develop and use magnet schools as a desegregation strategy. * Has represented defendant school districts, state departments of education. * He has also worked with several courts and recently served as a Court Monitor for the federal district court located in Baton rouge, Louisiana. * Has represented plaintiff groups that include the United states Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Neighborhood Legal Services and Private plaintiff groups. * Has been involved in developing approximately 10 voluntary desegregation plans for school districts. * Serves as a desegregation consultant for a number of school districts. * Has been consulted with a number of school districts seeking unitary status. * Has assisted in writing several successful magnet school grants during the past two Magnet School Assistance Act cycles. * Has thirty years as a professional educator serving as a teacher, coach, administrator and college professor. * Has written on a wide variety of administration and desegregation topics and is generally recognized as an expert in all aspects of school desegregation. June 17, 2006 Resume William M. Gordon Ed.D, J.D. Dr. William M. Gordon is recognized as an expert in school desegregation, school organization, school administration and educational policy. He is currently a professor Emeritus of Educational Leadership. He formerly taught at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio and at Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. During his over 34 years in public education, Dr. Gordon, has taught in urban, rural and suburban schools as well as at the university level. He began his teaching career in 1959 as a substitute teacher in the Chicago City schools. After several years of teaching he served for a short period of time as a principal of an elementary and later as a principal of a junior high school. He has also served as university professor for USAID at the University of Botswana, Botswana, Africa. Dr. Gordon has a B.A. degree in Finance and Banking and a M.Ed. in Remedial and Diagnostic Education from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. His doctorate in educational administration and secondary education is from Indiana University. He also has a law degree from the University of South Carolina and is licensed to practice in South Carolina. Following the completion of his doctorate degree at Indiana University, Dr. Gordon joined the faculty of Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Where he taught for 14 years. During his tenure at Miami University he progressed through the academic ranks becoming a tenured full professor in 1977. In 1968, while assuming his duties as an assistant professor at Miami University, he became a consultant in school desegregation for the Florida School Desegregation Consulting Center working with Drs. Gordon Foster and Michael Stolee. During his 30 year association with the Florida Title IV Center he worked with over 40 desegregating school districts located throughout the former Region V eight state service area of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In addition to his work with the Florida Center he has served as an expert in school desegregation for local school districts, state departments of education, the U.S. Justice Department, the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, the NAACP, federal courts, and a variety of private plaintiff groups throughout the entire country. He also served for seven years as a court monitor in school desegregation for the U.S. District Court in Central Louisiana. In total he has been involved in over 80 separate school desegregation cases and has testified several hundred times. He has also worked successfully with a number of school districts in their efforts to obtain unitary status. Dr. Gordon has authored or co-authored four books, nine book chapters, 55 articles, and has also made a large number of presentations to educational groups and organizations. November 15,2005 Resume' William M. Gordon P.O. Box 550 Cell: Home: (828) (828) 606 3091 696 9753 Saluda, North CaroliQ~ 28773 Fax: (828) 698 6762 Education J.D. Ed.D. Post Grad M.Ed. E-Mail: twogoatroad@aol.com 1985 University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina. Admitted to practice in South Carolina 1968 Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Major: Secondary Education, Curriculum and Administration Minor: Anthropology and Sociology 1966 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Administration 1964 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Reading Minor: Curriculum Post Grad .1962 DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois Major: Mathematics and certification B.S. (Bus.) 1957 Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Major: Finance and Banking Minor: Economics and Accounting Professional.Positions 1998-present 1990-98 1991-95 1988-90 1986-88 1985-86 Professor Emeritus, Educational Leadership, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Professor of Educational Leadership, College of Education and Human Services, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio External Examiner - Njala University, Sierra Leone, West Africa (assignment covered from 3-5 weeks each of five summers) Professor of Educational Leadership and Executive Program Development Officer, College of Education, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio Private Law Practice, Greenville, South Carolina Professor of Education, Primary Educational Improvement Project, The University of Botswana, Botswana, Africa 1 1977-82 1968-77 1966-68 1965-66 1962-65 1957-62 ProfessDr of Education, Department of Administration, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Assistant and Associate Professor, Department of Teacher Education, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Supervisor of Student Teachers, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana Supervisor of Student Teachers, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio Principal and Teacher of Mathematics, High School and Junior High School, Fairborn, Ohio Principal, Teacher and Substitute Teacher, Chicago Public Schools and Skokie, Illinois Public Schools. Adjunct Professorships 1999 - Present 1998 - Summer 1996 - Summer 1984-85 1984 1979 1970 1970 Awards and Honors 1993 1992 Framingham State - Teaching in the International Education Program 13 international sites - Tampico Mexico, Rabat Morocco, Monterray Mexico, Kowitce, Poland, Santo Domingo, Trinidad, Bahrain (2), Warsaw Poland, Managua Nicarragua, Guatalajara Mexico (3), Beirut Lebanon, Maracaibo Venezuela College of New Jersey - Mallorca, Spain Trenton State University - Tele Vive, Israel Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina, Spring Term each year (Research) Northwest Louisiana State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana, Summer Term (Administrative Theory) Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, Summer Term (Curric-ilum and Foundations) AACTE Project 35, Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, Summer Term (Developing Instructional Materials and Strategies for Job Corps Basic Instruction) Western College for Women, Oxford, Ohio, Fall Term (Reading and Language Arts) Outstanding Achievement Award, Pennsylvania Legal Services Faculty Excellence Award for Scholarship, College of Education and Human Services, Wright State University 2 1972 1970 1969 1964 \"Award of Merit\" American Association of College Teachers of Education \"Outstanding Professor,\" Miami University Omicron Delta Kappa Phi Delta Kappa Publications Books The Reading Curriculum, Praeger Publishing Co., New York, 1982. Desegregating America's Schools, Longman, Inc., New York, 1980, Hughes and L. Hillman) (with L. Things Take Time, University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida, 1974, Editor and Contributor) Modern Mathematics for the Seventh Grade, Old Orchard Schools, Skokie, Illinois, 1961, (Contributor) Monographs The Law of Home Schooling, No. 52 in the NOLPE Monograph Series, National Organization on Legal Problems in Education,. Topeka, Kansas, 1994, (with C.J. Russo and A.S. Miles) Chapters Editor and contributor - \"Chapter 7:Educational Programs\" American Overseas Schools, Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, Indiana (2000) \"Philbert: Battling Bond Barriers\" Becoming a Superintendent: Challenges of School District Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Sattle River, New Jersey (1997) \"Mistakes Beginning Superintendents Make\" Becoming a Superintendent: Challenges of School District Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Sattle River, New Jersey (1997) \"Systemic School Desegregation\" Case Citations 1992: Fourteenth Series National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas 1992 \"Employment in General\" Case Citations 1992: Twelfth Series National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, Topeka, Kansas, 1992 3 \"Magnet Schools,\" Advances in Motivation and Achievement, JAI Press, Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut, 1984 (with L. Hughes and L. Hillman) \"Frontiers of Law, Chapter XIII, The Courts and Education, The National Society for the Study of Education, Clifford Hooker, (ed), Chicago, 1978 (with L. Hughes) \"The Potential of Satellite Technology for Elementary Education,\" The Educational Uses of Broadcast Satellites, Educational Technology Publications, Washington, D.C. 1975 \"Desegregation Data,\" Handbook VIII: Community Characteristics, State Education and Report Series, USDHEW, Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1973 4 Articles \"School Desegregation Cases: The'Good Faith' Requirement\" West's Education Law Reporter, Vol. 159, January 31, 2002, pages 407-417. (Cite: 159 Educ.L.R. 407) \"School Desegregation Cases: Why Moving Toward Unitary Status Makes Sense Now\" Louisiana Board Member, Louisiana School Board's-Association, Vol.18, No.3, Summer 2001. \"There's A Weapon in the School\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 28, No 96, Fall 2001, Pg 22 \"Weapons in Schools\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 28, No. 95, Spring/Summer 2001, Pg 18. \"Terminating Employment in International Schools\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 27, No. 94, Winter 2000, Page 17. ~Dismissing the Sexual Predator\" AAIE Inter Ed. Vol 26, No. 91, Winter 1999, Page 10 \"Sidebar: Throwing Out the Trash,\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 27, No.92, Summer/Spring 2000, page 15. \"Sidebar: A Wake-up Notice,\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol. 26, No.90, Fall, 1999, pa~e 10. \"Balancing Confidentiality and the Need to Report,\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 26, No. 89, summer, 1999, page 13. \"Controversy in the Curriculum\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol. 26, No. 88, Spring 1999 \"Where You Can Be Sued!\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 25, No. 87, Winter 1998/99, page 12. \"The Violent Worker\" AAIE Inter Ed Vol 25,No 86, Fall 1998, page 11. \"Drug Testing of Students and Staff\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol. 25, No. 85, Summer 1998. page 14. \"Sexual Harassment of Students by Staff\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 25, No 84, Spring 1998, page 25. \"Releasing Students From School During the School Day: What is the Policy?\" Record for Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 17, No.1 \u0026amp; 2, 1997, pages 80-83. (with Reginald Green) \"Student Records\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol 24, No.83, Winter 1997, Page 30. \"Copy Right or Wrong\" AAIE Inter Ed, Vol. 24, No 82 Fall 1997, Page 15. \"Home Schooling: The In-house Alternative\" School Business Affairs, Vol 62, No. 12. December, 1996, pages 16-20. \"Religious Activities in Public Education: The Case Against,\" Journal For A 5 Just and Caring Education, Vol. 2, No. 2, April 1996, pages 157 -163. \"The Search for Reasonableness: Legal Issues in Student Discipline\" School Business Affairs, voi. 61, No. 7, July, 1995, pages 18-21. 6 \"Compulsory Education Requirements and Student Work Permits\" Wright Angles, Vol. 7, No. 4, November, 1994: pages 1-2. \"The Implementation of Desegregation Plans Since Brown\" Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 63, No.3 (1994), pgs 310-322. \"The Development of Professional and Social Relationships as a Result of Cohort Group Instruction\" Catalyst for Change, Vol 23, No.l, Fall 1993, pgs 14-17 (With William Nelson, June Kisch, Samuel Harris) \"Releasing Students From School During the School Day: What is the Policy?\" Wright Angles, Vol.5, No.2 October 22, 1993 (with William Nelson and Reginald Green) \"Monitoring Desegregation,\" National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal Vol 7, No. 1, 1993-94, pg 44-49 (with David E. Bartz) \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts,\" West Education Law Reporter Vol 82, 1992, pg 283-289 [cite as: 80 Ed.Law Rptr 283) - (With David E. Bartz) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 2, No.4, October, 1993, pg 533-539. \"HIV Infection: Legal Implications for Educators\" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 13, No. l, Fall/winter 1992. (with Charles J. Russo, Albert Miles, Terrence Leas) \"Why Be Concerned About School Policy?\" Wright Angles Vol. 4, No.2, Nov. 30, 1992 \"Agency Shop Fees and The Supreme Court: Union Control and Academic Freedom\" West Education Law Reporter Vol. 73, 1992, pg 607-615 [cite as: 73 Ed.Law Rptr 607) - (with Charles J. Russo and Albert J. Miles) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 1, No.3, July, 1992, Pg 277-283. \"A survey of Observation/Participation and Student Teaching Experiences\" National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, Vol. 2, No.l, March 1992. \"School Children With AIDS: A Legal Analysis\" Religion and Public Education, Vol 18, No.3, Winter 1991, pg 259-267. (With Will MacCarther) \"Home Schooling in North Carolina\" School Law Bulletin, Vol. 22, No.3, Fall, 1991, pg 13-17. (With Charles Russo, and Patricia Lynes) \"The Reasonable Accommodations Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.\" West's Educational Law Reporter, Vol. 69, 1991, pg 1-8. [Cite as: 69 Ed.Law Rptr 1) (With Dr. Albert Miles and Dr. Charles Russo) Reprinted West's Educational Law Quarterly, Vol 1, No. 1, January, 1992 pg 1-8. [Cite as: 1 Ed.Law Qtr 1). \"Debates in Education - RESOLVE 'Education Would Improve if Public Funds Were Made Available to Assist Church-Related Private Elementary And Secondary Schools, Through Tax Deductions Payable to Parents, Voucher Systems, or Equivalent Means'\" Presentation in opposition to the resolution. Curriculum Review, Vol 31, No. 2, October 1991, Pg 6-10. 7 \"The Principal's Hidden Resource: Student Government,\" American Secondary Education, Vol. 18, No.3, 1990, pg 30-31. 8 \"Serving the Needs of High School Students\" Catalyst for Change Vol 20, No.l, Fall 1990 (With Thomas Kelberly) \"Home Schooling and Compulsory Attendance Laws\" National Forum for Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, 1990-91, Pages 430-433. \"Collaborative School/University Renewal Project\" (with Frederick Gies), National Forum for Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, 1990-91, pages 67-75 \"Wanted: Black Teachers ... Apply at Any Local School Board,\" Journal-Ohio School Board's Association, (With Will Mccarther) Volume 34, No 2, (March 1990) pg 8-9. \"New Direction in Affirmative Action,\" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Fall/Winter 1990) pp. 29-30 \"Due Process and School Suspension Revisited,\" Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Spring/Summer), 1989, pp. 21-24 \"School Desegregation: A Look at the 70's and 80's,\" Journal for Law and Education, Vol. 18 (Spring, 1989), pp. 189-212 \"Higher Education and the Law in the 1980's,\" Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XXXI, No. 4 (July/August, 1980), pp. 61-62 (with L. Hughes and R. Simpson) \"The View From the Top: What's Beleaguering Superintendents Th~se Days?\" Catalyst for Change, Vol 10, No. 1 (Fall, 1980) pp. 22-27 (with L. Hughes) \"Advice to a Young Administrator,\" The American School Board Journal, Vol.166, No. 12 (Dec. 1979), pp 15-16 (with L. Hughes) \"How to Make a School Closing Make Sense,\" The American School Board Journal, Vol. 167, No. 2 (Feb. 1979) pp. 31-33 (with L. Hughes) \"Communications Satellites and the Future of Elementary Education,\" World Future Society Bulletin, Vol. XII, No. 3 (May/June, 1978) pp. 11-16 \"What Now Senior?\", Journal of Sigma Phi Epsilon, Vol. 73, No. 3 1976), Pg. 4 (Feb., \"School Desegregation - Is The Bussing for U.S.?\", NOLPE School Law Journal (Spring, 1973), pp. 27-36 (with R. Simpson) \"The School and the Social Revolution of the American Black,\" Review, Miami University (Spring, 1971), pp. 13-16 \"Learning as a Classroom Activity,\" Ohio Department of Elementary School Principals Journal (August, 1970) pp. 25-26 \"IMPALLA - A New Approach to Language Arts Instruction,\" The English Journal (May 1970), pp. 534-539 (With P. Whitesell and D. Joy) 9 \"Educational Plans for the Inner City,\" Review, Miami University (Winter, 1969), pp 14-19 \"The Teacher in the Inner City,\" Review, Miami University (Fall, 1968) pp. 22- 29 10 \"Reading, Statistics, i/t/a?\", Review, Miami University (Winter, 45-58 Papers 1966) pp. \"Fulfilling Court Requirements in Order to Prepare a Successful Magnet School Application\" Magnet Schools of America Conference New Orleans, Louisiana - September 10, 1977 \"Achieving Unitary Status for a School District Under A Court Desegregation Order\" Education Law Association Annual Conference, Seattle, Washington November 20-22, 1997 \"Achieving Unitary Status for a School District Under A Court Desegregation Order\", 43 rd Annual Conference of the Education Law Association, November 20- 22, 1997, Seattle, Washington. (With Charles Patin, partner with Keen, Miller Hawthorn, Baton Rouge, Louisiana) \"Move from Monitored Desegregation to Unitary Status\" Magnet Schools of America Conference, September 12-13, New Orleans, Louisiana (with Michael Garrard and Charles Patin partners with Keen, Miller, Hawthorne, Baton Rouge and William R. Gordon, Center for Program Design, Saluda, North Carolina) \"Desegregation Plans: From Pupil Assignments to Magnets\" National Associa_tion for Legal Problems in Education annual convention, November 17-19, 1994, San Diego, California. \"Qualifying for the Magnet School Grants Program: Eligibility for Assistance\" National Association of Magnet School Development, March 3-5, 1994, Washington, D.C. \"Child Abuse by School Personnel\" with Dean Ponds and Freddie A. Banks. American Association of School Administrators annual convention, February 11, 1994, San Francisco, California \"Legal Implications of Sexual Harassment and Molestation of Students with B. Hamstead, Roger Hepworth, Michael Weinstock, and Claudia Speakman. National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 20, 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. \"Desegregation: Representing Plaintiffs and Defendants in Unitary Hearings\" with David E. Bartz and Mike Moses. National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 20, 1992, Phoenix, Arizona \"AIDS/HIV and the Schools\" Indiana State University, Annual School Law Conference, April 10, 1992, Terre Haute, Indiana \"Students and Teachers Who Test HIV Positive: Legal Issues and Implications\" with Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles, National Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 23, 1991, Orlando, Florida \"Research in Educational Law: Doctoral Dissertation Criteria\" National 11 Association on Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE) annual convention, November 22, 1991, Orlando, Florida \"The Policy Implications of Home Schooling\". With Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles. annual conference of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), New Orleans, March 2, 1991. 12 ''Home Schooling\" With Dr. Charles Russo and Dr. Albert Miles Presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the National Organization for Legal Problems in Education (NOLPE}, San Antonio, November 15-17, 1990. (ERIC Document #ED 332 291) ''Recruiting and Training Young Administrators.for the 1990's\" Presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Los Angeles, August 15, 1990 \"Dilematic Consequences of a Collaborative School/University Renewal Project\" Prepared with Dr. Frederick Gies. Presented at the annual AASA Conference, San Francisco, California, February 24, 1990. \"Observation and Participation Will Solve the Problems of Teacher Preparation\" Research study with Ors. Will Mccarther and James Uphoff. Presented at the annual AACTE Conference, Chicago, Illinois, February 22, 1990. \"Pitfalls to Collaboration\" 43rd Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, August 14, 1989 \"A Knowledge Base Model for Program Development\" 43rd Annual Conference of the National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA}, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, August 18, 1989 .(ERIC Document #EA021797} \"The E.J. Brown Collaborative Model\" Spring Session of the Ohio Conference of Teacher Education Organizations (OCTEO}, Columbus, Ohio, April 28, 1989 \"The Mechanics of Desegregating a School System\" National Convention of the American Association of School Administrators AASA), Anaheim, California, February, 1980 \"Environmental Factors and the School as a Societal Institution,\" Annual Confer~nce of the American Education Research Association (AERA} San Francisco, California, March 1974 (panel} \"The Possible Impact of Satellite Technology on Structure, Role, Function and Subject Matter at the Elementary Level of Education\" Fourth Annual National Educational Technology Conference, San Francisco, California, March, 1974 Book Reviews Review of: School Law: Cases and Concepts (4th Edition) by Michael W.LaMorte. Published in West's Education Law Reporter, Vol.83, pg 27-29, August 12, 1993 [cite as 83 Ed.Law. Rptr 27] Review of: American Public School Law (3rd Edition} by Kern Alexander and M. David Alexander. Published in Record in Administration and Supervision, Vol. 12, No. 2, Spring/Summer, 1992 Review of: The Constitution and American Public Education by Anvil Morris. Published in Record in Administration and Supervision, Vol 11, No.1, Fall/Winter 1990 13 Review of: Principal's Handbook: Current Issues in School Law. Edited by William E. Camp, Julie K. Underwood, and Mary Jane Connelly. Published in Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol 10, No.2, Summer/Spring 1990 14 Review of: Schooling and Disabilities, 88th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Edited by D. Biklen, D. Ferguson, and A. Ford. Published in National forum of Applied Educational Research, Vol. 3, No.2, 1990-91 Review of: Public School Law: Teaching and Students' Rights by Martha M. McCarthy and Nelda H. Cambron-McCabe. Published in Record in Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall/Winter 1989 Review of: To Rise Above Principal by Joseph F. Martin. Published in The AASA Professor Vol. 12, No. 1, Summer, 1989 Review of: Locating and Correcting Reading Difficulties by E.E. Ekwall. Published in the National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 1989 Review of: Introduction to Educational Research by C.M. Charles. Published in National Forum of Applied Educational Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1988 Editing Authors Committee - West's Educational Law Reporter Legal Review Editor for Record in Educational Administration and Supervision Policy Board for National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal Professional and Academic Association Memberships (Past and Present) Association for Advancement of International Education (AAIE) American Association of School Administrators (AASA) American Association of College Teachers in Education (AACTE) National Council of Professors in Educational Administration (NCPEA) National Organization for Legal Problems in.Education (NOLPE) name changed to Educational Law Association Association for Teacher Education (ATE) National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) American Bar Association (ABA) South Carolina Bar Association American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association Related Professional Activities Court Monitor: U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana Management Consultant: U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Director: Miami University Competency Based Teacher Education Project, Director: Miami University Right-to-Read Project Director: Miami University/Dayton Teacher Corps Project Director: Miami University Developmental Education Project Ohio Manpower Commission 15 Partial listing of education cases where Dr. William M. Gordon has been directly involved in the litigation. Amy Adams v. Kaech (P1.a.intiff 1 ) Anderson and the United States v. Madison County School District (Plaintiff United States) Andrews v. Monroe City School Board (United States) Taylor v. Ouachita Parish Armstrong v. Birmingham Board of Education (United States) Berry v. Benton Harbor School Board (Defendant Eau Claire) -Boyd v. Pointe Coupee Parish Schools (United States) Brinkman v. Dayton Board of Education (Defendant Dayton Schools) Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati (Plaintiff NAACP) Cowan and the United States v. Bolivar County Board of Education. (United States) Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Defendant East Baton Rouge Schools) Davis v. East Baton Rouoe Parish School Board (Monitor for the Court) John Doe (Kinney) v. Madison Board of Education (Plaintiff) Duhon v. Tatje (United States) Harris v. St John the Baptist Parish School Board Evans v. Buchanan (Plaintiff Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware Ganaway v. Charleston County Board of Education (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) Graham and the United Scates v. Evangeline Parish (Plaintiff United States) Hilson v. Outz (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) H.O., A Minor v. The School District of the City of Philadelphia (Plaintiff) Hodges v. Montgomery County Board of Education (United States) Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Plaintiff Neighborhood Legal Services) Jones and the United States v. Caddo Parish School System (United States) 1 Party represented. 17 Kelly v. Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville (Plaintiff) Lee v. Chambers County Board of Education (United States) Lee and the United States v. Dotham County, Alabama (Legal Defense Fund) Lee and the United States v. Macon County Board of Education (Decatur) Lee and United States v. Randolph County (United States) Martin v. Ferndale Michigan School Board (United States) NAACP v. City of Thomasville Georgia School District (Plaintiffs) Penick v. Columbus Board of Education (Defendant State of Ohio) Reed v. Rhodes (Defendant State of Ohio) Stanley v. Darlington County School District (United States) Sheff v. O'Neil (Plaintiff Legal Defense Fund NAACP) Sinajini and The Navajo Nation v. Board of Education of the San Juan School District. (Plaintiffs Sinajini, The Navajo Nation and United States) S-1 v. Turlington (Plaintiff Florida Rural Legal Services) Sylvester Vaughns et al and the NACCP v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Maryland (Defendant) Thomasville Branch of the NAACP et al v. City of Thomasville School District (Plaintiff) United States v. Ferndale, Michigan (United States) United States and Charles Ridley v. State of Georgia: Meriwether County Board of Education (United States) United States V. Avoyelles Parish School Board (United States) United States V. Bessemar Alabama Board of Education (United States) United States v. Berkeley County, South Carolina (United States) United States v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Defendant Chicago Board of Education) United States v. Board of Public Instruction of St. Lucy Florida (United States) United States v. Chambers County Board of Education (United States) United States and Coleman v. Midland Independent School District (United States) United States v. Colleton County School District (United States) 18 United States v. DeSota Parish Schools (United States) United States v. Florence County School District No.1 (United States) United States v. Kansas City Unified School District #500 (United States) United States v. Lincoln Parish School Board (United States) United States v. The State of Mississippi and McComb Municipal Separate School District United States v. Marion County School District (United States) United States v. Port Arthur Texas School Board (United States) United States v. Red River Parish Schools (United States) United States v. Texas Education Agency: Lubbock Independent School District (United States) Virgie Lee Valley, et. al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, et al. (Defendant) Welton J. Charles Jr. et al and the Uniter States v. Ascension Parish School Board et al (Defendant School District) Williams and the United States v. Iberville Parish School Board (United States) Contracted Studies Arkansas Department of Education, Feasibility study for Arkansas Department of Education to determine if the Pulaski County School District should continue to exist Jefferson Parish School District, Louisiana (Study undertaken for the district) Unitah School District (Study to determine feasibility of breaking off a new school district for the Ute Tribe) 19 June 17,2006 RESUME' William R. Gordon Post Office Box 595 19 South Lake Summit Road Saluda, North Carolina 28773 Education 1989-91 1983-85 1984 1977-83 Experience (704) 692 3753 Post Masters M.F.A B.F.A. Professional Education Courses Required for Certification in Art Education - Florida International University, Miami Dade College and St Thomas University College of Architecture, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina Charles E. Daniel Center, Clemson University, Genoa, Italy College of Fine Arts, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1985 - present Consultant in school desegregation 1998-04 1996- 98 1992-95 1992-97 1992-96 Facilities Monitor for the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana Boys and Girls Club of America - Head of the art Program for local children in Hendersonville, N.C. Adjunct Associate Professor in Art, Wright State Present University, Dayton, Ohio (Teaching: Drawing and Painting) Summer art program for elementary school children conducted through Isothermal Community College. (four one week terms open to school children in Poke County, North Carolina) Adjunct Associate Professor in Art, Isothermal Community College, Spindale, North Carolina (Teaching: Art History, Two Dimensional Media, Painting, Drawing and Composition, Life Drawing, Special Topics in Art 1994-95 Visiting Associate Professor of Art, Blue Ridge Community College, Hendersonville, North Caorlina 1992 Teaching Assistant in Elementary Art Education, Art Department, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina 1988-92 Head Instructor and teacher for Art Education, North Miami Elementary School, Dade County, Florida - Teaching responsibility for approximately 920 students. 1985-86 1984-85 Writings Studio Artist, producing primarily paintings and drawings, Chicago, Illinois. Graduate Assistant instructing at the Charles E. Daniel Center, Genoa, Italy and Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. \"Using a Compliance Analysis Prior to Seeking Unitary Status in a School Desegregation Case\" by William m. Gordon and William R. Gordon July 21, 2000 (unpublished) Consulting Facilities study underway in the Unitah School District for the Ute Native Ameriucan Tribe. Jefferson Parish School District - Facilities study of the entire 82 school, school district in preparation for filing a motion for unitary status. Duhon v. Tatie (St. John the Baptist Parish) Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board Davis and the United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (Court Monitor - Facilities) Stanley v. Darlington, South Carolina Berry v. Benton Harbor School Board Wright State University summer workshops for teachers and administrators 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 3 Charles L. Patin, Jr. Partner Legislative Litigation 225.389.3430 charlic.patin@keanmiller.com CHARLES PATIN Charles Patin is a partner in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana law firm of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan \u0026amp; Jarman, L.L.P. Charles joined Kean Miller in 1989. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Assistant Executive Counsel to the Governor of Louisiana from 1988 until 1989, and from 1980 through 1988 he served as Chief of the Civil Division of the Louisiana Department of Justice. Charles assists clients in the areas of school desegregation law, state constitutional and general regulatory matters, and general civil litigation. Charles presently represents two Louisiana public school districts in ongoing school desegregation lawsuits. In May 2004, Charles successfully negotiated an agreement on behalf of the Ascension Parish School District with the United States Department of Justice and local counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund that resulted in the filing of a Joint Motion for Entry Agreed Judgement and the entry of a judgement declaring the school district unitary in Welton J. Charles, et al. and United States of America v. Ascension Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 3257, U.S.D.C. M.D. La. In Clifford Eugene Davis, Jr., et al. and United Stated of America v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, Civil Action No. 1662, U.S.D.C. M.D. La., Charles served as the lead counsel for the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and successfully negotiated an agreement resulting in the entry of a Consent Decree that subsequently set the stage for the school district begin declared unitary. He recently co-authored a commentary with Dr. William M. Gordon entitled \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement\" which appeared in West's Education Law Reported, Vol. 159 No. 2, January 31, 2002. Charles has presented in tl1e area of school desegregation law at the 2002 annual meeting of the Education Law Association, an international aducation law associated comprised of educators and attorneys. Representative Experience:  Successful negotiation of a consent decrees in school desegregation cases which served to eliminate the pairing and clustering of schools.  Successful filings of motions for partial unitary status in school desegregation litigation.  Representation of clients before state regulatory agencies.  Representation of clients in matters involving state constitutional issues. Charles Patin Education: Charlie earned his B.S. from Louisiana State University in 1971 and his J.D. from the LSU Law Center in 1974. Admissions: Admitted to bar, 1974, Louisiana\nadmitted to bar, 1979, United States Supreme Court. Admitted to practice before United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and all federal district courts in Louisiana. Memberships: Co-chair, Governor's Special Committee on the Composition and Administration of the Judiciary Section, 1989\nSecretary, Special Committee on Judicial Electoral Processes, 1991\nSub-committee on Campaign Finance Practices, 1991\nChairman, Bench and Bar Section\nAmerican Bar Association\nAmerican Judicature Society (Board of Directors, 1992-1994)\nBoard of Examiners for Certified Court Reporters, 1993-1995\nLouisiana Organization for Judicial Excellance (Board of Directors, 1992-1995). [Captain, Infantry, U.S. Army Reserves, 1971-1979.] Past Member, Civil Justice Advisory Committee, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Community Service:  Past member, Board of Directors, Baton Rouge Chapter, Gulf Coast Conservation Association.  Past member, Board of Director, Playmakers.  Past member, Board of Directors, Blundon Home.  Past member, Louisiana Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution.  Graduate, Greater Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce Leadership Class of 1999. ATTACHMENT \"B\" Specific Language of Legislation Creating this Feasibility Study SB457 Specific Language of Legislation Creating This Feasibility Study SECTION 26. SPECIAL LANGUAGE. NOT TO BE IN CORPORA TED INTO THE ARKANSAS CODE NOR PUBLISHED SEP ARA TEL Y AS SPECIAL, LOCAL AND TEMPORARY LAW. FEASIBILITY STUDY. The Department of Education shall authorize and fund a feasibility study costing up to two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). The purpose of the study shall be to evaluate and determine whether the Pulaski County Special School District should continue in existence by specifically addressing and evaluating the following: 1) the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one district south of the Arkansas River\n2) the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district bounda1ies in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock District north of the Arkansas River and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River\n3) whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District under either option would fut1her desegregation efforts of the districts and help all districts in gaining unitary status and in ending the desegregation case\nand, 4) to study and propose a plan to pursue the end of desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. A contract shall be signed no later than October 31, 2005 and the feasibility study completed no later than June 30, 2006. The provisions of this section shall be in effect only from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2007. 1051887_1 ATTACHMENT \"C\" North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 - North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-2006 High School White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 587 (38.7%) 867 (57.2%) 63(4.1%) 1517 North Little Rock High (West) 647 (44.0%) 761 (51.8%) 61 (4.2%) 1469 Total High Schools 1234 (41.3%) 1628 (54.5%) 124 (4.2%) 2986 Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1 %) 175 (82.9%) 2(1.0%) 211 Total Middle Schools 764 (36.3%) 1246 (59.3%) 92 (4.4%) 2102 Elementari: Schools Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 - Boone Park Elementary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Crestwood Elementary 288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8 (2.1%) 384 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) 1 (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19 (3.6%) 534 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41(12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9 (4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 (84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3 (1.0%) 317 Total Elementary Schools 1477 (32.9%) 2755 (61.3%) 259 (5.8%) 4491 TOT AL DISTRICT 3475 (36.3%) 5629 (58.8%) 475 (4.9%) 9579 I 051903-1 ATTACHMENT \"D\" Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 High Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 569 (50.4%) 522 (46.2%) 38 (3.4%) 1129 Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) 897 Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1 %) 245 (39.1 %) 24 (3.8%) 627 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1 %) 41(4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 2642 (52.2%) 2242 (44.3%) 173 (3.5%) 5057 Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1 %) 29 (4.3%) 668 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) _m_ - Total Middle Schools 2024 (52.0%) 1693 (43.5%) 175 (4.5%) 3892 Elementary Schools Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30:5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Baker Elementary (Interdistrict) 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1 %) 529 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary (Interdistrict) 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Landmark Elementary 139 (44. l %) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%) 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1 %) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 - Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) 371 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 1051927-1 - Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 5184 (55.3%) 3715 (39.6%) 479 (5.1 %) 9378 TOT AL DISTRICT 9850 (53.7%) 7650 (41.7%) 827 (4.6%) 18327 1051927-1 ATTACHMENT \"E\" North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-2006 High Schools White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 76 (90.5%) 8 (9.5%) 0 84 North Little Rock High (West) 85 (82.5%) 18 (17.5%) Q 103 Total High Schools 161 (86.1 %) 26 (13.9%) 0 187 Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.6%) 2(4.1%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) _o_ 28 Total Middle Schools 130 (81.3%) 28 (17.5%) 2 (1.2%) 160 Elementarv Schools Amboy Elementary 24 (92.3%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 26 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (11.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%) 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Lakewood Elementary 24 (100%) O 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) 0 28 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) _o_ 28 Total Elementary Schools 346 (81.8%) 71 (16.8%) 6 (1.4%) 423 TOTAL DISTRICT 637 (82.7%) 125 (16.2%) 8 (1. 1 %) 770 I 051936-1 ATTACHMENT \"F\" Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-2006 High Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 0 76 North Pulaski High School 56 (83.6%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) 0 97 Total High Schools 333 (81.6%) 75 (18.4%) 0 408 Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 0 55 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13 (27.1%) 0 48 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 0 38 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) 0 fil. Total Middle Schools 249 (78.5%) 68 (21.5%) 0 317 Elementary Schools Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 0 23 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 0 40 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 College Station Elementary 20 (74. l %) 7 (25.9%) 0 27 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) 23 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (5.3%) 19 J acksonvi lie Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Landmark Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Lawson Elementary 17 (85.0%) 3 (15.0%) 0 20 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 - Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 1051950-1 - Robinson Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4(21.1%) 0 19 Total Elementary Schools 516 (80.1%) 123 (19.1%) 5 (.8%) 644 TOTAL DISTRICTS 1098 (80.2%) 266 (19.4%) 5 (.4%) 1369 I 051950-1 ATTACHMENT \"G\" North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 - North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-2006 White Black Other Total Central Office Superintendent l (100%) 0 0 1 Assistant Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Administrative Directors 4 (100%) 0 0 4 Chief Financial Officer 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Directors 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) 0 6 Coordinators 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 10 Specialists 2 (100%) 0 _Q _l Total Centi-al Office 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Building Level High School Principals East 1 (100%) 0 0 1 West 1 (100%) 0 0 l - Agenta Academy 0 1 (100%) 0 1 High School Assistant Principals East 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 4 West 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) Q -1 Total High Schools 5 (45.5%) 6 (54.5%) 0 11 Middle School Principals Lakewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Poplar Street 0 1 ( 100%) 0 1 Ridgeroad l (100%) 0 0 1 Rose City 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Middle School Assistant Principals Lakewood 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Ridgeroad 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Rose City 0 I (100%) _Q .1 Total Middle Schools 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 0 11 - I 051955-1 - Elementary School Principals Amboy 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Belwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Crestwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Glenview 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Lakewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Lynch Drive 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Meadow Park 0 l (100%) 0 1 North Heights 0 l (100%) 0 1 Park Hill l (100%) 0 0 1 Pike View 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Seventh Street 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Elementary School Assistant Principals Boone Park l (100%) 0 0 l Indian Hills 1 (100%) 0 0 Lynch Drive 0 1 (100%) 0 North Heights I (100%) 0 0 Seventh Street I (100%) 0 0 - Coordinator Redwood Pre School l (100%) 0 _Q _1 Total Elementary Schools 13 (68.4%) 6 (31.6%) 0 19 TOT AL ADMINISTRATION 45 (68.2%) 21 (31.8%) 0 66 I 051955-1 ATTACHMENT \"H\" Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-06 - Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-2006 Central Office White Black Other Total Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Assistant Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Directors 10 (83.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 12 Coordinators 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%) 0 16 Facilitator 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Consultants 2 (100%) 0 0 2 School Psychologist 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) _o_ _l Total Central Office 24 (66.7% 12 (33.3%) 0 36 High School Principals Jacksonville 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Pulaski 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oak Grove 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Robinson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 1 - High School Assistant Principals Jacksonville 3 (100%) 0 0 3 Mills 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 No11h Pulaski 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Robinson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Sylvan Hills 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) _o_ 2 Total High Schools 10 (55.6%) 8 (44.4%) 0 18 Middle School Principals Fuller 0 1 (100%) 0 Jacksonville (Girls) 1 (100%) 0 0 Jacksonville (Boys) 0 1 (100%) 0 Maumelle 1 (100%) 0 0 Northwood 0 1 (100%) 0 Robinson 1 (100%) 0 0 Sylvan Hills 0 1 (100%) 0 Middle School Assistant Principals Fuller 0 2 (100%) 0 2 J acksonvi Ile (Girls) 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Jacksonville (Boys) 0 I (100%) 0 1 Maumelle 0 I (100%) 0 1051965-1 - Northwood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 2 (100%) _o_ 2 Total Middle Schools 5 (38.5%) 8 (61.5%) 0 13 Elementary School Principals Adkins 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Arnold Drive 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Baker 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Bates 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meta 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Cato 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Clinton 0 1 (100%) 0 1 College Station l (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Dupree 0 l (100%) 0 1 Harris 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Jacksonville 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Landmark 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Lawson l (100%) 0 0 1 Oakbrooke 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oak Grove 0 l (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest l (100%) 0 0 1 Pinewood 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Robinson l (100%) 0 0 1 Scott l (100%) 0 o 1 Sherwood l (100%) 0 0 1 Sylvan Hills l (100%) 0 0 1 Taylor l (100%) 0 0 1 Tolleson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Elementary Assistant Principals Baker 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bates 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meta l (100%) 0 0 1 Clinton l (50.0%) l (50.0%) 0 1 Crystal Hill 0 l (100%) 0 1 Jacksonville 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Oakbrooke I (100%) 0 0 l Pine Forest 0 l (100%) 0 1 Pinewood 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Sylvan Hills 0 l (100%) 0 1 Taylor 0 1 (100%) _o_ 1 Total Elementary Schools 17 (45.9%) 20 (54.1 %) 0 37 1051965-1 ATTACHMENT \"I\" Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 High Schools Central High School Hall High School J .A. Fair High School McClellan High School (Magnet) Parkview High School (Stipulated) Accelerated Learning (9-12) Alternative Learning Center (H.S.) White 1033 (42.7%) 150 (10.8%) 127 (10.9%) 50 (5.8%) 496 (43.9%) 18 (14.0%) 5 (2.5%) Black Other 1273 (52.6%) 116 (4.7%) 1083 (78.0%) 155 (11.2%) 1006 (86.1%) 36 (3.0%) 779 (90.2%) 35 (4.0%) 559 (49.5%) 74 (6.6%) 109 (84.5%) 2 (1.5%) 193 (96.5%) 2 (1.0%) Total 2422 1388 1169 864 1129 129 200 Total High School 1879 (25.7%) 5002 (68.5%) 420 (5.8%) 7301 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 27 (4.2%) Dunbar Middle School (Magnet) 218 (26.9%) Forest Heights Middle School 121 (17.9%) Henderson Middle School 65 (10.3%) Mabel vale Middle School 77 (12.6%) Mann Middle School (Stipulated)  365 (42.9%) Pulaski Heights Middle School 307 (41.8%) Southwest Middle School 19 (4.1 %) Alternative Learning Center _(Mdl.) 5 (5.7%) Total Middle School 1204 (21.9%) Elementary Schools Bale Elementary 23 (6.9%) Baseline Elementary 17 (5.7%) Booker Arts Elementary (Stipulated) 253 (41.7%) Brady Elementary 40 (10.2%) Carver Elementary (Stipulated) 211 (39.6%) Chicot Elementary 34 (6.0%) Cloverdale (Closed 10-24-05) 7 (6.2%) Dodd Elementary 8 (3.7%) Fair Park Elementary 38 (29.2%) Forest Park Elementary 309 (75.9%) Franklin Elementary (Incentive) 10 (2.3%) Fulbright Elementary 445 (70.3%) Gayer Springs Elementary 15 (4.5%) Gibbs Elementary (Stipulated) 117 (39.4%) Jefferson Elementary 294 (66.5%) Mabelvale Elementary 50 (14.8%) McDermott Elementary 115 (25.1 %) Meadowcliff Elementary 42 (11.6%) 491 (77.2%) 118 (18.6%) 531 (65.5%) 62 (7.6%) 531 (78.6%) 24 (3.5%) 503 (79.8%) 62 (9.9%) 519 (84.7%) 17 (2.7%) 429 (50.5%) 56 (6.6%) 411 (56.0%) 16 (2.2%) 419 (91.1 %) 22 (4.8%) 80 (92.0%) 2 (2.3%) 3914 (71.2%) 379 (6.9%) 273 (81.7%) 38 (11.4%) 219 (74.0%) 60 (20.3%) 324 (53.4%) 30 (4.9%) 332 (84.3%) 22 (5.5%) 290 (54.4%) 32 (6.0%) 418 (74.l %) 112 (19.9%) 85 (75.2%) 21 (18.6%) 162 (74.7%) 47 (21.6%) 86 (66.2%) 6 (4.6%) 81 (19.9%) 17 (4.2%) 427 (97.0%) 3 (.7%) 152 (24.0%) 36 (5.7%) 301(90.4%) 17(5.1%) 158 (53.2%) 22 (7.4%) 142 (32.1 %) 6 (1.4%) 257 (76.0%) 31 (9.2%) 296 (64.6%) 47 (10.3%) 289 (79.6%) 32 (8.8%) 636 811 676 630 613 850 734 460 _.fil_ 5497 334 296 607 394 533 564 113 217 130 407 440 633 333 297 442 338 458 363 M.L. King Elementary (Interdistrict) 187 (30.2%) Otter Creek Elementary 154 (26.6%) Pulaski Heights Elementary 167 (50.0%) Rightsell Elementary (Incentive) 4 (2.2%) Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive) 107 (22.4%) Romine Elementary (Interdistrict) 28 (7.7%) Stephens Elementary 11 (2.0%) Terry Elementary 185 (28.2%) Wakefield Elementary 20 (4.1 %) Washington (Interdistrict) 78 (12.1 %) Watson Elementary 7 (1.5%) Western Hills Elementary 48 (16.8%) Williams Elementary (Stipulated) 177 (38.5%) Wilson Elementary 15 (5.4%) Woodruff Elementary 17 (7 .1 % ) 409 (66.1 % ) 23 (3.7%) 374 (64.5%) 52 (8.9%) 152 (45.5%) 15 (4.5%) 178(96.7%) 2(1.1%) 358 (75.1 %) 12 (2.5%) 290 (79.5%) 47 (12.8%) 527 (96.3%) 9 (1.7%) 375 (57.2%) 96 (14.6%) 366 (74.5%) 105 (21.4%) 516 (80.1 %) 50 (7.8%) 419 (91.5%) 32 (7.0%) 220 (76.9%) 18 (6.3%) 233 (50.7%) 50 (10.8%) 242 (87.7%) 19 (6.9%) 219 (92.0%) 2 (.9%) 619 580 334 184 477 365 547 656 491 644 458 286 460 276 238 Total Elementary Total District 3233 (23.9%) 9170 (67.9%) 1111 (8.2%) 13514 6316 (24.0%) 18086 (68.7%) 1910 (7.3%) 26312 ATTACHMENT \"J\" Building Capacities for Each of the Three Districts - Pulaski County Special School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacity 2005-2006 Used High Schools Jacksonville High School 1360 1129 83% Mills High School 1130 972 86% North Pulaski High School 1050 897 85% Oak Grove High School 1130 627 55% Robinson High School 770 674 88% Sylvan Hills High School 1120 1018 91% Middle Schools Fuller Middle School 1360 758 56% Jacksonville Middle School 1970 892 45% Maumelle Middle School 1360 447 33% Northwood Middle School 1030 668 65% Robinson Middle School 650 414 64% Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 713 66% Elementary Schools - Adkins Elementary 526 242 46% Arnold Drive Elementary 453 295 65% Baker Elementary 428 374 87% Bates Elementary 863 529 61% Bayou Meto Elementary 697 430 62% Cato Elementary 800 349 44% Clinton Elementary 840 672 80% College Station Elementary 439 201 46% Crystal Hill Elementary 870 794 91% Dupree Elementary 498 298 60% Hanis Elementary 906 266 29% Jacksonville Elementary 850 575 68% Landmark Elementary 711 315 44% Lawson Elementary 372 302 81% Oak Grove Elementary 626 324 52% Oakbrooke Elementary 553 433 78% Pine Forest Elementary 554 512 92% Pinewood Elementary 677 470 69% Robinson Elementary 544 371 68% Scott Elementary 294 131 45% Sherwood Elementary 561 401 71% Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 425 70% Taylor Elementary 566 378 67% Tolleson Elementary 291 561 52% 1051981-1 - North Little Rock School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacity 2005-2006 Used High Schools North Little Rock High (East) 1556 1517 97% North Little Rock High (West) 1700 1469 86% Middle Schools Lakewood Middle School 779 719 92% Poplar Street Middle Schoo 938 618 66% Ridgeroad Middle School 791 554 70% Rose City Middle School 466 211 45% Elementary Schools Amboy Elementary 462 350 76% Belwood Elementary 216 137 63% Boone Park Elementary 602 384 64% Crestwood Elementary 448 384 86% Glenview Elementary 254 158 62% Indian Hills Elementary 586 534 91% Lakewood Elementary 425 385 91% Lynch Drive Elementary 549 338 62% Meadow Park Elementary 257 195 76% North Heights Elementary 559 389 70% Park Hill Elementary 367 332 90% Pike View Elementary 507 376 74% Redwood Pre-School 228 213 93% Seventh Street Elementary 516 317 61% 1051981-1 Little Rock School District Building Capacities Capacity Enrollment % Capacitv 2005-2006 Used High Schools Central High School 2276 2422 106% Hall High School 1754 1389 79% J.A. Fair High School 1200 1169 97% McClellan High School 1440 864 60% Parkview High School 1200 1129 94% Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 885 636 72% Dunbar Middle School 888 811 91% Forest Heights Middle School 780 676 87% Henderson Middle School 960 630 66% Mann Middle School 900 850 94% Mabelvale Middle School 681 613 90% - Pulaski Heights Middle School 858 734 86% Southwest Middle School 912 460 5.0% Elementarv Schools Bale Elementary 488 334 68% Baseline Elementary 360 296 82% Booker Arts Elementary 645 607 94% Brady Elementary 528 394 75% Carver Elementary 556 533 96% Chicot Elementary 509 564 111% Cloverdale Elementary 489 113 23% Dodd Elementary 271 289 107% Fair Park Elementary 304 130 43% Forest Park Elementary 400 407 102% Franklin Elementary 532 440 83% Fulbright Elementary 565 633 112% Gayer Springs Elementary 358 333 93% Gibbs Elementary 321 297 93% Jefferson Elementary 471 442 94% Mabelvale Elementary 443 338 76% McDennott Elementary 453 458 101% Meadowcliff Elementary 358 363 101% M.L. King Elementary 715 619 87% - Otter Creek Elementary 537 580 108% 1051981-1 Pulaski Heights Elementary 350 334 95% Rightsell Elementary 296 184 62% Rockefeller Elementary 481 477 99% Romine Elementary 507 365 72% Stephens Elementary 646 547 85% Terry Elementary 575 656 114% Wakefiled Elementary 482 491 102% Washington Elementary 836 644 77% Watson Elementary 591 458 77% West em Hills Elementary 320 286 89% Williams Elementary 585 460 79% Wilson Elementary 340 276 81% Woodruff Elementary 314 238 76% 1051981-1 ATTACHMENT \"K\" Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 - Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments - 2005-2006 White Black Total High Schools Central High School 103 (66.0%) 53 (34.0%) 156 Hall High School 66 (62.9%) 39 (37.1 %) 105 J.A. Fair High School 57 (64.0%) 32 (36.0%) 89 McClellan High School (Magnet) 41 (51.3%) 39 (48.7%) 80 Parkview High School (Magnet) 59 (69.4%) 26 (30.6%) 85 Total High Schools 326 (63.3%) 189 (36.7%) 515 Middle Schools Cloverdale Middle School 23 (37.7%) 38 (62.3%) 61 Dunbar Middle School (Magnet) 35 (57.4%) 26 (42.6%) 61 Forest Heights Middle School 37 (57.8%) 27 (42.2%) 64 Henderson Middle School 32 (50.8%) 31 (49.2%) 63 Mann Middle School (Magnet) 33 (50.0%) 33 (50.0%) 66 Mabelvale Middle School 43 (74.1%) 15 (25.9%) 58 Pulaski Heights Middle School 46 (78.0%) 13 (22.0%) 59 Southwest Middle School 16 (30.8%) 36 (69.2%) 52 - Total Middle Schools 265 (54.8%) 219 (45.2%) 484 Elementary Schools Bale Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Baseline Elementary 10 (38.5%) 16 (61.5%) 26 Booker Arts Elementary (Magnet) 39 (70.9%) 16 (29.1%) 55 Brady Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Carver Elementary (Magnet) 29 (69.0%) 13 (31.0%) 42 Chicot Elementary 33 (75.0%) 11 (25.0%) 44 Cloverdale Eleme~t\"ry Dodd Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Fair Park Elementary 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 9 Forest Park Elementary 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) 26 Franklin Elementary (Incentive) 14 (36.8%) 24 (63.2%) 38 Fulbright Elementary 31 (79.5%) 8 (20.5%) 39 Geyer Springs Elementary 13 (52.0%) 12 (48.0%) 25 Gibbs Elementary (Magnet) 21 (72.4%) 8 (27.6%) 29 Jefferson Elementary 23 (74.2%) 8 (25.8%) 31 King Elementary (Magnet) 24 (53.3%) 21 (46.7%) 45 Mabelvale Elementary 20 (69.0%) 9 (31.0%) 29 McDem1ott Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Meadowcliff Elementary 18 (66.7%) 9 (33.3%) 27 Mitchell Elementary (Incentive) 1051993-1 -- Otter Creek Elementary 27 (77.1%) 8 (22.9%) 35 Pulaski Heights Elementary 18 (81.8%) 4 (18.2%) 22 Rightsell Elementary (Incentive) 6 (33.3%) 12 (67.7%) 18 Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive) 30 (83.3%) 6 (16.7%) 36 Romine Elementary (Inter-district) 12 (41.4%) 17 (58.6%) 29 Stephens Elementary 23 (52.3%) 21 (47.7%) 44 Terry Elementary 31 (86.1%) 5 (13.9%) 36 W akefiled Elementary 22 (62.9%) 13 (37.1%) 35 Washington Elementary (Magnet) 24 (45.3%) 29 (54.7%) 53 Watson Elementary 23 (65.7%) 12 (34.3%) 35 W estem Hills Elementary 16 (76.2%) 5 (23.8%) 21 Williams Elementary (Magnet) 29 (80.6%) 7 (19.4%) 36 Wilson Elementary 16 (59.3%) 11 (40.7%) 27 Woodruff Elementary 11 (50.0%) 11 (50.0%) 22 Total Elementary Schools 662 (64.4%) 366 (35.6%) 1028 TOTALS 1253 (61.8%) 774 (38.2%) 2027 1051993-1 ATTACHMENT \"L\" Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-2006 White Black Other Total Central Office Superintendent 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Deputy Superintendent 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Associate Superintendent 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Government Legislative Affairs 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Chief Financial Officer 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Directors 11 (61.1%) 7 (38.9%) 0 18 Coordinators 8(42.1%) 11 (57.9%) 0 19 Specialists 1 (7.7%) 12 (92.3%) _Q u Total Central Office 23 (40.4%) 34 (59.6%) 0 57 Building Level High School Principals Central 1 (100%) 0 0 1 - Fair 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Hall 1 (100%) 0 0 1 McClellan 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Parkview 1 (100%) 0 0 1 High School Assistant Principals Central 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.7%) 0 6 Fair 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Hall 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 4 McClellan 3 (100%) 0 0 3 Parkview 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) _Q 1 Total High Schools 14 (56.0%) 11 (44.0%) 0 25 Middle School Principals Cloverdale 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Dunbar 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Forest Heights 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Henderson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mabel vale l (100%) 0 0 1 Mann l (100%) 0 0 1 Pulaski Heights 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Southwest 0 l (100%) 0 1 1051998-1 - Middle School Assistant Principals Cloverdale 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Dunbar 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Forest Heights 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Henderson 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Mabel vale 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Mann 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Pulaski Heights 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Southwest 0 2 (100%) _Q 2 Total Middle Schools 12 (44.4%) 15 (55.6%) 0 27 Elementary School Principals Bale 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Baseline 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Booker 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Brady 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Carver I (100%) 0 0 1 Chicot I (100%) 0 0 1 Cloverdale* 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Dodd 1 (100%) 0 0 1 - Fair Park Elementary Forest Park 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Franklin 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Fulbright 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Geyer Springs 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Gibbs 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Jefferson 1 (100%) 0 0 1 King 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Mabel vale 0 1 (100%) 0 1 McDermott 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Meadowcliff 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Mitchell Elementary Otter Creek 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Pulaski Heights 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rightsell 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rockefeller 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Romine 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Stephens 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Terry 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Wakefield I (100%) 0 0 1 Washington 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Watson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 - Western Hills 1 (100%) 0 0 1 105 I 998-1 - Williams 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Wilson 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Woodruff 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Elementary Assistant Principals Booker 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Carver 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Chicot 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Fulbright 1 (100%) 0 0 1 King 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Otter Creek 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Rockefeller 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Stevens 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Terry 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Wakefield 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Washington 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Williams 0 1 (100%) _Q l Total Elementary Schools 20 (45.5%) 24 (54.5%) 0 44 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 69(45.1%) 84 (54.9%) 0 153 1051998-1 ATTACHMENT \"M\" \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement\" by Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (January 31, 2002) v\\kst1iw. L,,' 159WELR407 Page I 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) C West's Education Law Reporter January 31, 2002 Commentary *407 SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASES: THE \"GOOD FAITH\" REQUIREMENT LI::lli} Charles L. Patin, Jr., J.D. and William M. Gordon, Ed.D., J.D. [FNI] Copyright 2002 by West Group - No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works Stephen Furr, a member of the Rapides Parish School Board, aptly commented following a discussion about the \"good faith\" requirement in school desegregation cases that: The \"good faith\" requirement may be the single most difficult of all the requirements of a unitary system. It demands a change in attitude which must be evidenced in the words and actions of the members of the Board and all those connected with the school system. (emphasis supplied.) In the wake of the United States Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Freeman v. Pitts. [FN2] the underlying test as to whether a school district has operated in \"good faith\" and is entitled to the entry of a judgment terminating judicial supervision in a school desegregation case is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" [FN3] (emphasis supplied.) Freeman's test, its origin and development, and a discussion of the kinds of actions school districts should undertake in its aftermath fonn the subject matter of this article. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOOD FAITH REQUIREMENT IN FREEMAN v. PITTS The origin of the \"good faith\" requirement can be traced to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brown II. [FN4] There the Court commanded *408 \"good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date [,]\" [FNS] with its landmark decision in Brown I. (FN6] Brown I declared state imposed segregation in the field of public elementary and secondary education unconstitutional as in violation of the guarantees in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Brown II, decided during the following term of the Court, placed primary responsibility upon local school districts to undertake necessary action to convert to unitary systems \"with all deliberate speed\" [fn7] AND CHARGED federal district courts with the responsibility of assessing \"whether the action of local school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles(]\" elucidated in Brown I. (FN8] It also directed governments at all levels to undertake af{irmative steps to dismantle laws requiring or permitting segregation in the area of public education. The Court observed that \"[a]ll provisions of federal, state and local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to [the principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional].\" [FN9) Implicit in Brown II was an expectation that local school districts would come forward with plans to establish unitary systems and that states would adopt legislation to repeal statutes requiring separate educational opportunities and facilities for the races. From its inception, therefore, \"good faith\" envisioned that voluntary action would be taken by local school district  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~ffk (_/' 159 WELR407 Page2 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) and state officials to comply with the rule of law in Brown I and the mandate in Brown II. In most, if not all, instances the initial response of school districts \"to the mandate in Brown II was an all too familiar one. Interpreting 'all deliberate speed' as giving latitude to delay steps to desegregate,\" (FNl OJ school districts undertook virtually no action to convert to unitary systems in the decade following Brown II. But the time for \"all deliberate speed\" was drawing to an end. In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, [lliill decided just over a decade after Brown II, the Court stated \"the time fo~ mere 'deliberate speed' has run out[.]\" (FN12) \"The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises to realistically work now. (FNl3) (emphasis by the Court.) The Green Court observed It is incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any *409 alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the stateimposed dual system \"at the earliest practicable date,\" then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith[. (FN14) (emphasis supplied.) Green went on to identify areas or facets of the operations of school districts in which prior state sanctioned discrimination must be eliminated. These areas or facets in which vestiges of prior dual education systems for the races lingered were said to be comprised of student assignm~nts, administrative, faculty and staff assignments, extra-curricular activities, transportation, and facilities. Discrimination in these areas was to be eliminated \"root and branch.\" (FNl5) Subsequent cases expanded these areas so as to include resource allocations, as addressed in Swann y. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (FN 16) and the right to a \"quality education,\" (FN 17) as discussed in Freeman. These areas may be said in a practical way to constitute what we understand today as the \"Green Factors.\" \"The Green factors are a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance with Brown[.]\" (FNl 8) The expanding role of federal district courts, foreshadowed in Green, was to come to fruition in Swann. The Swann Court announced where \"school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under [Brown II and Green], judicial authority may be invoked.\" (FN l 91 This language formally ushered in the era of federally imposed school desegregation orders. The power of federal district courts to fashion school desegregation orders through their equity jurisdiction came with the concomitant obligation that school districts implement them in good faith. The good faith requirement of Brown II was thus expanded. \"Good faith\" could be demonstrated not only through self-initiated voluntary action but also through the implementation of the orders of courts sufficient to demonstrate a good faith commitment to the principles of equality in the Fourteenth Amendment. The next major developmental step was to come decades later in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.Dowcll. (FN20] There the Court observed that the issue of whether a school district should be declared unitary, and judicial supervision terminated, must turn on whether a school district has implemented \"in good faith ... the desegregation decree since it was entered, and whether the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable.\" [FN2 l] (emphasis supplied.) The requirement that all vestiges of past discrimination be eliminated to the extent practicable formally recognized what to that point in time had been more or less implicit in the cases--that is *410 say a school district's good faith must be assessed in light of its policies and action as they relate to compliance with the remedial measures in orders of the court, any remaining Green Factors which were not addressed in those orders, and any other facets of the operation of a school district  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. \"{ A r,_,a.f\nVVt.\nl..ill.w. l,,/ 159 WELR4O7 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) in which other vestiges of discrimination might still exist. (FN22] Page 3 Dowell clarified whatever ambiguity earlier cases might have interjected into the analysis federal district courts were to employ in approaching a school district's motion for unitary status. Mere compliance with the verbage of a federal school desegregation order limiting remedial actions to less than all of the Green Factors would not suffice. The requisite showing of good faith also must involve a judicial finding that a school district has eliminated past discrimination in all facets of its operations to the extent practicable. Dowell, therefore, demonstrated a continuing commitment by the Court to the principles it had earlier announced in Brown I, and the mandate and requirements in Brown II, Green and Swann. Even though language in many of the older federal school desegregation orders was limited to specific remedial actions, usually in the areas of student and faculty and staff assignments, Dowell reiterated a unitary school system is one in which all vestiges of prior discrimination have been eliminated to the extent _practicable. On the heels of Dowell came Freeman. It underscored what had been said a year earlier in Dowell: \"a school district that was once dual must be examined in all of its facets, ... when the question is whether the district court's remedial control ought to be modified, lessened, or withdrawn.\" [FN231 But Freeman's pronouncements on good faith went much further than prior case law and were to fim1ly entrench good faith as an essential requirement of a unitary system. Freeman recognized good faith compliance as \"one of the prerequisites to relinquishment of [judicial) control[.)\" [FN24J A good faith commitment to the entirety of a school district's desegregation plan was viewed as necessary \"in order to insure that the principal wrong of the de jure system, the injuries and stigma inflicted upon the race disfavored by the violation, [would be) no longer present.\" [FN25] This finding in tum requires a showing by a school district sufficie~t to \"demonstrate[), to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" [FN26] Only a voluntary change of attitude, evidenced in the words and actions of the members of a school board and all those connected with a school system, is sufficient to make this showing. *411 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Court in Freeman observed that \"(a) history of good-faith compliance\" is necessary in order that a federal district court may \"accept [a) school board's representation that it has accepted the principle ofracial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future.\" [FN27] Moreover, [c)ourts have recognized that the mere adoption of a racially neutral remedial plan is not tantamount to desegregation. Thus, where a court has reason to believe that a discriminatory animus still taints local decisionmaking, it may be appropriate for the court to retain jurisdiction for some period after neutral procedures have been implemented. [FN28] (citations omitted\nemphasis supplied.) Accordingly, a good faith showing cannot be based upon a temporary ritualistic change in behavior on the eve of filing a motion for unitary status. A pattern of dedication to the whole of the court's orders and to the constitutional principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment must be shown for a \"reasonable period of time.\" [FN29] The case law appears to suggest that a \"reasonable period of time\" consists of at least three years from the commencement of the implementation of a desegregation plan. [FN301 Freeman, therefore, may be viewed as a culminating step in the Court's development of the \"good faith\" requirement\na development which has spanned nearly four decades. Its essential aspects, traceable to Brown !I's call for voluntary action and judicial oversight, remain firmly intact. What Freeman adds is a requirement that a specific judicial finding be made that a school district has taken sufficient and consistent action for a reasonable period of time to convey and demonstrate a) a  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. -1 lAv~T1,....,4J~.a' .W. L/ 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) Page 4 change of attitude to those on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought, and b) an acceptance of Fourteenth Amendment principles sufficient to suggest to the a:urr that if judicial supervision is relinquished the school district will not likely return to its former discriminatory ways. It must be remembered that the jurisdiction of federal courts in school desegregation cases is derived through their equity jurisdiction. \"Clean *412 hands,\" a cornerstone tenet of equity, must be shown by a school district seeking relief from a school desegregation order. A school district's clean hands can only be shown through compliance with the orders of the court and an acceptance of the principles embodied within the Fourteenth Amendment sufficient to demonstrate \"to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" Only with a change in attitude evidencing a comm1tment to the principle of equality of educational opportunities for all children is such a demonstration possible. ACTION WHICH DEMONSTRATES GOOD FAITH \"A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations [.)\" [FN31 J Accordingly, school boards should have all existing policies in the areas of student assignments, administrative, faculty W1ZJ and staff assignments, extra-curricular activities, transportation, facilities, resource allocations to determine whether they comport with the requirements of Green, Swann, Singleton (FN33] and Freeman. Where policies do not exist, they should be voluntarily adopted and submitted to the parties for ri,view and comment and to the court for approval. In addition to policies designed to address Green Factors per se, there will likely be a need to consider adoption of policies addressing student discipline, teacher recruitment, harassment of students becau~e of race or color, measures to increase minority participation in gifted and .alented programs and other advanced courses, parental and community involvement practices and procedures, and perh:!ps other areas as well. The need for these more particularized policies will depend upon the facts in a given case. Other action may be necessary as well. In this regard, Freeman and its progeny offer helpful examples. Freeman involved a motion for unitary status by the DeKalb County School District (hereinafter referred to as the \"DCSD\") which had operated under federal supervision since 1969. Partial unitary status was granted in the area of student assignments, and three other areas as well. (FN34] Because of the obvious significance of student assignments, the Court's reasoning in this area will be examined more closely. It offers exc~!!ent examples of actions school districts can take to demonstrate good faith. At the time of the filing of the motion for unitary status, approximately 73,000 students were enrolled in the DCSD in grades kindergarten through twelve. Over the ensuing years preceding the filing of the unitary status motion in 1986, the DCSD had experienced significant changes in the racial *413 composition of its student population. The school district's overall resident population had grown from about 70,000 residents to approximately 450,000 persons in about a thirty year span. The racial composition of the student population had grown from a little under six percent black in 1969 to 47 percent black in 1986. Remarkable demographic changes occurred as well. The northern portion of the school district had become predominately white, while the southern portion had become predominately black. Mindful of the \"continuing\" nature of the duty to desegregate, (FN35] the DCSD had made \"about 170\" boundary line changes to its student attendance zones since the filing of the school desegregation lawsuit. [FN36l Only three of the 170 student attendance zone changes were fcund to have had even a partial segregative effect. (FN3 7] The school district had initiated a mnj0rity-to-minority (\"M-to-M) student transfer policy in 1972 to promote voluntary stu-  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Vks'fuiw. t,.....,- 159 WELR407 Page 5 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) dent transfers to increase levels of desegregation and minimize racial isolation. M-to-M transfers permit a student whose race is in the majority in his/her stude_nt attendance zone school to transfer to a school in another student attendance zone in which his/her race will be in the minority. In general, M-to-M transfers permit black students attending predominately black schools to transfer to predominately white schools until the racial composition of the receiving school reaches 50 percent white and 50 percent black or some other percentage depending upon school board policy or an order of the court. M-to-M transfers also are available to white students enrolled in predominately white schools who desire to transfer to_a predominately black school. Magnet programs were instituted in the early J 980's. A performing arts, two science, and foreign language magnet programs were offered. [FN38) These programs were located in schools in the middle of the school district to better draw both white and black students residing in the northern and southern portions of the school district. In addition, racially integrated \"experience programs\" were offered in areas such a writing for fifth and seventh graders, a driving range, summer school programs, and a dialectical speech program. Measures were employed by the DCSD to control the racial mix in each of these programs to insure that they would be operated on a desegregated basis. (FN39) Finally, it is significant to note that the Court observed that \"only infrequent and limited judicial intervention into the affairs of [the DCSD) (]\" had been required during the period of judicial supervision. (FN40) This served as further evidence of a pattern of substantial compliance over the years with the court's orders. (FN41) *414 These combined actions, and the lack of a need for constant judicial intervention, were deemed sufficient by the Court to show that the DCSD had \"achieved the maximum practical desegregation from 1969 to I 986.\" [FN42) Lower federal court decisions in the wake of Freeman provide additional examples.- A few of them are discussed here. ~ ning v. School Board of Hillsborough County Florida (FN43) involved an appeal by a school district to a district court judgment denying a motion for unitary status. The school district had operated under a court imposed school desegregation order from the early l 970's until 1991 when a consent decree had been entered into by the parties and approved by the court. The consent decree modified the court's earlier order. It was to be implemented over a seven year period. One of the major aspects of the consent decree was the elimination of sixth grade center schools. These were replaced by middle schools under the terms of the decree. In 1994, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the consent decree. The motion was referred by the court to a magistrate who recommended denying the motion. In response to the recommendation, the court deferred ruling on the motion and remanded the matter to the magistrate to consider of whether the school district had achieved unitary status and was entitled to termination of judicial supervision. The motion was tried before the magistrate in 1996. In 1997, the magistrate recommended to the court that it find the school district unitary and terminate judicial supervision. Testimony was offered and considered by the magistrate on the issue of good faith in accordance with Freeman. Based upon the testimony, the magistrate judge concluded the school district had complied in good faith with the court's decree. Testimony was offered by the superintendent, the school board's chairman and several of its members. The testimony of the school district witnesses was found to show a commitment to Fourteenth Amendment principles. The superintendent testified \"he felt 'a moral and legal obligation on the school system to continue a desegregated school system.'\" (FN44) The chairman of the school board testified the school board was \"going to guarantee that students will receive [an] equal education.\" (FN45) School board members \"expressed no misgivings about ... the intent and ability of the School Board to continue a desegregated school system while receiving input from all members of the community.\" (FN46)  2006 Tlt0111son/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~ (_/\" 159 WELR 407 Page 6 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) In addition, a twenty-five year history of compliance with the court's orders was observed by the magistrate. Not once had the school district been found in violation of any court order. Furthermore, the magistrate found the school district had regularly conferred with the plaintiffs \"to ensure that the school system was moving forwards, not backwards, toward compliance with the [c]ourt's orders.\" [FN47l Based upon this evidence, the magistrate concluded the action of the school district \"demonstrates that [the school board has] accepted the principle of racial equality and will not revert back to a dual school system.\" (FN48J *415 However, the district court rejected the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the court of appeals' discussion of the good faith requirement focused on factors such as a) the school district's history of never violating a court order\nb) the school district had never been sanctioned\nand c) the school district had consulted extensively with the black community, including the plaintiffs, prior to implementing new student assignments under the I 99 I consent decree. (FN49] In addition, the court noted magnet programs had been adopted specifically to reduce racial isolation and to promote desegregation, that a multicultural curriculum for students in all grades had been proposed and that special in-servicing for teachers was provided to enable them to deal with diverse student populations. [FN50J The court went on to note \"a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations.' \" (FNS I J The district court's ruling was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings before the district court judge. The school district's history of compliance, the use of magnet programming, and its regular discussions with the \"AfricanAmerican\" community were sufficient to demonstrate to those on whose behalf the case had b~en filed that the school d_istrict had made a commitment \"to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" In Lockett v. Board of Education of Muscogee County School District, (FNS2l the court of appeals observed that A good faith commitment to a desegregation plan also demonstrates to parents, stvdents, and the public that students will no longer suffer injury or stigma. At the same time, it \"enables the district court to accept the school board's representation that [the school board] has accepted the principal of racial equality and will not suffer intentional discrimination in the future.\" To determine if a school board has shown a good faith commitment to a desegregation plan, a district court should, among other things, consider whether the school board's policies \"fom1 a consistent pattern of lawful conducted directed to eliminating earlier violations.\" (citations o:nitted.) The court went on to observed that the school board had a history of a) having never been enjoined or sanctioned\nb) having never failed lo comply with a court order\nc) taking actions to further desegregation above and beyond what was required in the court's plan\nd) taking unsurpassed actions to maintain the highest levels of desegregation within its schools of any school *416 system in the nation\ne) successfully implementing magnet programs which had desegregated schools\nf) consulting with both white and black citizens prior to adoption of a neighborhood student assignment plan\nand g) implementing a majority- to-minority student transfer plan to offset any negative racial impact of the neighborhood student assignment plan. (f-N53J This conduct was found sufficient to support a finding of good faith. Reed v. Rhodes (FNS41 involved a motion to modify a consent decree and terminate judicial supervision over student assignments in the Cleveland Public School System. After citing Freeman and noting the necessity that a school district must have demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's [seminal remedial order] and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance(, [FNSSJ  2006 Th9mson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~'kiw. L--'' 159 WELR 407 Page 7 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) the court observed the school district had not only complied with the student assignment plan to the extent practicable but, also, that it had implemented far more demanding compliance requirements ... to override the demographics of the City of Cleveland. In addition to extensive student attendance, zone boundary changes and clustering, provision for minority-to-minority transfers, magnet schools, and community schools, the District also implemented one of the nation's most extensive and arduous programs of mandatory student reassignments and transportation. The District reassigned students annually during this period to ensure that schools that had fallen out of compliance due to population mobility within [the] District were returned to compliance within the \"I 5io requirement. A comparison of the Cleveland School District's compliance with the student assignment component of the Remedial Order as incorporated into the Consent Decree with the history of compliance approved by the Supreme Court in Freeman compels the conclusion that the Cleveland District achieved \"full and satisfactory\" compliance with court-imposed requirements during the relevant periods. [FN5G) CONCLUSION What has remained consistent throughout the development of the good faith requirement is the need for voluntary action. A history of compliance with the orders of the court, punctuated by minimal judicial intervention into the affairs of a school district\nthe adoption and implementation of school board policies demonstrating a consistent pattern of lawful conduct\nthe use of M-to-M transfers and magnet programming to reduce racial isolation\nregular communications between the parties and members of the African American community, all require voluntary action and serve to evidence good faith by demonstrating *417 to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. In short, the long journey to unitary status cannot be completed where a school district's compliance is constantly coerced by judicial edict or the intercession of others acting on behalf of the court to fashion policies compliant with the law. A history of foot-dragging and contentiousness, with the concomittant need for frequent judicial i'ntervention, cannot demonstrate acceptance of the principle of equality embedded in the Fourteenth Amendment or demonstrate to the court that once judicial supervision is terminated that it will be unlikely that a school district would return to its fonner ways. (FNaJ The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. Cite as 159 Ed.Law Rep. [407] (Jan. 31, 2002). [FN I]. Charles L. Patin, Jr. is a partner with the Baton Rouge law firm of Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan and Jarman, L.L.P. Mr. Patin successfully negotiated the consent judgment in \"Valley, et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board,\" and serves as lead desegregation attorney for the Rapides Parish School Board. Dr. \\Villiam M. Gordon is a school desegregation expert and consultant with over 30 years of experience. He has provided expert and consulting services for a number of school districts and state departments of education, as well as plaintiff groups and the United States Department of Justice. He has been certified as an expert in school desegregation by a number of federal district courts and has worked with school districts in their efforts to obtain unitary status. He now resides on Two-Goat Road in Saluda, North Carolina. [FN2]. 503 U.S. 467 112 S.Ct. 1430 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (72 Ed.Law Rep. (717)] (1992). [r-N3]. lei. \u0026lt;114 91 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN4]. Brown v. Bomcl of Education ofTopeb /Brown [I) 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955).  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. \"I'. AT _ _,,rfJ V~taw. 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN5]. Id at 300. 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FN6]. Brown v. Board ofEducation of Topeka. (Brown I} 347 U.S. 483 74 S.Ct. 686. 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). [FN7]. 349 U.S. at 299 and 301. 75 S.ct. at-------- ancl --------. [FN8]. Id. at 299. 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FN9]. Id. at 298, 75 S.Ct. at--------. [FNI0). Freeman 503 U.S. at 472. 112 S.Ct. at--------. [fiill.J. 391 U.S. 430. 88 S.Ct. 1689. 20 LEd. 2d 716 (1968). Page 8 [FN12]. Id. at 438. 88 S.Ct. at--------, citing Griffin v. Countv School Board, 377 U.S. 218 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226 --------. 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (I 964). [FNI 3]. Green 391 U.S. at 439. [FN14]. Id. [FNI 5]. Id. at 438. [FNl6]. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education 402 U.S. 1, 18, 91 S.Ct. 1267, -------- 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). [FN17]. Freeman 503 U.S. at 482. [FN 18]. Id. 503 U.S. at 486. [FN19]. Swann, 402 U.S. I, 15, 91 S.ct. 1267. ----------. [FN20]. 498 U.S. 237, 111 S.Ct. 630 112 L.Ed.2d 715 [64 eD.lAW rEP. [628]] (1991). [.E]fljJ. 498 U.S. at 249-50 111 S.Ct. at--------. See Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of State of Delaware 90 F.3d 752, 760 [I 11 Ed.Law Rep. [ 132]] (3rd Cir.1996) (observing \"the phrase 'to the extent practicable' implies a reasonable limit on the duration of ... federal supervision\"). [FN22]. See Manning v. School Board of Hillsborough Countv, Florida, 244 F.3d 927 at p. 11 [152 Ed.Law Rep. [51]] (11th Cir.(Fla.)} (citing Freeman and observing \"For a district court to determine whether the vestiges of discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable, it must examine the six Green factors .... Using its discretion, a court may also consider other facets(] (emphasis supplied\")). In Freeman the use of this discretion was utilized to cite discrimination in the assignment of experienced and advanced degree teachers as a lingering vestige of the former dual system. [FN23]. 503 U.S. at 486 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN24]. Id. at 490 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN25]. Id. at 485, 112 S.Ct. at--------.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.  v-ks1'8w. L/' 159 WELR407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN26]. Id. at 491, 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN27]. Id. at 498, 112 S.Ct. at--------. Page 9 [FN28]. Morgan v. Nucci, 831 F.2d 313. 321 (42 Ed.Law Rep. [514]] (1st Cir.1987), cited with favor in Freeman 503 U.S. at 498-99 112 S.Ct. at--------. (FN29]. Dowell 498 U.S. at 248-49 111 S.Ct. at-------- (observing a desegregation decree may be dissolved after compliance for a \"reasonable period of time\n\" the Court further observed that the \"passage of time enables the district court to observe the good faith of the school board in complying with the decree\"). [FN30]. See Lee v. Etowah County Board of Education, 963 F.2d 1416, 1422 [75 Ed.Law Rep. [195l) (11th Cir.1992) (observing \"the district court must retain jurisdiction for a period of time after the school system has implemented a desegregation plan. to guard against the possibility of recurring constitutional violations, and to ensure the achievement of the ultimate goal-- a unitary public school system in which the state does not discriminate between children on the basis of race. After a period of time sufficient to achieve these objectives has elapsed--this court has required a period of not less than three years- a district court may terminate a desegregation case by holding a hearing to determine if the school system has achieved unitary status\" [emphasis supplied])\nsee also United States v. Texas Education A0 ency 647 F.2d 504 508-09 (5th Cir.1981) cert. denied. 454 U.S. 1143 71 L.Ed.2d 295. 102 S.Ct. 1002 (1982) (observing district courts must retain jurisdiction in school desegregation cases \"for a period of not less than three years\" to insure proper implementation of a desegregation plan). [FN3 l ]. Freeman 503 U.S. at 491 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN32). In the area of faculty assignments, care should be taken to assure the non-discriminatory and proportional assignments of certified, advanced degreed and specialist certificated, and experienced teachers throughout a school system. [FN33). Si1wleton v. Jackson Mimicipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1969). [FN34). 503 U.S. at 471 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN35). See Green 391 U.S. at 439. [FN36). Freeman 503 U.S. at 479. 112 S.Ct. at--------. [FN37). Id. [FN38). Id. [FN39). Id. at 479-80. [FN40J. Id. at 473. [FN4 l l. Frequent contentious litigation, whether initiated by plaintiffs contending a school district is not fulfilling its obligations under the court's orders or whether initiated by a school district seeking to avoid, or narrow the scope of, its obligations. is not conducive to a finding of a history of good faith compliance. [FN42). Id. at 4S0.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. 1Ai-4G' V~L-aW. (.../ 159 WELR 407 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (Cite as: 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407) [FN43). 244 F.3d 927 (152 Ed.Luw Rep. (51]] {I Ith Cir.{Fla.)l. [FN44). Id. at 9. ~.Id. [FN46). Id. [FN47]. Id. [FN48). Id. Page 10 [FN49). An example of how such communication may be facilitated in the context of a consent judgment is language found in the recent Consent Judgment approved by the court in Valley, et al. v. Rapides Parish School Board, Civil Action No. I 0946, USDC W. D. La. It requires formation of a \"working group\" composed of school district personnel and citizens of the parish selected by counsel for plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor. [FN50). Manning, 244 F.3cl 927 at 6. [FN5l). Jd. at 14. (FN52). 111 F.3d 839 843 [117 Ed.Law Rep. [4871) {11th Cir.1997). [FN53). 111 F.3ct at 843-44. (FN54]. 934 F.Supp. I 533 [112 Ed.Law Rep. (7791) !N.D.Ohio 1996). affirmed, 179 F.3cl 453 (I 35 Ed.Law Rep. [929]] {6th Cir.1999). (FN55). Id. at 1548. [FN56). Id. at 1550-51. END OF DOCUMENT  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ATTACHMENT \"N\" \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts\" by William M. Gordon and David E. Bartz 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (July 1, 1993) '\\J '\\vht\u0026lt;!.Sa(f.!w . 82 WELR283 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) West's Education Law Reporter July, 1993 Commentary Page I *283 ACHIEVING UNITARY STATUS UNDER THE COMBINED STANDARDS OF DOWELL AND PITTS [FNa] William M. Gordon, Ed.D., J.D. and David E. Bartz, Ph.D. [FNaa] Copyright 1993 by West Publishing Company - No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works School desegregation litigation since the mid-1980's has focused on efforts by school systems to be rel_eased from court supervision and being declared unitary. Unitary statu~ in school desegregation occurs when the federal district court desolves all injunctions and releases the school district from further court supervision. In light of the recent Supreme Court's decisions in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (FNl] and Freeman v. Pitts, (FN2) unitary status has once again been addressed and it is important to understand the context of these two cases. Behind Dowell and Pitts is a mountain of school desegregation litigation that in many instances spans twenty-five years or more. From cases where the original named plaintiffs are no longer involved, to instances where the children of the children involved in the original litigation have graduated from the public schools, an element of staleness accompanies the court-ordered remedies. District court judges who have presided over the same litigation for several decade_s or judges who have inherited twenty-five year old cases are tired of the wrangljng and want to see the controversies ended. Within this climate, litigants in school desegregation should not have been surprised that the Supreme Court finally became reattached and that the standards under the law were changed. Elimination of segregation \"root and branch,\" the standard for over twenty-five years, has for all practical purposes given way to a lesser standard, allowing the courts to overlook or let school systems excuse segregative situations that in the past would not have been acceptable. Therefore, before reviewing this current direction of the Supreme Court, it is worthwhile to review several lower court decisions of the late 1980s that appear to have been the precursors to the current direction of school desegregation and unitary status. In 1989 four significant cases focused on the defendant's motions to have all injunctions in effect dissolved, have all court supervision terminated and have the school systems declared unitary. Two of the cases involved *284 petitions from the two most important school desegregation cases decided by the United States Supreme Court, Brown v. Topeka, [.fl:UJ and Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado. (FN4] The action brought in Topeka was to determine whether the Topeka school system had achieved unitary status. The United States District Court heard arguments and determined that the school system was unitary and released the defendants. [1:}!i1 An appeal was taken. The Tenth Circuit, affirming in part and reversing in part. (FNG] remanded to the district court providing: \"The board has an affirmative responsibility to see that pupil and faculty assignment policies and school construction and abandonment practices arc not used and do not serve to perpetuate or re-establish the dual school system.\" (FN7) The Tenth Circuit further clarified what it wanted in a unitary school system, stating \"an essential requirement of unitariness, however, is whether school authorities have made every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation, taking into account the practicalities of the situation.\" [FNS) Thus, in the Tenth Circuit, what was practicable became a consideration in achieving unitary status.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ~w. 82 WELR283 Page 2 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) In Denver, Colorado the district court failed to find the system unitary but did modify its order, eliminating reporting requirements and allowing the district to make changes in the desegregation plan without prior court approval. LEb!2OJn appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. The court determined that the district court's finding that the system had not achieved unitary status was not clearly erroneous. (FN I OJ The Tenth Circuit then pointed out that, \"although the Supreme Court has not defined precisely what facts or factors make a district unitary, a starting point is to evaluate the factors that make a ~em segregated. In the context of a unitariness decision, these factors include elimination of invidious discrimination in transportation of students, integration of faculty and staff, equality of financial support given to extracurricular activities at different schools and integration of those activities, nondiscriminatory construction and location of new schools, and assignment of students so that no school is considered a white or black school.. .. This court has defined 'unitary' as the elimination of invidious discrimination and the performance of every reasonable effort to eliminate the various effects of past discrimination.\" (FNI IJ With this holding by the Tenth Circuit the six standards originally established *285 in Green. (FN I 2J as indices of a segregated system, became the yardstick in the circuit for achieving unitary status. After the district court found the Fort Worth, Texas, school system unitary, (FN13J \"in every respect, except the existence of a homogeneous student population,\" (FNJ 4J an appeal was taken. In its decision the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a system could become unitary incrementally. The court provided, \"we agree with the First Circuit's conclusion in Morgan v. Nucci 831 F.2d 313 42 Ed.Law Rep. 514 (1987), that a school system can achieve unitary status incrementally and that when it does so, the court will abdicate its supervisory role as to the aspect of the desegregation plan proclaimed unitary.\" (FNI SJ The court also provided a restatement of the Fifth Circuit's rule that, \"A district court in this circuit does not dismiss a school desegregation case until at least three years after it has declared the system unitary.\" (FN 16J _ The district court for the Western District of Texas declared the Waco, Texas, school district unitary, (FNI7] even though when applying the six Green factors it found a lack of complete compliance in each category. The school system had an ineffective majority to minority transfer program\nhad used only one-third of its bond money on facilities located in minority sections of the system\nhad underrepresentation of minorities in honors, gifted, and talented programs\nhad an achievement gap between minority and nonminority students\nhad a higher dropout rate, expulsion rate and suspension rate for minorities\nhad not met minority hiring goals\nand had practices that discriminated against minorities who wanted to become cheerleaders. Even with a demonstrated lack of compliance, the system was released from the court's jurisdiction, having completed its three-year probationary period ?.fter the court's original finding of unitary status in 1986. The court in Arvizu had simply adhered to the Fifth Circuit guidelines of utilizing the six factors of Green as its standards and providing a three-year probationary period following the initial determination of unitariness. That there was a significant lack of compliance did not dissuade the court from closing the case and ceasing its involvement. The District Court for the Middle District of Florida dissolved the permanent injunction requiring the Duval County School Board to desegregate the school system. With the dissolution of the injunctions, the court declared the system unitary. (FN I 8J An appeal was taken to the Eleventh Circuit, where the lower court was reversed and the decision vacated and remanded. (FN I 9) The court held that the school system had failed to meet the six standards of *286 Green and had failed to eliminate the vestiges of past state-imposed segregation. The court provided: \"A declaration of unitary status is also inappropriate when the evidence shows that the school authorities have not consistently acted in good faith to implement the objectives of the plan\". (FN20] Quoting Green, the court continued, \"Availability to the board of other more desegregative courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith placing a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less effective 111ethod\". (FN2 l) With this decision by the Eleventh Circuit, the Green factor of good faith behavior on the part of the school authorities, subsequently reaffirmed in Dowell, re111ained a primary component in a system's quest for unitary status.  2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.  \"\u0026lt;AT. _.Y',) v~aw. 82 WELR283 Page 3 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (Cite as: 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283) Therefore, before the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Dowell and Pitts, the courts in the Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had begun defining more precisely the issues of unitariness. All three circuits had established the six factors of Green as their threshold standards. The Tenth Circuit in Brown and Keyes established that school systems that had taken into account the practicalities of the situation and had made every effort to achieve the greatest possible degree of actual desegregation could be declared unitary. The Fifth Circuit in Flax, concurring with decisions in the First and Tenth, held that a school system could become unitary incrementally. It also restated the Fifth Circuit ruling that a system must remain under the court's supervision for three years following the declaration of unitariness. In Arvizu, a case not reviewed by Fifth Circuit, the district court granted the motion for unitary status even though the Waco, Texas, school system fell far short of meeting the six factors of Green. The actions of the Arvizu court indicate a greater tolerance by the courts, at least in the Fifth Circuit, for systems that approached compliance rather than holding to the standards of Green, which provide for complete compliance. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit in Duval County reaffirmed that good faith attempts to comply were necessary and that systems that hedged and did not comply in good faith could not expect to be found unitary. During the period these lower courts were addressing the issues of unitariness, two cases, Dowell in the Tenth Circuii [FN22] and Pitts in the Eleventh Circuit, (FN23] progressed toward the Supreme Court. The Dowell case involved the reopening of desegregation litigation that had been dismissed and the school district declared unitary. In Pitts the issue involved the granting of partial unitary status and ceasing court supervision, in areas where the school system was in compliance with one or more of the several factors of Green. In 1985, following a newly imposed student assignment plan, the plaintiffs in Oklahoma City motioned the district court to reopen the case. The motion was made subsequent to the system being declared unitary and having all prior injunctions ordered dissolved. The plaintiffs, in their motion to reopen, contended the Student Reassignment Plan (SRP), implemented by *287 the board in 1984, was segregative. The SRP relied on neighborhood assignment of students in grades K-4, and it allowed eleven of the district's sixty-four elementary schools to be 90% black and twenty-two schools to be 90% white. The district court denied the motion and refused to reopen the litigation, holding that its finding of unitariness in 1977 was res judicata as to those who were then parties to the action. [FN24) The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, (FN25] holding that though the system was unitary, nothing in the order indicated that the original injunctions were terminated. Unitary merely ended the district court's active supervision, not the system's responsibilities. On remand the district court once again refused to reopen the litigation, holding the system had operated under its orders in good faith for more than a decade and that any changes in demographics were of private decision-making and were not state action. [FN26] The Tenth Circuit again reversed, holding, \"an injunction takes on a life of its own and becomes an edict quite independent of the law it is meant to effectuate\". (FN27] The Supreme Court did not rule on the board's assignment plan but on the issue of whether the litigation could be reopened for actions taken by the board following the declaration of unitary status. In affinning the district court's decision not to reopen the litigation, the Supreme Court also modified its standard of the elimination of segregation \"root and branch,\" substituting the lesser standard of to the \"extent practicable.\" The Court held: \"Petitioners urge that we reinstate the decision of the District Court terminating the injunction, but we think that the preferred course is to remand the case to the court so that it may decide, in accordance with this opinion, whether the Board made a sufficient showing of constitutional compliance as of J 985, when the SRP (Student Reassignment Plan] was adopted, to allow the injunction to be dissolved. The District Court should address itself to whether the Board had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was\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\u003eWilliam Gordon Associates\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_36","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":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/36"],"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 ducati9n 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us June 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 III JUN 3 0 2D06 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 June 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ittt~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro   Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton .. Mary Jane Rebick, Little. Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale. An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUN 3 0 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for June 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 June 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. SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 3 O 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 INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 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 June 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 n May 31 2006, distributions of State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06 wer\nas follows D - $60,312,5-ii 1,119, 52028 he allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at Ma 31 006, sub\"ect to eriodic adjustments were as follows RSD-$67,135,18 LRSD - $34,528,908 CSSD - $57,834 709 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 ased on the information available, the ADE calculated .a,..t..,.M...,a.._.....,..._.,. ..... .::.:\n...:.....:.i 5/06, 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 June 30, 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 June 30, 2006 Base on the in onnation le, tlie .ADE calculate 5/06 subject to riodic ents G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 istributions for FY 05/06 at May 31, 2006, totaled $12,735,719. Allotmen , calculated for FY 05/06 was 14 011 194 subect to eriodic 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 June 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 31 2006, wee J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 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 June 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 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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\nPCS SD - 5 of the 4 7 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 busfor$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) 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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 June 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 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. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 1 O 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. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 afterthe 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. Clearance 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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 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 June 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 June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 reviewtheirfindings 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. 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 June 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. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 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 June 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 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. \"' Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 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 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 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. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 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. 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 June 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. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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, ttie Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and ap,.__......,.....,._. MT and its executive summa(Y\nfor the month of Ma . 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 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 June 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, educaUonal technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 June 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 O.ngoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 Startn Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Startn 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 developmentforthe 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999.  On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 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, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of June 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 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 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 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 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 Disaggregati\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_1778","title":"Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status 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":["2006-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Project management","School integration","Educational planning","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Court directive, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status 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/1778"],"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":["35 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, motion for hearing on behalf of the Joshua intervenors; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Joshua's motion for hearing; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) brief in support of response to Joshua's motion for hearing; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, order; District Court, response to Court directive of June 21, 2006; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) status report; 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.     JOHN W WALKER PA Case 4:S2c.\"V-u0866-WR'N ilc:vi nf;/?1/2006 INTIIB TTNTI'ED STATES DIS1lUCT COURT EASTERN mSTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~-n:vlJ nTVT~TnN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT~ ET AL. MRS. 1-0P'PNE JOSJTTTA., ET AL N0.082 P. 2 Page 1 of 2 PLAIN'ra'F INTERVENORS JNTER.VENORS MOTION FOil BEt\\BJNG ON BEHALF OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua I:ntervenors, in compliance with Section I of the little Rocle School District Compliance Remedy fikd June 30, 2004, mpectfully move the Court for a hearing in crder ro b!mg-probll;_'!'mi;. t.n the attention of the Court with respect to the tittle Rock School ~trict s implementation of the Compliance Remedy. '- We have infonned Little Rock School District s counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, about tbi5 motion and while he objects to it, he does not oppose a court hearing. Respectfully submitted, /I/John W, Walker ____________ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rocle, Arkansas 72206 ~01-374-1758  501-3744187 (fax) E=::il: jcl;w-\u0026gt;-Jk:3tt'!@11~l.t'.'.om 1  JUN. 21. 2006 4: 1SPM J\"Ol-tl W WALKER P A N0.082 P.3 case 4:is2-cv.:waas-w~w Fl!Ad 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE QF si-:t\u0026lt;VlCi I .fa h~;-eertify_tl!.~t i:m this 21\" day of June, 2006 the following motion has been fiic:d wil~ ~ C~..t.'EC: ::::,':!=:n ~!hkh will i;end notification of such filing to all counsei of recorci. IJ!lohnW,Walp;: 2 --- -- --------- - - - - . I JVl-ft'i W WALKER PA N0,082 T ~ T T\"'l T TTT ..,f,..l_ ,..1...r_-..t..t..V....- .Y.Y -__ UT A 1 V L/ 1)  LJ yy r1..LJ.L~ .I.. I._, ..l.  .. LL A,. .......... \"\".,,; T h1A1 ~ ....... , ,, .... ., -- -- 172J l:f; w:Jrra; Litrie x.ocir. .A.rK(ui.j\"-) 72206 Telephone (50ij 3i4-S7So Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION Cu'VER SB:E~T P.1 --------------- :D~~ .lune 21. 2006 To: Gene Jones Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sauler: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ ___ (,tnciutiing cover sneeij] PA.GE(S), INCLUDING TF~ COVRR SHEET. IF YOU DO Nar RECEJVJ:.:ALL l'HE PAGES, .ELEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 314-3758\u0026gt;11 The informationeamaiaedin this \u0026amp;csimile message is attomeyprivilcged andconfideniialinformation intended only for the use of 1hc individual or entity namod aDQvt;. rr ~ .... ~ .. ::- of :hl:: =~~!!~ i~ !!.\".'t the mt.ended recipient, or the employee or agent responsibie w dc;livc1 ;. tut.~ :..t...:.d.::! :eci~i~, yi:m ,we hereby notifled mat any disscmimdicm, dis1nOUJio,n or wpy~ \"t .:.ii wi-\"l\":-::t:~~ is ~rl~~ ~.ahibited. If you have received Ibis commumcation ~error, pu.isK i,;;m;;~h'~ :::.~'\".l.: by te!~h.~n111, Mid Tet\\mi. the original message to us at the aboV.e address via UM: U.S. ~u.\u0026gt;-:al Sc.-~-:~ Th='\"\"\"\"'.!. - - ----- Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 June 21, 2006 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al, 4:82CV866WRW Dear Mr. Walker: JUN 2 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOijlJORING I just received your Motion for a Hearing on Behalf of Joshua Intervenors. By 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 28, 2006, please file a supplement to this motion which will apprise me and your opposing counsel much more fully in the premises. Err, if you are to err at all, on the side of specificity. After receiving supplement, a hearing will be set if it appears one is necessary. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement, also with specificity, within five days after service ofthe supplement. Original to the Clerk of the Court cc: Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. MIME-Version:1.0 From : ecf_ support@ared . uscourts .gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts .gov a,iessage-Id : \u0026lt;68360l@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; 9lcc: Subject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid later charges , download .a copy of each document during this first viewing . U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 6/22/2006 at 9:08 AM CDT and filed on 6/21/2006 Case Name : Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http://ecf . ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26 / 1998 Document Number : 4020 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4020 , 26052,,MAGIC,,,2005401 Docket Text : LETTER/ORDER, Counsel for Joshua Intervenors is to file by 6/28/06 a supplement re [4018] MOTION for Hearing filed by Lorene Joshua. Counsel for LRSD should respond to the supplement within 5 days after service of Joshua Intervenors supplement. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr . on 6/21/06 . (dac, ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document 8)riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [ STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=10957 94525 [Date=6/22/2006] [FileNumber=683 600:-0] [70b999c859edla527653c3c3e9826a037ela38d6ea03dd7cafbd7b7e86beed14092ae352049b4ce 636dfdf2f9d227045ec417b43f5176ed93cd56b211703d489]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag . gov, angela.dover@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec . net , brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj . com, kate.jones@jlj . com; linda . calloway@jlj.com . _Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw . net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol . com, lorap72297@aol.com; - jspringer@gabrielmail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc . 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York , NY 10013  imothy Gerard Gauger rkansas Attorney General ' s Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P .A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING For its Response, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: -RECEIVED JUN 2 2 2006 OFFICEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Section I of the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy requires that the parties irrimediately bring to the Court's attention any problems which arise with respect to the Compliance Remedy. 2. The Joshua lntervenors filed a Motion today asking for a hearing to bring unspecificed problems to the attention of the Court. The Joshua Intervenors' Motion contains no factual allegations and does not identify any particular compliance issue. 3. Prior to any hearing, Joshua should be required to allege particular violations of the Compliance Remedy so that LRSD may prepare to present its defense at the hearing. 4. LRSD denies that its counsel told counsel for the Joshua Intervenors that he does not oppose a court hearing. It is LRSD's position that a hearing is appropriate only after the Joshua Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 3 lntervenors have alleged facts which would constitute a violation of the Compliance Remedy. 5. LRSD denies that it has engaged in any violations of the Compliance Remedy. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays thatthe Court require the Joshua lnte_rveners to present specific factual allegations in support of any claim that LRSD has failed to follow the Compliance Remedy before scheduling a hearing on the issue. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 _By: /s/ CHRISTOPHERHELLER#81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I certify that on June 21 , 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of th~ 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 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4019 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 3 of 3 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RECEiVED JUN 2 3-2006 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MOtllTORII\u0026amp; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR HEARING ___ .Rule 7(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a motion \"shall state with particularity the grounds therefore, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.\" Rule 7 .2 of the local district court rules requires that motions \"shall be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of relevant facts and applicable law.\" The Joshua Intervenors have failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(l) and Local Rule 7.2. Their Motion for Hearing should therefore be denied: Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: Isl CHRISTOPHER HELLER #81083 Attorneys for Little Rock School District F:\\Home\\BRENDAKIFLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MOTION FOR HEARING.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 22, 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(@,ae:. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com. siones(a),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 F:\\Homc\\BRENDAK\\FLOA TERIBRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS MO~N FOR HEARING.wpd United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/ Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V . . * * * * * * * * * * * * Pulaski County Board of Education; * Patricia Gee, Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock *' School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public * Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capacity as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; * Martin Zoldessy; Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges~ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court's I denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since 1956; the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. ~Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arnold's Court, 58 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts ofLRSD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County, 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered. into negotiations to modify LRSD's obligations. The fruit  of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that ifLRSD substantial1y complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion of the 2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3 - Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5. In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1089 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.l provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to detennine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the fonn of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct. 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a . compliance remedy (2002 Remedy) designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affinned. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7.1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment :that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory perfonnance in five areas of a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially comp lied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7. l \"). As the district court noted in 2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" Id. at 1032. Section 2.7.l of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2.7 is colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,248 ( 1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement of local authority by an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever detennined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement --5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthennore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: (I) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir.2001) (\"[l]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir; 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan, 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the terms of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965 . . III. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting terminology employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised Plan took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5,2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2.7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring, Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Scierice (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. See Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Leaming in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan; PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy ( various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High School Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -T- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its final Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained additional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LRSD had evaluated fourteen programs.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had irpplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were \"all of the programs ... that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy, Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- achievement. If the assessment of a program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2. 7 .1 was to make sure that the programs promised under  2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id. at 1076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the terms of the Revised Plan. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K-3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schools; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part ofLRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id. at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAs. so ciate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, . it is interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\" Id. at 1077. -9- In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" Id. The district court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district CO\\.!rt set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04-school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved. in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). -10- C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .... [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and Band the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and Bis that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" jg,_ at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Cf. Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. United States Dep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev., 807F.2d 1433, 1438; 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant. ... If there is any ambiguity in the ... order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.\"'). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlinetfhow LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. The Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[m]aintain written records of .. . the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD's interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.\" The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new~ comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. at 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7\" to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72). Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised Plan, requested that the ODM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement. -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to\"[ c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of \"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation: The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003. . . . Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive . mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. Id.. at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific 2. 7 \"academic programs\" ( e:g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, or Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis. to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts-A andB of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess eacluJfthe  2.7 programs .... I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2. 7 programs because, on its face, nothing in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform-\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Id. at 8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated that LRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In its . 2002 order, the .district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1.  Subpart C addressed LRSD's interpretation.. Had LRSD appealed, Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superflumis requirements. LRSD did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2.7.1 obligations. -14- LRSD's 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and Bin the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2.7.1: it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient chall.enge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD' s compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is -likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the African-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court found that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the plain . meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy_ (i.e., evaluate three key programs). At the outset, we have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and thenistrict court was not free to expand its terms beyond that which was. contemplated bJ the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any requirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662,664 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its terms.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- Corr., 246 F.3d 267,281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals:'); Annstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305,315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their own judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\"). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years, 2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows: 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 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 -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. The first task PRE must perfonn 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 pennanent 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 detennine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students .... 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 years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) fonnal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perfonn 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 fonnally 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 -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 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 infonnation and data, a special section which: (1) describes of the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom infonnation 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. G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being perfonned on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua ori 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. -18- , K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.l of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions quoted are illustrative of what it is that - LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that LRSD had not substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are termed its \"Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had . been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer availafil.e to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD's compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshu~ had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD 's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its disagreement with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Without recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSD submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof, all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. Nevertheless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the . line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do that it is unwilling to do?)' Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at this time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement. Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation that substantial compliance means just that, not mathematical precision. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Revised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Court-formulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.l program assessment/evaluation process that will allow it to determine the effectiveness of each of the key 2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. D. Ct. Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading, math, and science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a debt unpaid.\"' l.d:. at 68. We add to these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirements thatmay seem to imp.ose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one form or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be successful. With these observations, the judgment is affinned. - GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affinn the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodied in the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300 (quotingSennewaldv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847 F.2d 472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, J., concurring)). Although we defer in large measure to the district court's interpretation or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by imposing new tenns that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous terms of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Hollandv. NJ Dep'tofCorr., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and shoold not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the terms agreed to by the parties in section 2.7. l of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD's quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those terms. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7\" for a year and a half and \"to use all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing (a) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment. Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction in the 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"assessment\" and a more formal, research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. The district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its . Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross (or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in assessing the section 2. 7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a pennanent part of LRSD' s  curriculum and instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court). The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement. The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to detennine the effectiveness\" of LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, notto a permanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply embedded\" requirement, viewed in light of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD's compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goal[]\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At this point, vacating the 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD's efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at 9-1 O; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without disrupting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2923 Little Rock School District; P laintifli' Appellant, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; Stacy Joshua; WayneJoshua, Intervenor Plaintiffs/ Appellees, v. * Appeal from the United. States  * District Court for the North Little Rock School District; * Eastern District of Arkansas. Pulaski-County Special School District; * State of Arkansas, * Defendants. Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.;. Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane Davis; Raymond Frazier, Plaintiffs, V. Pulaski County Board of Education; Patricia Gee, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock - I I I I School District, A Public Body; George* Cannon, Dr. Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; * Katherine Mitchell, Dr., Individually * and in her Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School District, A Public* Body; W. D . Hamilton, also known as * Bill Hamilton, Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member of the * Board of Education of the Little Rock * School District, A Public Body; Cecil * Bailey, Individually and in his Official * Capadty as a Member of the Pulaski * County Board of Education a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public Corporate; :j\u0026gt; Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. Submitted: April 12, 2005 Filed: June 26, 2006 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and GRUENDER,. Circuit Judges. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. -2- The Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from the district court' s1 denial of its request for unitary status. We affirm. I. LRSD has been involved in federal desegregation litigation since l 956~ the present phase of this case commenced in 1982. See Little R~-S-Ch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 778 F.2d 404 (8th .Cir. i'985) (en bane); see also Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Councy Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 13 76-83 (8th Cir. 1990) ( chronicling litigation history); Polly J. Price, The Little Rock School Desegregation Cases in Richard Arno Id's Court, 5 8 Ark. L. Rev. 611, 622-4 7 (2005). In 1989, the district court approved an interdistrict settlement plan (1989 Settlement), which specified that the district court would supervise the remedial desegregation efforts of LR.SD and two neighboring school districts. We ordered the creation of the Office ofDesegregation Monitoring (ODM) to assist the district court in its supervision. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Coun1,y. 921 F.2d at 1388, 1394. By 1996, .it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that LRSD would be unable to meet the terms of the 1989 Settlement. At the suggestion. of the district court, LRSD and Lorene Joshua (Joshua), the class representative for all African-American students enrolled in LRSD and the two neighboring districts, entered into negotiations to modify LRSD' s obligations. The fruit of these negotiations was the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), which the district court approved in 1998. It was agreed that if LRSD substantially complied with the terms of the Revised Plan, it would be declared unitary at the conclusion ofthe2000-2001 school year. The Revised Plan required Joshua to submit any unresolved compliance issues to the ODM for facilitation of an agreement. 1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- Revised Plan  8.2.4. If the ODM could not resolve the issue \"after good faith attempts at facilitation,\" Joshua could seek resolution of the issue with the district court. Id.  8.2.5 . In 2002, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Littfe Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2.d. 988,.1089  '(E.D. Ark. 2002). Section 2.7.rprovided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying . how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Compliance Plan, Oct 10, 2002, at 1 (footnote omitted). The district court imposed a compliance remedy (2002 Remedy)  designed to bring LRSD into substantial compliance with section 2.7.1. Id. at 1087-88. On appeal by Joshua from the district court's unitary-status ruling, we affirmed. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Annstrong, 359 E}d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). On March 15, 2004, following what it believed was its substantial compliance with section 2. 7 .1 and the 2002 Remedy, LRSD asked to be declared unitary. Joshua opposed the request. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with its obligations, denied unitary status, and imposed a new compliance remedy (2004 Remedy). It is from this judgment that LRSD now appeals. -4- II. Although this case traces its roots to federal desegregation efforts, the instant appeal presents no constitutional issues. The constitutional requirements for unitary status are set forth in Green v. Councy School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), which held that a school district may be declared unitary and lacking racial discrimination based on satisfactory performance in five are~ etf a school district's operations: ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities. LRSD has met these requirements. See 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (declaring LRSD ''partially unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations, because ith~ substantially complied with all sections of the Revised Plan, save for those obligations contained in  2. 7.1 \"). As the district court noted in.2002, the Revised Plan \"included other desegregation obligations that went beyond Green's constitutional floor for a school district to become unitary.\" ML. at 1032. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan refers to section 2.7, which required LRSD - to \"implement programs~ policies and/or procedures designed to improve. and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan.\" The impetus for section 2. Tis colloquially referred to as the \"achievement gap\" between minority students and white students in the public school systems. For section 2.7.1 to meet the constitutional threshold of a desegregation remedy, the achievement gap that it was designed to remedy would have to \"directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.\" Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 88 (1995); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991) (\"The legal justification for displacement oflocal authoriiy by .an injunctive decree in a school desegregation case is a violation of the Constitution by the local authorities.\"). As the district court observed in 2002: [N]o court has ever determined generally, or with the specificity required in [Jenkins], what portion, if any, of the minority student achievement -5- gap in LRSD is causally linked as a vestige of de Jure segregation. Furthermore, Joshua has failed to introduce any evidence to establish that: ( 1) the achievement gap is causally linked to the system of de Jure segregation which existed in LRSD decades earlier; and (2) the portion of the achievement gap which is attributable to de Jure segregation, after excluding all of the socioeconomic factors that also have contributed to that gap. 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1040. Cf People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076 (7th Cir. 2001) (\"[I]t is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture.\"). Accordingly, it is unclear whether LRSD's efforts to remedy the achievement gap are constitutionally compelled. We need not determine that issue, however, because LRSD's obligations under section 2.7.l are clearly contractual matters. Thus, we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. LRSD 's obligations under section 2. 7.1 therefore arise as a matter of contract, not constitutional law, and thus we examine LRSD's compliance under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. United States v. Knote, 29 F.3d 1297, 1299 (8th Cir. 1994). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 83 FJd 1013, 1017 (8th Cir .. 1996), and its modification of a consent decree for an abuse of discretion. McDonald v. Carnahan. 908 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1990). We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the tenns of the Revised Plan. Armstrong. 359 F.3d at 965. m. This litigation has been complicated by the shifting tenninofogy employed by LRSD, Joshua, and the district court. Specifically, efforts to resolve this case since the Revised P Ian took effect in 1998 have been marked by confusion over four terms: -6- - (1) assessment; (2) evaluation; (3) program; and ( 4) key program. The plain language of section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, quoted in Part I, supra, required LRSD to assess academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2. 7, including but not limited to programs implemented under section 5. A. On March 15, 2000, LRSD submitted an Interim 'Compliance Report that described how it would meet its obligations under the Revised Plan.  The report  identified myriad programs that had been implemented pursuant to section 2.7 and section 5, 2 and set forth both a \"Program Evaluation Agenda\"3 and an \"Assessment 2The section 2. 7 programs included: Title I Programs, PLATO Labs, Accelerated Learning Center, Alternative Leaming Center, Summer School, Tutoring Programs, Little Rock LEADERS, ACT Tutoring,. Career Orientation, Block Scheduling, High School Advisory Program, Personalized Education Plan, K-12 Science (including specific programs for four different grade levels), Professional Development for Science Teachers, and Citizenship and Character Education. ~ Interim Compliance Report at 47-51. The section 5 programs appear to include: Home Instruction Program for Pre-Schoo I Youngsters (HIPPY); Rockefeller's Infant, Toddler, and Three-Y ear-O Id Program; Pre-Kindergarten; Pre-Kindergarten Program Expansion; Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas; PreK-3 Literacy Plan;. PreKindergarten Professional Development; Animated Literacy; Early Literacy (various grades); Effective Literacy (various grades); Kindergarten I Like Me Project; Success for All; Direct Instruction; Reading Recovery; Assessment System; Professional Development ( all grades); Multicultural Reading and Thinking; Reading and Writing Workshop; Thematic Instruction; High School English; Summer Algebra Readiness Training (SMART); Family Mathematics; Elementary School.TechnologyBased Programs; Middle School Keyboarding; New High SchooL Technology Courses; and Keyboarding Credit by Examination. Id. at 93-127. 3The Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate the following eight programs: PreK-3 Literacy, Success for All, Direct Instruction, the implementation of middle schools, English as a Second Language, National Science Foundation project components, Twenty-First Century Projects, and Waiver Process. Id. at 53-57. -7- Plan\" in response to section 2.7.1. Interim Compliance  Report at 53-57. Significantly, the Program Evaluation Agenda indicated that LRSD would evaluate (rather than assess) only a small subset of the section 2.7 and section 5 programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, and the Assessment Plan referred only to assessing students (i.e., testing), not programs. Id. LRSD submitted its fmal Compliance Report on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Report incorporated by reference the Interim Compliance Report. It contained addttional information responsive to section 2. 7.1 under the title \"Program Evaluation,\" which indicated that LR.SD had evaluated fourteen prograrns.4 Compliance Report at 148. As recounted above, the district court granted LRSD partial unitary status in 2002, but concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the requirements of section 2.7.1. The district court noted that the Interim Compliance Report had \"identified almost 100 programs that [LRSD] had iqiplemented to 'improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\"' under sections 2.7 and 5 of the Revised Plan; 237 F. Supp. 2d at\" 1076 n.135. According to the district court, these were: \"all of the programs ... that LR.SD was implementing in. accprdance with its obligations under the Revised Plan.\" Id. at 1018. The district court elaborated that: Section2.7.1 oftheRevisedPlanrequiredLRSDto assess annually each of the academic programs promulgated pursuant to  2.7, in order to determine if those programs, in fact, were improving African-American 4The fourteen programs were: PreK-2 Literacy,. Comprehensi:ve Partnerships forMathematics and Science Achievement, Extended Year Schools, Elementary Summer School, Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters- (}IIPPY), Charter School, English as a Second Language, Lyceum Scholars, Southwest Middle School's Partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), Onward to Excellence at Watson Elementary School, Collaborative Action Team, Vital Link, Middle School Transition, and Campus Leadership Teams. Compliance Report at 148. -8- r achievement. If the assessment of a .program revealed that it was not effective in improving African-American achievement, LRSD was required to modify or replace the program. I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD' s substantial compliance with  2. 7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; for, without performing.a rigcmms annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under  2. 7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. Id; at I 076 (footnote omitted). The above-cited passage is consistent with the . terms of the Revised Plan .. Elsewhere in its order, however, the district court observed that LRSD's Interim Compliance Plan had specified that evaluations would be conducted for key programs including (1) Pre-K~3 Literacy Program Success For All; (2) the implementation of  the new curriculum in English language arts, mathematics, and science in the middle schbols; (3) the National Science Foundation project aimed at improving African-American achievement in math and science; and (4) the implementation of the School Improvement Plan. Id. at 1077. The district court found \"that the much ;, more in-depth and analytical program evaluations, which LRSD agreed to prepare on  certain key remediation programs identified in the Interim Compliance Report, were an integral and essential part of LRSD's obligation under 2.7.1.\" Id; at 1079. The district court also noted the distinction between \"assessment\" and \"evaluation.\" According to testimony from Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD's thenAssociate Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, an assessment is \"dynamic, it is. interactive, it's ongoing, it happens frequently, and it is a measurement, along with the analysis that you would make of whatever results are available.\"  1d. at 1077. -9- - . In contrast, an evaluation is \"more long term, [it] may consider observations or measurements in addition to test scores, and is guided by a set of research questions that are usually provided by whoever the consumer is of that report.\" 14:. The district  court noted that LRSD had interpreted section 2.7.1 \"to include an obligation to perform some program evaluations.\" Id. At the conclusion of its order, the district collit set forth the 2002 Remedy, which contained six principal sections. The first four sections are those which are the most relevant to the issue before us: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the . academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those , programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and infonnation in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated.   B. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each. program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c} the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a _grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g. , all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). C. LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly [sic] or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on [fourteen specified programs] .. '. . [A]s these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluati.om,. any changes or modifications should be made in those prograins ... Jn addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. D. Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention ofLRSD all problems that are . detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy .. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"Process for Raising Compliance Issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Id. at 1087-88 (footnote omitted). The contrast between the assessments of Subparts A and B-and the evaluations of Subpart C demonstrates that the district court was making a clear distinction between the two terms. Viewed in this light, the meaning of Subparts A and B is that the district court was requiring assessments for \"each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7,\" id. at 1076, irrespective of the requirements imposed by Subpart C. This interpretation is consistent with the district court's order as a whole, the Revised Plan, and LRSD' s Interim Compliance Report. Cf Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. UnitedStatesDep'tofHous. \u0026amp; Urban Dev.; 807F.2d'1433, 1438, 1439 (8th Cir. 1986) (We view an earlier order by the district court \"as a whole, and an interpretation that gives effect to all parts of the order will be preferred over one that -11- leaves portions of the order meaningless or insignificant .... If there is any ambiguity in the . . . order, its meaning is clarified by 'what preceded it and what it was intended to execute.'\"). On October 10, 2002, LRSD's Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan that outlined how LRSD would satisfy the 2002 Remedy. Tire Compliance Plan indicated thatLRSD would\"[ c ]ontinue to administer student' assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\" and \"[ m]aintain written records of ... the results of the  annual student assessments, including whether an infonnal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs.\" Compliance Plan at 3. These statements reflected LRSD' s interpretation of the Revised Plan by referring to LRSD's efforts to administer \"student assessments\" rather than to its obligation to \"assess academic programs.;' The Compliance Plan also stated that LRSD would \"[p ]repare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan   2. 7 to detennine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify. orreplace the program,\" and indicated that LRSD would satisfy this obligation by preparing \"the following new; comprehensive. evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science.\" Id. ~ 3, 5. LRSD thus substituted \"comprehensive program evaluations\" for the Revised Plan requirement of \"assessments\" and, more significantly, construed \"each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.T' to mean three broad-based programs. LRSD provided a- copy of its Compliance Plan to Joshua in October 2002. See October 25, 2002, letter from John C. Fendley, Jr. (App. 2168-72.}. Joshua disagreed with the proposal outlined in the plan and, pursuant to the Revised:'.f'Ian, requested that the 0DM facilitate resolution of the disagreement. Although the facilitation apparently failed, Joshua did not contact the district court regarding the disagreement.  -12- On March 15, 2004, LRSD submitted its new Compliance Report (2004 Compliance Report). LRSD indicated that its obligation to \"[c]ontinue to administer student assessments\" had been satisfied through its implementation of\"the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan.\" 2004 Compliance Report at 2-3.. With respect to how it had met its self-described requirement to \"prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented-pursuant to Revised Plan  2. 7,\" LRSD offered the following explanation:   ' ' The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 .... Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through a.National Science Foundation (\"NSF\") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science.e.vaiuation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. IQ,_ at 3-4. On June 30, 2004, the district court concluded that LRSD had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan or the 2002 Compliance Remedy. The district court commented that: While the fields of \"Literacy\" and \"Math and Science\" may be convenient ways to divide academic knowledge, they most certainly do not constitute specific  2. 7 \"academic progm,ns\" ( e.g., Reading for All, Early Literacy Learning, Reading Recovery, er Effective Literacy) that LRSD implemented, on a school-by-school basis, to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. -13- - D. Ct. Order of June 30, 2004, at 55. Addressing what it perceived to be LRSD's failure to distinguish between the concepts of assessment and evaluation, the district court explained that: Subparts A and B of the Compliance Remedy obligated LRSD to assess each of the 2.7 programs. .. _ I made no mention ofLRSD preparing evaluations of 2.7 programS'-\"\"'because, on its face, no.thing.in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan obligated LRSD to perform\"program evaluations.\" However, Dr. Lesley made it clear in her testimony that LRSD administrators knew and understood that the \"assessment\" obligation in  2.7.1 included the obligation of preparing \"program evaluations.\" [ citation omitted.] Therefore, I concluded it would be best to use the same terms in the [2002] Compliance Remedy that the parties themselves had chosen to use in 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. M,_at8. B. LRSD's 2000 Interim Compliance Report indicated thatLRSD construed the Revised Plan's requirement to \"assess all programs\" to mean that it must \"evaluate key programs.\" Because Joshua elected not to challenge LRSD's interpretation, that interpretation became controlling under ordinary principles of contract law. In. its 2002 order, the district court essentially concluded that LRSD had failed to comply substantially with both interpretations of section 2.7.1, i.e., that LRSD had neither assessed all programs nor adequately evaluated key programs. The district court thus imposed a bifurcated compliance remedy. Subparts A and B reverted to the original, . plain meaning, requirements of section 2.7.1. Subpart C addres.sed LRSD's interpretation. Had LRSD appealed,Subparts A and B might well have been deemed to be superfluous requirements. LRSE did not appeal the 2002 order, however, and thus the district court's remedy became the governing interpretation of the section 2. 7.1 obligations. -14- . I LRSD' s 2002 Compliance Plan construed Subparts A and B in the same manner that it had previously interpreted section 2. 7 .1 : it took \"assess all programs\" to mean \"evaluate key programs.\" When Joshua again failed to raise a legally sufficient challenge to this interpretation, LRSD arguably became entitled to rely on its interpretation, i.e., that three broad-based program evaluations would satisfy the requirements of Subparts A and B. The district court, however, refused to find that Joshua had waived its right to challenge LRSD's compliance, saying that \"[i]n a school desegregation case that has its origins in the infamous 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis, no court is likely to hold the silence of Joshua's counsel-even if they are to be criticized-against the Aftican:-American students they represent, and who now fill almost 70% of the total number of seats in LRSD' s classrooms.\" D. Ct Order of June 30, 2004, at 20. C. The district court foundthat LRSD had failed to substantially comply with both the ,plain meaning of Subparts A and B (i.e., assess all programs) and LRSD's interpretation of the remedy (i.e., evaluate three key programs). '---. At the outset, we.have substantial concerns about the highly detailed, complex nature of the district court's 2002 Remedy, which imposes upon LRSD additional requirements, some of which appear to go well beyond those agreed upon by the parties in the Revised Plan. The Revised Plan constituted a contract between the parties, and the district court was not free to expand its tenns beyond that which was contemplated by the parties. Subpart C of the 2002 Remedy exceeded the scope of the Revised Plan, which lacked any tcquirement for program evaluations. See Krupnick v. Ray, 61 F.3d 662, 664 (8th-Cir. 1995) (\"The law of Arkansas provides that it is the duty of the court to construe the contract according to its unambiguous language without enlarging or extending its ternis.\"); cf. Holland v. N.J. Dep't of -15- - Qm:.., 246 F.3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and should not impose terrns when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. N.Y. Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"A court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's g.ools.\"); Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7th Cir. 1980) (\"Judges should not substitute their ownjudgriient as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.'1). LRSD, however, elected not to appeal Subpart C in 2002, and so that issue is not before us today. .e In its June 30, 2004, order, the district court set forth an even more highly detailed compliance remedy (the 2004 Remedy). We cite selected portions of that Remedy as.representative of the level of specificity that the district court engaged. in: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, it must remain under court supervision for two more complete school years~  2004-05 and 2005-06. To avoid any \"misunderstanding\" regarding this. Compliance Remedy; I will be specific. The new Compliance Remedy is as follows:  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.; 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 -16- experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. B. . The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It inay 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 achie.yement of African-American students .. . . 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 years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr; Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2. 7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross--to perform the following tasks: (1) identtfy 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 -17- someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 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 of 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. 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 2004-05 school year and 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. -18- . 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 wiU schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. L. This Compliance Remedy is intended to supersede and replace the identical compliance obligations that I imposed on LRSD, albeit with less specificity, in subparts A and B of Section VII of the September 13 Decision. D. Ct. Order at 61-67 (footnotes omitted). There was much more in the way of detailed requirements, but those portions. quoted are illustrative of what it is that LRSD is now being asked to do. IV. In reviewing the district court's determination that.LRSD had not substantially complied with the tenns of the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remedy, we note, as did the district court, that on March 14, 2003, the same day that LRSD filed what are tenned its ''Page 148 Evaluations,\" Dr. Lesley, the person responsible for overseeing these evaluations, resigned. Two months later, Dr. T. Kenneth James, LRSD's superintendent, also resigned. Thus the two persons to whom direct responsibility had been assigned to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 2002 Remedy were no longer available to assist LRSD in the implementation of the Compliance Plan. Indeed, the authors of the ODM's March 30, 2004, Compliance Report observed that the loss of Dr. Lesley and.Dr. James at a crucial time in the implementation of the  Compliance Plan, coupled with the delays and difficulties LRSD encountered in -19- filling those positions with acting or interim employees, created \"a period of some uncertainty\" for LRSD. We note these facts and observations to highlight the constraints under which LRSD was laboring as it sought both to satisfy the requirements of the Compliance Plan and to. demonstrate through empirically based evidence that it had in fact accomplished that goal. A. LRSD contends that by failing to challenge the adequacy of LRSD's . Compliance Plan, Joshua in effect abandoned its objection to that plan and thus should not be heard to contest LRSD' s compliance with the 2002 Remedy. If this case involved only a dispute between private litigants, we might well have disagreed with the district court's holding that Joshua had not waived its right to challenge either LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 Remedy or LRSD's claim that it had substantially complied with the requirements of that remedy. Given the lengthy nature of the litigation between the parties, however, and the substantial likelihood that LRSD's ongoing attempts to comply with the 2002 order will in due course entitle. it to be declared unitary, we will not reverse the district court's ruling on this issue. Nevertheless, in light of its failure to call to the district court's attention to its d1sagreement_ with LRSD's interpretation of the 2002 order, it would ill behoove Joshua to raise any further technical complaints about LRSD's efforts to comply with the 2002 order. Withwt recounting in depth the voluminous evidence that LRSI? submitted in support of its claim that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the 2002 Remed~ we observe that had the question of compliance been submitted to us in the first instance, we might well have found that LRSD had met its burden of proof: all the more so in light of the heightened requirements imposed by the district court   in its 2002 order. It is a close question whether all of those additional requirements -20- - are within the scope of the Revised Plan or whether they represent newly created, after-the-fact fine-tuning that neither of the parties contemplated when they entered into the settlement agreement that resulted in the Revised Plan. NeverJieless, and once again adverting to the lengthy, if not indeed tortuous, path on which this litigation has proceeded, we conclude that the district court, although it may have come close to crossing the _ line between proper judicial enforcement of an agreed-upon undertaking and the imposition of requirements that find no warrant in that undertaking, did not clearly err in finding that LRSD had failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Revised Plan and.the 2002 Remedy. B. Our concerns regarding the 2002 Remedy are even greater with respect to the even more heightened requirements, . as illustrated by the portions quoted above, imposed by the district court's June 30, 2004, order. One can understand the frustration expressed by LRSD concerning that which it is now expected to do. Indeed, during oral argument we asked LRSD's counsel, \"Can you tell us in plain, simple_ language what it is that [the district court] wants the District to do th~t it is unwilling to: do?\" Counsel responded in part by saying that LRSD was complying -with the new compliance remedy. In light of that representation, we are unwilling at tliis time to say that those heightened requirements surpass beyond all measure the requirements to which LRSD committed itself when it entered into the 1989 Settlement Suffice it to say that there will be time enough for us to revisit the requirements-of the 2004 order if this case should once again come before us. For the . moment, then, we offer no comment beyond the observation th~ substantial compliance .means just that, not mathematical precision'. -21- Conclusion In the concluding paragraphs of its June 30, 2004, order under the heading \"Final Thoughts on LRSD's Compliance Efforts,\" the district court, referring to its review of the history of the negotiations that had led the parties to voluntarily enter into the Rerised Plan, stated: I review this history to make it crystal clear that LRSD-not the Courtformulated all of the program assessment/evaluation obligations contained in  2.7.l of the Revised Plan and voluntarily agreed to comply with all of those obligations. I know it will be quite a burden for LRSD to formulate, implement, and deeply embed in its curriculum an effective  2.7.1. program assessment/ evaluation process that will allow it to detennine the effectiveness-of each of the key  2. 7 programs. But this is the medicine that LRSD knowingly and voluntarily decided it must take in an attempt to cure the historically low academic achievement of so many of its African-American students. , D. Ct Order at 67. In commenting upon LRSD 's duty to ensure that a significant number of African-American students score at or above the proficient level in reading; math, and. science, the district court concluded its remarks by stating, \"To this end, LRSD must do what it promised to do, and what it has been ordered to do because of this promise. In the words of the poet of the Yukon, Robert Service, 'a promise made is a de,bt unpaid.\"' ill at 68. We adtfto these comments only the observation that a promise is that which has been made by the promisor, and not one that may be expanded by others beyond that -which is fairly encompassed by its terms. -22- - - - - ------ - - ------------~ - Nothing in what we have said in this opinion should be read as in any way relieving the Little Rock School District of its obligation to comply with the commitments it made when it entered. into the settlement that culminated in the Revised Plan. Our concerns about the district court's 2002 and 2004 orders arise from the ever-heightened requirements that the District is being asked to satisfy, requirememsi:hat may seem to impose a duty of demonstrating mathematical precision at a cost and effort beyond that which the District should be required to bear. We note that in one fonn or another the Little Rock School District has been under judicial tutelage for more than two decades now. We hope that it is not too much to expect that its efforts to comply with not only the requirements of the Revised Plan but also with the subsequent embellishments of those requirements will prove to be. successful. With these observations, the judgment is affirmed. GRUENDER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Like the Court, I would affirm the district court's finding that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan as embodiedin the 2002 Remedy. However, I respectfully dissent from the Court's judgment because I find that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. A consent decree \"is a kind of private law, agreed to by the parties and given shape over time through interpretation by the court that entered it.\" Knote, 29 F .3d  ~ J at 1300 (quotmgSennewa/dv. Univ. of Minnesota, 847F.2d472, 475 (8th Cir. 1988) R. Arnold, !.,..concurring)). Although we defer in large measureto the district court's interpretation-or modification of a consent decree, Knote, 29 F .3d at 1300, 1302, the district court is not at liberty to ignore what was \"agreed to by the parties\" by   imposing new terms that lie outside the intended agreement of the parties, see, e.g., -23- Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, 312 F .3d 952, 958 (8th Cir. 2002) (\"When construing a consent decree, courts are guided by principles of contract interpretation and, where possible, will discern the parties' intent from the unambiguous tenns of the written consent decree, read as a whole.\"); see also Holland v. NJ Dep't of Corr., 246 F: .3d 267, 281 (3d Cir. 2001) (\"A court should interpret a consent decree as written and-should not impose terms when the parties did not agree to those terms.\"); EEOC v. New York Times Co., 196 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999) (\"[A] court may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own, no matter how much of an improvement it would make in effectuating the decree's goals.\" ( quotation omitted)), As the Court notes, ante at 14-15, when LRSD chose not to appeal the 2002 Remedy, the 2002 Remedy became the governing interpretation of the tenns agreed to by the parties in section 2. 7; 1 of the Revised Plan. There is no dispute that the only hurdle remaining in LRSD' s quest for unitary status is compliance with subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Therefore, the district court's modification should have focused on producing compliance with those tenns. Subpart A required LRSD \"to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.T' for a year and a half and ''to use. all of that available data and information [including other information already available apart from the assessments] in assessing the effectiveness of those programs.\" Subpart B required LRSD to maintain written records of the assessments containing Ea) the written criteria used to assess each program, (b) the results of the assessments, including any resulting modification or elimination of a program, and ( c) the names of administrators and grade-level descriptions of any teachers involved in the assessment Also as discussed by the Court, ante at 9-11, there was a clear distinction irrthe 2002 Remedy between a less formal, dynamic \"asses~ment\" and a more forma~ research-paper-formatted \"evaluation.\" Instead of focusing on enforcing compliance with the terms agreed to by the parties, however, the district court imposed terms in the 2004 Remedy that are.   untethered to the requirements of subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy or section -24- 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Although the district court's substitution of eight in-depth \"evaluations\" for the agreed-upon \"assessments\" of each program was arguably suggested in part by LRSD's own prior attempt to substitute three broad evaluations for the individual program assessments, there is no evidence of a meeting of the minds between the parties that would allow a number of in-depth evaluations to replace the agreed-upon:assessments. Therefore, the district court should have simply enforced the assessment requirement as originally set forth in_subparts A and B of the 2002 Remedy. Toe district court's substitution of a new set of rigorous evaluations not agreed to by the parties was an abuse of discretion. There are two other aspects of the 2004 Remedy that are even more significant abuses of discretion. First, the district court ordered LRSD to hire a new team for its Program Review and Evaluation Department (\"PRE\"), and the district court specified in great detail the educational background and experience that the district court required of the new team. In addition, the district court all but ordered LRSD to hire a particular expert, Dr. Ross ( or a person chosen by Dr. Ross), to identify the eight \"key\" section 2.7 programs and prepare in-depth \"step 2\" evaluations of those  programs. Nothing in subparts A and B of the. 2002, Remedy suggested that LRSD would have to operate under such detailed personnel qualification requirements in . assessing the section 2.7 programs. In settling this case, LRSD certainly did not consent to the selection of its employees and consultants by the district court. Second, the district court introduced a requirement that LRSD's \"program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum ami instruction program\" (emphasis by the district court): The district court did not identify any objective standards by which it intends to measure whether LRSD succeeds in meeting this \"deeply embedded\" requirement The district court justified this requirement by stating, \"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 LRSD's programs in closing the achievement gap. -25- - -- - - --- - ---- ------------~ - However, the district court's responsibility is to obtain the necessary assurance that LRSD is complying with the terms of the consent decree, not to independently assess whether those terms are effective. The parties agreed to annual program assessments by administrators and teachers, not to a pennanently embedded institutional structure of reviewing experts chosen by the district court. The introduction of the impossibly subjective \"deeply.embedded\" requirement, viewed in ligfit of the district court's lack of restraint to date in redefining the program assessment requirements in subparts A and B and micro-managing LRSD' s compliance team, raises the specter that the district court intends to retain control of LRSD's efforts to close the achievement gap regardless of whether LRSD meets the terms agreed to by the parties. No matter how much the district court believed that the new terms in the 2004 Remedy would make an \"improvement ... in effectuating the decree's goalO\" of closing the achievement gap, a laudable motive, the district court simply \"may not replace the terms of a consent decree with its own.\" New York Times Co., 196 F.3d at 78 (quotation omitted). For these reasons, I would find that - the district court abused its discretion in imposing the 2004 Remedy. Finally, I recognize that LRSD already has invested a substantial amount of the effort and expense needed to meet the requirements of the 2004 Remedy. At thispoint, vacatingthe 2004 Remedy in its entirety and remanding to the district court to impose a new remedy might actually set back LRSD' s efforts to attain unitary status. Therefore, I would instruct the district court to order LRSD to complete the eight \"step 2\" evaluations as called for in the 2004 Remedy, but I would also instruct the district court to analyze those eight evaluations under the standards set forth in subparts A and B of the 2002 R.emedy. Specifically, the evaluation reports individually would need to meet the standards of a \"program assessment,\" rather than an \"evaluation,\" as defined ante at9-1 0; LRSD would have to show that it used \"all of th[ e] available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs\" as required by subpart A, meaning that the in-depth data gathered in the \"step 2\" evaluations would -26- 1 . be put to good use; and continued compliance with the written record requirements specified in subpart B of the 2002 Remedy would supplant the unworkably subjective \"deeply embedded\" standard created out.of whole cloth in the 2004 Remedy. The detailed personnel requirements imposed on LRSD would be vacated. Such a modification of the 2004 Remedy.would restore the standards agreed to by the parties without OlSIUpting the substantial compliance efforts LRSD has undertaken to date with respect to that remedy . . Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Court's decision to uphold the 2004 Remedy and would modify the 2004 Remedy as discussed. -27- _,u,,.ai  .::t:J~ 4 ' ,j' U\"'rl JVHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P. 2/ 10 .~ 4:82-\u0026lt;::V-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN nm UNITBD STATF.s DJSTlUCT COURT EASTRi.~DlS'f\u0026amp;AICT OP. APJ\"-,.ANSAS ~'E.-:.\"T\u0026amp;.i.~ DIVISION LttrI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DJSTRICI' NO. 1. ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL KATHFJUNE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS lNTERVENORS INTERVENORS BF..ffllNSE IQ CQJJBT PIBEC'JlYi OF JUNE 21, 20Q6 The Com:t directed. Joshua to submit a statement in support of it$ tequest for a bearing by u,day. JO\u0026amp;hna submits the attached Affidavit of Ms. Joy Spnll\u0026amp;C% in support of its motion and request for a hearm,. - Respectfully submittoo, /s/Jobn W. W!!ke{ Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 221.ocustA\"VCDUC JOHN W. WAL~ PA I exingtan, MA 02421 1723 Broadway (781) 86?-.19SS Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 (501) ~74-~75\u0026amp; (SO!) 374-4187 (Fu) JUI'!, c:ts. c:= 4; ,:j4t-'M JVHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P. 3/10 case 4;82-CV-00866-WRW Document 4024 Filed 06128/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify tbat OD this_ day of ______ 2006, I electronically filed tbe fmegoing with the Clcn of Court using the CMIECF SystcDi, which shall send notification to all counsel associated with this case and who .are registered with the system and by othet means to the unn,gistered pc2'SODS listed below. Clayr.on R. Blackstock Mitd2ell, BJacbtoct. Baines. Wapitt, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PU.C 1010 West Thud Street Post Office Box 1S10 Little Rock, All 72203-1S10 Noanm J. Chachkin NAACP ~iol Dd~se \u0026amp; ~..:.0-..al Fund, h:c. 99 Hudson Sir~ ft  .  ,l'AA, .)Wfe LOUU New York. 1,n 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attomey 0eoen1~s Office ~-Pricn Tower Building 323 Center Street Suitc200 Little Rock. .AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thomp500 \u0026amp; Lle~llyn, P.A. 412 Sooth Eiglttffl!th Stmet P~t Qffi~ Box 818 IN !HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EAST~ Ul:SlRICI OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ll'!'l'.LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LOP.ENE JOSHU--6.., ET .AL KATdERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO.04:82c'V00869WRWIJTR AFFIDA VII Ql lQY SPRINGER ' ,-. Comes now me afrumt, Joy Spri.n. ger~w ho states under oath: N0.152 P.4/10 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANiS INTERVENORS 1. My name i.s Joy Springer and I have been assisn,:d by counsel for the Joshua Intervenoxs to monitor the Little Roek School District's compliance with the court's order of June 30, 2004 (later referred to as the Compliance Remedy). .?... T-h -~:-.1w. . n.r evinu.d.v, !!ubm.itted affidavits herein indicatin2- that l have a two lnchelors ' . degrees, one in ~ Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Mamrs degree in Education Administration from UALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years. 3. r have been.regularly monitoring program evaluati cornpliance before and especially s-.nce the court's order of June 30) 2004. My .monitoring has involved the following activiues: l .JUl~  .::.t:1.\u0026lt;::.~b 4 ' d::\u0026gt;t-'1'1 JOHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.5/ 10 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program evaiuati.ons; b) conveISations with PRE staff, the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE' s quarterly reports regar~ the compliance remedy; 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 rcgulatly 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, fo\u0026lt;..-used and deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my wol'k. I have had 311 occasion to review district publi~ons which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is dcmons1rafed. for cxm:npl~, by the district's professional d.eveloP\"\"-t c .. lendar fur the y~rs 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 lx,fore the end of the second school year addressed in the ccrmplienc~ remedy f 11nd ::.l'!l-,sr 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], ~en for tbose 2 JUN.28.2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.152 P.6/ 10 dates. it de~ net m-?.f-l\"n. the nnmher of -S'tm wbo received professional developmem with ?CSpect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district' .s cmricu1um. 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 upected (Page 62, Fcotnote39 oft~ C.ompMnee Remedy) to be apart of the comprehensive assessment process will not be uudertami until tbe fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1. 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questioanaire postpOned) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a \"data warehouse: to eith_\"'!' supplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comp1~\\ei:isivt asse5:,,1ue:ut prveess in.to the in..'\"tr.z....\"tion :programs. LP.SD Complinnc--\" Report March 1, 2006 at 3. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE' s use. {Interview with Dr. De.Jamette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's - req,Ji.-rem.em: that the difflict have a PRE department in the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program msessment/evaluation process (Ptige 68, of tho Compliance Remedy). 3. Various factors suggest that the vision of the cU1Tent administration of the LRSD de~ the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE ~ed m~Jy ti) the Suy_,erintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would reali.u the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court.. Jn March 2005, Dr. to sui,ervise PRE. Theresfter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities u,ron PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major foCU!. These responsibilities :included the pteparation school improvement plans for a. lqe 3 JUN.G~-2006 4:35PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.152 P.7/10 nmn~er of schools as wen at- developing and cmying out surveys required as part of the school i.wptovemem effort. I un.de::r.:m-:f \"PP.E's m~j~r fucu~ to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying out of required assessments and evaln.a.ti.ons, and the emberlding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD s cmriculum and instruction program. 9. Int.he two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation. Dr .. Olivine Robar.s 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 LR.SD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Brooks hM made with respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. A.!?.at..hereY\"\"'\"le 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 COllSisted. for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. - ~ the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active participation by other ,Hqn,,;ct st!tf who h~ the respo~~;hiJity of actually implementing the programs being ~aluated. 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 1,'esting Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham_ left the district l)rior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contto....ct 1H\"';\";cJu.d from ! 1 month!i: tc:, 10 months as a result of the district's ''reorganization.\" Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testina Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. Arthur Olds).[Compllimce Report March 1, 2006] He resigned after approximately 3 months on thcjob.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position has not been nllet:f. Tt is my understanding that one of PREs statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4. .Jun  .:.cs. \u0026lt;::.~IOo 4 ; .:!bl\"rl J VHN W WRLKER P A N0.152 P.8/ 10 ~...c:l =gr.e1 tru: .orlrlP.tl ~onsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for jub vacancies, the Te.,~ COO?dinator positinn 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 t,\"\" Tn~..t ctfonal ~~ouree Cent.er (IRC) of the LRSD. The puxposc of the meetini was for PRE staff to update Joahua and the ODM regarding the mtm~ nfthe Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the neeessary test data for the Step 2 evalu:rtiom due on October ! , 2006. PRE Director, Or. DeJamette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data wo!!ld be SY~.h thst m extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJamettc stated that she would provide the necessary information to the lSD counsel for the fi1ina 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 cumculum and ins1ruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the \"data warehouse\" in fonnulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2. 7 .1. Based upon this commumcation and inf0tlll8tion. comaincd in paragraphs 5.6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PR P. :miff members and the ODM representative. Ocnc Jones, that because the district was not in compliance in \"embedding program assessments\" into its cumculum 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 ~ommunicated similar reservations to the LRSD' s PRE staff JUt'i.C:l:S.\u0026lt;:::~ 4'::lbl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A N0.152 P.9/ 10 14. Foll~ inf'ormini l)r. ne.Jamette, .PRE Dl!ector, that Joshua would invoke the and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met with Mr. Jones thereafter. It is noteWOrthy that they did not io.lu.de Pll Oireetm- Oe.Ta.mette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly 8$k.ed that Joshua be fully involved in these discussions. the district chose t~ involve only ODM 15. I am of the view that the LRSD h3s 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. DcJamettc is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She bas indic31'Cd as much during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD has no definitive plan for the USe of \"assessments'' being geuer.itcd by the Compass Leaming programs. Furdlermore, the school district's adxninistration bas not acted in keeping - Joshua and the court informed through timely reports., of tbe necessity for more time. and for modification of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluatiOrtS 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 fmlurc to provide the n~my data. Afflant saith nothing further; 6 JUl'i. a:,,~ 4; ~bl-'M JUHN W WALKER P A STATE OF AR.KANSAS) COUNTY OF ILYt1vJt.t \\ 7 N0.152 P.10/10 ..,...,,,.c.o.c.t:iO\u0026lt;Jo \u0026lt;-+,::1\u0026lt;-+r-11 JVMl'i W WHLKt.1-\u0026lt; t-' A N0.152 P.1/ 10 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 17:15 .Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (SOJ) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMJSSIO]S COVER SHEET Dat~: June 28 ,2006 To: GeneJones Fa.x: 371-0100 Re: LRSD Sende: John W. Walker YOU SHOULD RECEIVE ( (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S}, INCLUDING THIS COVF;R SHEEI'. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE.A.LL THE PA.GES, PLEA.SE CALL ''\u0026lt;(S01) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" Theinfonnationcourainedinthisfac:similemessageisattorneyprivilegcd.andconfidemialinfonnationintended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Iftbe r    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_54","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":["2006-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/54"],"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 .Educatiin 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us May 25, 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. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette 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 MAY 2 6 2006 OFFICEOF IJESEOREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 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 May 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 ~ ' .t- SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 6 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 May 2006. Respectfully Submitted, Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 J, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 25, 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 t~ cott mith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 2 6 2006 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 13ased on the information available at A:pnl 30, 2006, the ADE calculated the State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06. subiect to~neriodic adiustmehfs!  B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 for FY 05/06 at ril 30 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 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 May 31, 2006 at at Oo e It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 E ca cu ated at A G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 istri6ution ril 30, 2006, total calculated 011194 sub\"ectt H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31 , 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 Ir:, 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 - B of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 5 of the 4 7 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 B - 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 B - 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 May 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. Q. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of May 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. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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 May 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 15 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 May 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. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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 May 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. 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 May 31, 2006 {Continued) On April 24, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Laws passed by the legislature need to be checked to make sure none of them impede desegregation. Ray Lumpkin was chairman of the last committee to check legislation. Since he left, we will discuss the legislation with Clearence Lovell. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 10, 2003 at 1 :30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. On August 28, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. The Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD was discussed. The LRSD has been instructed to submit evidence showing progress in reducing disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. This is supposed to be done by March of 2004, so that the LRSD can achieve unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 9, 2003 at the ADE. On October 9, 2003, the ADE Implementation Phase Working Group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the Desegregation ruling on unitary status for LRSD. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2004 at the ADE. On October 16, 2003, ADE staff met with the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee at the State Capitol. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented the Chronology of activity by the ADE in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan for the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. They also  discussed the role of the ADE Desegregation Monitoring Section. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, reported on legal issues relating to the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. Ann Marshall shared a history of activities by ODM, and their view of the activity of the school districts in Pulaski County. John Kunkel discussed Desegregation funding by the ADE. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. Cleare nee 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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. Acb,ial as of May 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 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 May 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. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION {Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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 May 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 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 May 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 May 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 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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 May 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 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 May 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand 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. 34 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, r\n1nd scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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 May 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. 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 May 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. 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 May 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 Ma on reviewed and apP.roved th MTan :..:=:..:::==~===.i~.:....=.==:.:=-:=-~ 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued} A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. {Continued} 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 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 May 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 May 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued} 2. Actual as of May 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 May 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 May 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of May 31, 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within  the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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 ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. so VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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 atthe 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of May 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 Leaming\" 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 workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Directorfor Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray S\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_120","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":["2006-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/120"],"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 DE PA RTM ENT OF or. r. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed UC at 1 in 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us April 27, 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. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED APR 2 8 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 April 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Since71ly, 1Cm/0 r '----SSOO:::Sm~ I ( L-General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  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 DNISION RECEIVED APR 2 8 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 April 2006. Respectfully Submitted, t.ti.'tb cottSrnith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on April 27, 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,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;Li.ttk:k- Scott Smith RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .. APR 2 8 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF _ DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 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 April 30, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 '~!}, ~~~tt'f~ -'ti\n@ .f~~~(!, I~'  ~4!! -,\nr,1er:t~~, c,\n~111.~ ... j\nt,\ns-,, l~ft-::,f,tr, .',:,:\n::fill\n' :,~~tl\u0026lt;!Jfil\n~~ ~-!~~\" ~''i\ni-~71((ffi\"l 1 s D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 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 April 30, 2006 a G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2006 . - ' ._\n)\n. .,. '\u0026lt;~ J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 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 Noyember 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 Jr:ansportation needs. (Continued) - 2. Actual as of April 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 4 7 passenger buses for $43,426.00 each and i urteen 65 pa~senger buses for $44,289.00 each. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 4 7 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M rr:ansportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. r, 0 :',!Di'~ird!:~i ,,\n\\,t r,1\n tr,,:\n,:1.f:Jht~i:,J,t!r,,\\~.~~..'it.lil!~f,,gf:ii'lElc1t:iliJ1Ci ~r,irr:.W~iftn, ~Lff: ~i:Jr:1, r'r,r\n,, tr\"iI\n'.\u0026gt;ii\n~Jn?.tm~t ,r~~ITT !l!lili.'f-f C!Trf:i-'t~\u0026lt;\nll1i. (1'1\\tfr j, '\n:,,., \n tc:c}cti(J\" ii'[:11Wf~!)!i@tl.!ml~ .-'.~'i~~pr WJf~J.'1:~i-f!J!l([r,i\"ffl.:i .,\n~-~ft~WCJ!i!J.!1l~r~~JifiiJ.DL :ii~@iilit_\n~~~1~r1t,u~l!Ii.te\",\n~ ,\n0:!lIT:-r:, .t ~ ,1r\n:m~~,i~11f,t'fl~iJ.W~filf!l11iitmli1 ,m1ffiji\n'r\n(t}l'i\ni \\ 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 O 1 /02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) u. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 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. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 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 impact~ 9f compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impact_s of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 pf compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 pf compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 impact$ pf compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 impactl? 9f compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 impact~ 9f compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 impact~ of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 impact~ of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. Clearance 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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 30, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 appearto impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued} E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 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. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 24 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATl~N (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATl~N (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement_ and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 April 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 April 30, 2006 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 28 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 Educatiq_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued)- 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 Educatiq_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 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. 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 Educatio_n will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 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. 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 EducatiQ~_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 ahy, 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. 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 EducatiQn_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 Educatiq_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 EducatiQfl will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 EducatiQ.n. will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 EducatiQn_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 Educatio_n_ will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education pr:_~grams will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education _p_rograms will be identified. {Continued) - 2. Actual as of April 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 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education _p_rograms will be identified. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for te.chnical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education _p_rograms will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 Leaming, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 April 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 April 30, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 Startn 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 MS mart Step\" initiative, MStandard and Accountability in Action, and MCreating 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, MThe 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued} 2. Actual as of April 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 atthe 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 sctiools 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 1 O 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 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 workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initia\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_971","title":"'The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of the Desegregation Plan''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-03-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["'The Status of the North Little Rock School District's Implementation of the Desegregation Plan''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/971"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_103","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":["2006-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/103"],"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 or. T. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed U Cat 1 in 4 State Capitol Mall  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us March 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 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 RECEI'!~ APR -..l 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 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 March 2006 in the above-referenced case.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, J~\nGeneral Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia  Vice Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Shelby Hillman, Carlisle  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Randy Lawson, Bentonville  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 APR - 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 March 2006. Respectfully Submitted, ~v .. ~mitli, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 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 ~~tts\u0026amp;b Scott Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS RECEIVED APR - 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENOR$ ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education {ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA . {State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 05/06 at Februa D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 31, 2006 e o u It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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 March 31, 2006 Calculated for FY 04/05, subject to periodic adjustments. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued} I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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 March 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 performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. M. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 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 ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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 March 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 March 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 4 7 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 March 31, 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2006 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS {Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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. 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. 10 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of March 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. Distribution in July 2005 for FY 05/06 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 05/06. 11 .. II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 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 March 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. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued} A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued} 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 metto 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. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 17 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 18 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 19 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION {Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. Clearance 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. 20 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 31, 2006 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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 March 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 March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 Codes6-18-206, 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. 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. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 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 March 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. 25 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONSTHAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 FY2000/2001 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. 26 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83111 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. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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 March 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 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 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 March 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. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued} D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMTand 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. 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 March 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. 35 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 36 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 37 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES {Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 38 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. en March 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Boa~q.efJ\n:Cfucat1on reviewed and aooroved the PMT and its executive summarv for the month of F:ebruarvJ 39 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 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 March 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 March 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 43 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 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 March 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 March 31, 2006 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of March 31, 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 46 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2006 {Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program {ACT AAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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 ACTAAP Intermediate {Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course {Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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 ShelleyWeirwere 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. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued} F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas muth 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 heldthe 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. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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 EducationD. 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\". Represe.ntatives from an 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. 55 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 56 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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. 57 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of March 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 workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 58 VI. REMEDIATION {Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. {Continued) 2. Actual as of March 31, 2006 {Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses  on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address uovercoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented MBeyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented usmart Steps to\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":21,"next_page":22,"prev_page":20,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":240,"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}}]}}