{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_695","title":"\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 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":["2006-03-01/2006-09-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Quarterly Update to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 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/695"],"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\nFebruary 28, 2006 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: This accompanies a copy of the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006, in compliance with the June 30, 2004 memorandum opinion of the U.S. District Court. Please let us know if you would like more information. Thank you for your adviee and support in earrying out our responsibilities. Sincerely yours. Karen Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Sincerely yours, Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. Robert Pressman Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421-5817 Dear Mr. Pressman: This accompanies the quarterly written update of March 1, 2006 in compliance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Remedy (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). Mr. Walker has asked that we furnish you with copies of reports. Sincerely yours, DeJamette, .D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Gene Jones Ms. Marjorie Powell Mr. John Walker Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 Mr. Gene Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Marjorie Powell Associate Monitors Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr, Jones \u0026amp; Ms. Powell: On Monday, March 13 the evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will convene at the IRC, 3001 South Pulaski Street, in room 10 at 10 AM. In a later mailing you will receive the proposed plan and questionnaires for the evaluation. We invite you to attend. Please contact us if you would like more information. Sincerely yoiKS, Karen DeJamette,rh.D. Director, PRE xc: Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 February 28, 2006 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: On Monday, March 13 the evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will convene at the IRC, 3001 South Pulaski Street, in room 10 at 10 AM. In a later mailing you will receive the proposed plan and questionnaires for the evaluation. We invite you to attend. Please contact us if you would like more information. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department xc: Mr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Ms. Marjorie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller LRSD Counsel Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School District (LRSD) QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors March 1, 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF V. M H PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206IN IN Little Rock School District (LRSD) IN IN QUARTERLY UPDATE to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and Joshua Intervenors IN IN March 1, 2006 IN RECEIVED mar 1 - 2006 OFFICEOF desegregation monitoring IN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF IN V. IN PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I ETAL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ETAL., INTERVENORS IN KATHERINE KNIGHT, ETAL., INTERVENORS IN IN IN d Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) Instructional Resource Center (IRC) Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 d dIntroduction This is the sixth quarterly written update by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and its Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE), submitted in accordance with the U. S. District Courts 2004 Compliance Rem^y (Memorandum Opinion of June 30, 2004, pp. 61-67). The organization of this report is that of the Compliance Remedy: II A. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process which must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSDs curriculum and instruction program. 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. PRE must (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants . . . and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support... Evaluations will contain numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who contributed data, recommended program changes necessary for improved academic achievement by Afncan-American students, and brief explanations of how each change will increase a programs effectiveness. . . . PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval ... by December 31, 2004. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the . . . four step 2 program evaluations . . . during the 2004-05 school year and the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year ... to ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1... [ODMs responsibilities.] [Joshuas responsibilities.] Four step 2 program evaluations are due to the U. S. District Courts October 1, 2005 and four more not later than October 1, 2006. The Compliance Report is due October 15, 2006. [This Compliance Remedy supersedes earlier one.] 11 11 k II II II * i K a Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 2 of 5M Status as of March 1, 2006 M A. Hire a highly trained team of professionals. I IN LRSD hired a highly trained team of professionals in 2004 who met the Compliance Remedys requirements and reported this accomplishment in its first quarterly written update of December 1, 2004. This team continues to carry out diligently the Compliance Remedy, as stated in this sixth quarterly written update. IN Arthur Olds joined the PRE Department in November 2005 as testing coordinator. His resume is in Appendix A. R B. Devise and embed a comprehensive program assessment process. IN IN The PRE Department has continued to develop its comprehensive assessment process including a district portfolio, as reported in the fourth and fifth quarterly written updates. In addition to the LRSD senior administrators and principals who consult the portfolio, Dr. James Catterall used its data in his step 2 evaluation of the Districts Year-Round Education option in several schools. IN IN IN To support the portfolios expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a data warehouse which LRSD staff and others can consult on a real-time basis. The LRSD Computer Information Department is consulting with Janis Group, Inc., a firm with expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data. After determining this sophisticated data warehouses purpose(s), this team is determining which data sets to include. The data warehouse will bring the portfolio alive by supporting frequent updates of the portfolio and timely reports for purposes of developing policy, planning, research, and evaluation at levels of classrooms, schools, grades, departments, and the district. IN IN Education for the Future (EFF) devised a welcome page and questionnaires for an on-line school climate survey. EFF based the questionnaires on interests that derived from consultations on the districts mission and operations. Principals, teachers, students, and parents will participate in the survey this spring, and its results will go into the district portfolio. Appendix B shows the questionnaire drafts. IN C. Hire outside consultant(s) to prepare eight formal step 2 evaluations. If If M Step 2 evaluations of 2004-2005 During LRSDs December vacation, the Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP), directed by Dr. Steve Ross at the University of Memphis, submitted draft evaluation reports for CompassLeaming (CL), Reading Recovery (RR), and SMART/THRIVE (S/T). Dr. Catterall sent his draft evaluation report for Year-Round Education (YRE) in early January. LRSD forwarded these four draft reports, as they arrived, to the U. S. District Court, to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. PRE received final reports by early February and forwarded them to the same parties prior to their due dates. Summaries of the evaluation reports, submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for their approval February 23, are in Appendices C through F. They include recommendations and resulting expectations. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 3 of 5LRSD evaluation policy requires follow-up of evaluation recommendations. Evaluation teams for each program will convene during the next year to consider how LRSD implements the external evaluators recommendations. To prepare for this, PRE will collect appropriate data from administrators of the four programs evaluated last year. Step 2 evaluations during the 2005-2006 school year Dr. Ross presented CREPs proposed designs for step 2 evaluations during the 2005-2006 school year21'-Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC), Pre-K Literacy (PKL), and Read 180to school principals January 18. In September, Dr. Catterall heard feedback about the evaluation design for A+ from the principal, teachers, and parents at Woodruff Elementary School. He also conducted a focus group and interviewed the principal. PRE recruited stakeholders for the four evaluation teams, and 22 participated on February 9 in reviewing their roles and discussing the four proposed evaluation designs (found in Appendices G, H, I, and J of this sixth quarterly written update). Their schedules indicate data collection starting in February. Joshua counsel did not attend\nbut ODM officers did and recommended more team members, with which PRE complied. Appendix K lists members of all four teams. D. PRE (1) oversees the preparation of the step 2 evaluations, (2) works closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and (3) assists them. PRE continued working closely with the CREP team in completing their three step 2 evaluations of last year, reviewing closely and discussing with CREP its three draft reports in early January, convening the evaluation teams on January 12 for their reviews, submitting comments to CREP for incorporation into its final drafts, then submitting the final drafts to the Board of Directors for approval at its February session. PRE wrote evaluation teams questions and observations and distributed them the next day to all team members for further contributions and corrections. A week later, final comments went to CREP, and CREP sent a research brief, written in simpler language, for each program. Names of participants at the January 12 session and their comments appear in Appendix L. On January 19, PRE convened the evaluation team for reactions to the draft report of the YRE evaluation and wrote down participants remarks, which went to all team members for additional contributions and corrections. After a week, having received no more, PRE sent the teams notes to Dr. Catterall for incorporation into his final draft. PRE submitted this final report to the Board of Directors for their approval February 23. Appendix L records participants names and their comments from January 19. I E. Evaluation will have (1) numbers and grade levels of teachers and administrators who submit data for evaluations, (2) recommended program changes necessary for improved achievement by African-American students, and (3) succinct explanations of how each change will increase its respective programs effectiveness. a During its critical reviews of the first four draft evaluation reports, PRE reminded the external evaluators of this requirement\nand the resulting final reports included these three required Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 4 of 5IN H elements. PRE will assure that the final four evaluation reports by external evaluators will also satisfy these requirements next year. F. Delivery of names of programs to be evaluated and the comprehensive program assessment process to ODM and Joshua. IN Earlier quarterly written updates have reported that PRE notified both ODM and Joshua of all eight LRSD programs selected for step 2 evaluations and furnished both parties with the LRSD comprehensive program assessment process per F of the U. S. District Courts June 30, 2004 remedy (page 65). In addition, PRE has notified ODM and Joshua of occasions when critical issues regarding the evaluations have been considered and decided. IN G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of step 2 evaluations. IN IN Per G of the June 30, 2004 remedy by the U. S. District Court (page 65), PRE submitted its first written quarterly update on December 1, 2004, its second on March 1, 2005, its third by June 1, 2005, the fourth prior to September 1, 2005, and the fifth written quarterly update by December 1, 2005. PRE now submits this sixth written quarterly update prior to its due date of March 1, 2005. To date, PRE has met all due dates of the remedy including the first annual report which the Court postponed from its original date of October 1, 2005. IN IN IN IN IN IN II n H N Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Page 5 of 5 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. APPENDICES Resume of Mr. Arthur Olds, new Testing Coordinator Draft questionnaires for on-line climate survey of LRSD teachers Summary of CompassLearning Evaluation Summary of Reading Recovery Evaluation Summary of SMART/THRIVE Summary of Year Round Education Draft design for Step 2 Evaluation of A+ by Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Draft design for Evaluation of 2L^ Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) by CREP Draft design for Evaluation of Pre-K Literacy (PKL) by CREP Draft design for Evaluation of Read 180 by CREP Evaluation team members during 2006-2007 for A+, CCLC, PKL, and Read 180 Teams and their feedback to draft evaluation reports of CL, RR, and S/T January 12 and YRE January 19, 2006 Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendices I I 1 H IN Appendix A IN IN Testing Coordinator IN Arthur Clyde Olds DI ID Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District ID ID ID ID ID ID Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix AEDUCATION: FOREIGN LANGUAGES: TEACHING EXPERIENCE: Arthur Clyde Olds 23 Sandstone Conway, Arkansas 72034 (501) 329-6106 arthirr.olds@conwaycorp.net A.B.D. Michigan State UruversitySpanish M.A. Michigan State Urtiversity-Spanish (1974) B.A. Brigham Young University-Spanish/History (1970) Teaching Licensure-State of Aricansas: ESL (K-12), Spanish (K-12), Latin (K-12), Middle School Spanish: Read, Speak, Write-Excellent Latin: Very Good French: Very Good 1990-present: Dunbar Magnet Middle School ESL school coordinator/ESL testing. I keep the ACSIP plan up to date and keep the several administrators and faculty current concerning school wide statistics, as I serve as School Testing Coordinator. I help with the Title 1 plan and budget and recently wrote an awarded grant of $100,000 for our after-school tutoring program in math and literacy, which I help coordinate. Teach all levels of Latin and Spanish, including our \"Introduction to Foreign Language\" courses. I have also taught reading. Serve at Dunbar as a member of the Campus Leadership Team, the Steering Corrunittee, NCA/COE chair. Discipline Hearing Committee chair. Foreign Language Department chair. Building Coordination Committee, SECME chair and team member (summer workshop). Quiz Bowl team leader and OM judge at Region and State competitions. For the LRSD serve on the Foreign Language Curriculum Revision Committee, on the District Textbook Adoption Committee in two cycles, the Middle School Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment Committee and the Activities Advisory Board. Also serve as a \"Pathwise\" Mentor for new teachers and teach computer classes for teachers in the district. 1980-present: Spanish Instructor in the Public Schools of Arkansas Taught all levels of Spanish, operated the language laboratory and served as Sparush Club advisor. Organized two torrrs to Mexico. Schools include: Southside-Bee Branch/Guy-Perkins, Perryville/East End, Magnet Cove and Parkview (Little Rock). English Instructor in the Public Schools of Arkansas Taught all levels of English (7-12), including Honors English, same schools. Co-director of a nationally recogiuzed restructuring program at Perryville High School that coordinated English, History and Cultural Studies. Worked under the direction of the State Department of Education and the Arkansas International Center at UALR. University of Central Arkansas (Instructor of Spanish1980-84) Taught all levels of Spanish, organized and conducted two summer programs in Mexico, and served as advisor to student teachers in the dq3artment. Developed third and fourth year proficiency testing and taught general education courses. Also worked in tire Elderhostel Program (Division of Continuing Education.) Taught English Composition I and II. University of Arkansas at Little Rock (Instructor of Spanish) Taught all first second and third year comses. 1969-1980: Graduate Assistant and Visiting Assistant Professor of Spanish Michigan State University (1973-80), Alma College (1976), University of Wisconsin-Madison (1972-73) and Brigham Young Uruversity (1969-72). Taught all first and second year courses offered by the departments as well as special sections of \"Spanish for Travelers.\" Had full responsibility for planning and conducting classes, text selection and production of materials for special classes. Also had language laboratory responsibilities. II w II R II R R RA. C. Olds, page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE: 1990- Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association General Board present: and President of the Arkansas Classical Association. 1985-90: Arkansas State Coordinator for National Spanish Exam of the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese. I 1985-88: President and Vice President, American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese DeSoto Chapter and Member, General Board of the Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association. K 1980-84: Department of Foreign Languages, University of Central Arkansas Student teacher advisor, proficiency testing and evaluation, textbook selection, sponsor oiLasociedad hispdnica, high school language festival judge, local university coordinator of National High School Spanish Exams, department publicity. National Committee of the Educational Testing Service CLEP Exam revision, foreign language reviewer for Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association, book reviewer for La Celestinesca. M 1974-80: Michigan State University: Department Chair Search Committee, Graduate Committee, Graduate Steering Committee, Advisory Committee, College of Arts and Letters Graduate Committee. H 1971-72: Brigham Young University: Department representative to College of Humanities Graduate Committee and Graduate School Advisory Committee. n RELATED WORK EXPERIENCE: 2001: Six week technology workshop, University of Arkansas at Little Rock IN 1997: SECME Summer Workshop, Tuskegee Institute 1991: II Summer workshop, Kingston, Jamaica, sponsored by the Arkansas International Center at UALR 1988: II Summer workshop, Guadalajara, Mexico, sponsored by the Arkansas International Center at UALR n 1985: Oral Proficiency Workshop of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, held at UALR 1984: First cycle of Program for Effective Teaching II 1974- Contract translation (Spanish to English/English to Spanish) for local present: businesses and legal translation for lawyers and the court II 1983-84: Editorial Board, Publications of the Arkansas Philological Association 1973-79: Editor, Tropos II11 A. C. Olds, page 3 II PUBLICATIONS/LECTURES: Papers presented at the Arkansas Philological Association Meetings\n\"Calisto: el loco enamorado (La Celestina).\" (1997) \"Celestina: Character as Author (La Celestina).\" (1995) \"Parmeno and Sempronio (La Celestina) and the Process of Self-Creation.\" (1993) \"The Thrust and Parry of Rojas' Prose: The Ironic Vision of La Celestina.\" (1991) \"Mirrors of Ambiguity: The Author in Search of Self in Miguel de Unamuno's La novela de Don Sandalio, jugador de ajedrez.\" (1989) \"If I'm OK and You're OK, Why Can't We Communicate?\" More on the continuing Saga of Don Quijote and Sancho.\" (1988) \"Irony and La Celestina\nThe Wonders of Rojas'Prose.\" (1987) \"Penas arriba : Adventure ofthe Archetypal Hero.\" (1986) M B B Other papers / lectures: \"Coordination and Cooperation: The High School and the University in Global Studies.\" Ark. International Studies Conference (UALR, April 1989.) \"Don Quijote y Sancho: El problema de la comunicacion.\" Tropos, 8 (1980), 17-27. \"Structure and Narrative Technique in La Celestina: The Aside.\" Mid-West MLA (Indianapolis: November, 1979). \"Scholarly Publishing: Dialogue Between an Editor and a Graduate Student.\" American Association of Comparative Literature Meetings (State College, Pennsylvania: April, 1979). Lockert, Lucia Fox. Spanish and Spanish-American Women Novelists. Scarecrow Press, 1979. (Book-length translation) \"Testing and Foreign Language Teaching\" (1977) and \"Oral Practice in Context\" (1976). Presented as part of a series on Foreign Language Teaching organized at Michigan State University. B 11 B PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Arkansas Foreign Language Teachers Association, Modem Language Association, Mid-West MLA, American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, Societe Rencesvals, Sigma Delta Pi, Comediantes, Arkansas Philological Association, Arkansas Classical Association, Mid-America Medieval Association, American Classical League, Classical Association of the Middle West and South B PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL\n1997: SECME workshop, Tuskegee Institute. 1991: Summer workshop, Kingston, Jamaica. 1988: Summer workshop, Guadalajara, Mexico. 1981, 1982, 1986, 1987: Guided study programs in Mexico. 1969-70 and 1970-71: Semester Abroad programs in Spain with BYU. 1970 and 1971: Extensive Summer European travel. 1966-1968: Close daily contact with Spanish-speaking people of Colorado, Texas and New Mexico. B B B REFERENCES: Available on request. B BAppendix B 4 I H n II n n n n n On-line Climate Survey Draft Questionnaires for Administrators (Principals), Staff (Teachers and others), Students, and Parents Prepared by Education for the Future For Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix B cII Education for the Future i I II Strongly Dim^ Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree w I am a valued member of this School District I am able to participate meaningfully in District decisions that impact my responsibilities 1 am able to work with District leadership to generate special resources when I need them I am allowed to be an effective leader in my school I am encouraged to find unique solutions to issues in my school I clearly understand the specifics of what I am held accountable for in perfonnance reviews I enjoy my job 0. I understand what is expected of me in my role Others in the District have the same understanding of the nature of my role that I have People in the District can explain the Districts vision People in the District respect me S) 11 Principals in the District generally like what they do here The District leadership cares about me The District leadership trusts my judgment The District provides an organizational climate in which all schools can succeed CD The District strategic plan will lead us to make our vision a reality There are opportunities forme to develop my skills There is a District-level strategic plan in place As a rule, District leadership requires that I use specific strategies to accomplish District goals in my school District leadership provides adequate resources for me to get my job done effectively District leadership provides me with direction District leadership supports my decisions II II II Everyone who works in this District is expected to deliver high quality work Good work is consistently recognized in this District II Copyright 1991 -2005 Education for die Future Initiative, Chico. CA. Page 1 of 2 II II II H Education for the Future I Wliat are the most effective things that the District does to facilitate your effectiveness? 4 What are the least effective things that the District does in relation to your effectiveness? What should the District be doing, that it is not doing currently, to help make you more effective? Hn fl fl - - - - - - - - - - - - Administrator Demographic Data- - - - - - - - - - - - - Demoi^raphic data, which is used for suniniary analysis, will not he reported if individualscan be identified. fl fl Ethnicity: (fi// in all that apply) Q African-American O American Indian/Alaskan Native O Asian O Caucasian 0 Hispanic/Latino O Other_______________ Gender\nO Female O Male 1 am a(ii): O Elementary Assistant Principal O Elementary Principal O Middle School Assistant Principal O Middle School Principal O High School Assistant Principal O High School Principal O Other School Administrator O DistrictAdministrator O specify:_________________ n n I have been in iny current position: I have been an administrator for: O 1st Year O 2-3 Years O 4-6Ycars O 7-t()Yc\nirs O ll-14Years O 15-20Years O 21-25 Years O 26+Yeiirs O pt Year O 2-3Years O 4-6 Years O7-10Years O ll-14Years O 15-20Years O 21-25 Years O 26-30Years O 31-35 Years O 36-4()Years O 41 +Years Copyright 1991-2005 Education for the Future Initiativc.Chico.CA. Pagc2()f2 Education for the Future This PDF file is for content review purposes onlynot intended for use in questionnaire administration. For more information about administering and analyzing Education for the Future questionnaires, please visit http:ileff.esuchico.edul(iueslionnaire_resourcesl. [ Strongly Agree Neutral Agree I feel: I Strongly Disagree Disagree Demographic daia, which is used for summary analysis, will not be reported if individuals can be identified. Ethnicity: (fiil in all that apply) O African-American O American Indian O Asian O Caucasian O Latino/IIispanic O Other like I belong at this school that the staff cares about me that learning can be fun that learning is fun at this school recognized for good work intrinsically rewarded for doing my job well clear about what ray job is at this school tliat others are clear about what my job is at this school I work with people who: 11 I am a(n): O classroom teacher O instructional assistant O certificated staff (other than aclasKTOcyni tcacitcr) O classified staff (other than an inairucttonal xssistant) treat me with respect listen if I have ideas about doing things better My administrators: CD Iremsfor teachers only: I teach: O pre-kindergarten O primary grades O upper elementary grades O middle school grades O high school grades 9-10 O high school grades 11-12 I have been teaching: O 1-3 years 04-6 years 07-lOyears O 11 or more years treat me with respect are effective instructional leaders facilitate communication effectively support me in my work with students support shared decision making allow me to be an effective instructional leader are effective in helping us reach our vision I have the opportunity to: develop my skills think for myself, not just carry out instructions I believe student achievement can increase through: differentiating instruction effective professional development related to our vision integrating instruction across the curriculum teaching to the state standards the use of computers the use of varied technologies providing a threat-free environment close personal relationships between students and teachers addressing student learning styles effective parent involvement using ongoing smdent assessments related to state standards student self-assessments teacher use of student achievement data /love: working at this school seeing the results of iny work with students Education for ihr Future Initiative (2tX\u0026gt;6) Chico, C A: Education For the Future Continued * K BIB i Education for the Future I j Strongly Agree 1 1 Neutral Agree 1 believe: j Strongly Disagree Disagree II M every student can leam the instructional program at this school is challenging this school provides an atmosphere where every student can succeed quality work is expected of all students at this school quality work is expected of me quality work is expected of all the adults working at this school the vision for this school is clear the vision for this school is shared we have an action plan in place which can get us to our vision this school has a good public image it is important to communicate often with parents 1 communicate with parents often about their childs progress 1 communicate with parents often about class activities the school buildings and grounds are clean I work effectively with: n II special education students English learners ethnically/racially diverse students students who live in poverty low-achieving students Morale is high on the part of: II n teachers students support staff administrators A A Items for teachers and instructional assistants only: Student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to me Student outcomes for my class(es) are clear to my students Teachers in this school communicate with each other to make student learning consistent across grades I know the state standards I teach to the state standards Learning is fun in my classroom 1 love to teach A A e Education for ihc Future Iniiiative(2006) tliico, C!A\nEducation for the Future fl CD @ @ Continued (S\u0026gt; \u0026gt; n Education for the Future i What are the strengths of this school? B B B What needs to be improved? B B B B B B B B Education forthe Future Initiativc\u0026lt;2(\u0026gt;06) Chico.CA: Education for ibc Futurc BM Education for the Future H StudentsI Strongly Agree MH I am in: 03' Grade 04' Grade 05' Grade 06' Grade 07' Grade I am: 08*^ Grade 09'Grade O IChGrade O 11* Grade O 12' Grade I Neutral Agree I Strongly Disagree Disagree II H II AAA AAA A A O African-American O American Indiiin/ Alaskan Native O Asian O Caucasian O Hispanic/Lalino O Other I am: O Boy OGirl I am: O participating in extracurricular activities O involvedinacommunity service project O enrolletl in a service learning class When I am at school, I feel: I belong I am safe I have fun teaming I like this school This school is good 1 have freedom at school I have choices in the way 1 learn My teacher(s) treat me with respect My teacher(s) care about me My teacher(s) think I will be successful My teacher(s) listen to my ideas My principal cares about me My teacher(s) is a good teacher My teacher(s) believe I can leant I am recognized for good work I ani challenged by the work my teacher(s) a,sk me to do The work I do in class makes me think I know what I am supposed to be learning in my classes I am a good student 1 can be a better student Working hard will make me do well in school Very good work is expected at my school 1 behave well at school Students arc treated fairly by teachers Students are treated fairly by the principal Students are treated fairly by school resource officers (SRO) Students at my school treat me with respect I am safe from bullies Students at my school are friendly 1 have lots of friends I have support for learning at home My family believes\nI can do well in school My family wants me to do well in school My school building and grounds are clean Copyright 2006 EducaGon for the Future Initiative. Chico. CA. A 5. Page 1 of2 Education for the Future Students I What do you like about this school? What do you wish was different at this school? Copyright 2006 Education f\u0026lt;r the Future Initiative, Chico, CA, Page2of2 II M Education for the Future H This PDF file is for eowteiit review purposes onlynot Intended for use in questionnaire administration.. For more information about administering and analyzing Education for the Future questionnaires* please visit htlp:/!cffx!iuchico.edulqiiestumnaire,_re3oiirccsi. Disagree = Strongly Disagree I feel welcome at my childs school j Stron^yAg^ Neutral Agree H 14 14 14 14 14 14 I am informed about my childs progress I know what my childs teacher(s) expect of my child My child is safe at school My child is safe going to and from school There is adequate supervision during school There is adequate supervision before and after school Teachers show respect for the students Students show respect for other students The school meets the social needs of the students The school meets the academic needs of the students The school expects quality work of its students The school has an excellent learning environment I know how well my child is progressing in school I like the schools report cards/progress report I respect the schools teachers I respect the schools principal Overall, the school performs well academically The school succeeds at preparing children for future work The school has a good public image The schools assessment practices are fair My childs teacher(s) help me to help my child learn at home 1 support my childs learning at home I feel good about myself as a parent I feel educational opportunitie.s at my child's school are provided equitably The school buildings and grounds are clean I feel 1 am a valued parmcr in my childs education 1 have access to school materials and resources that support my childs education CO 14 14 14 fl Childrens grades: O Kindergancn O First Grade O Second Grade O Third Grade O Fourth Grade O Fifth Grade O Sixth Grade O Seventh Grade O Eighth Grade O Ninth Grade O Tenth Grade O Eleventh Grade O Twelfth Grade Number of children in this school: CD My native language is: O Chinese O Eastern European O English O Japanese O Koretm O Spanish O Vietnamese O Other______________ Copyright 2006 Education for die Future Initiative, Chico.CA. @ Number of children in the household: Ethnic background: (fill in all that apply) o Black O American Indian/Alaskan Native O Asian O White O Hispanic/Latino O Other_______________ Responding: O Mother O Father O Guardian O Other @ @ Page 1 oQ Education for the Future i M M What are the strengths of this school? H What needs to be improved? K Copyright 2006 Education for the Future Initiative, Chico, CA. Pagc2of2 H Appendix C n H H H fl CompassLeaming (CL) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C Summary: CompassLearning Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross (CREP) Reported by PRE Department B Summary of CompassLearning (CL) Implementation in LRSD: CL is a computer-based program for improving learning in language arts, reading, and math with personalized lessons tailored to each students needs. CL also helps teachers manage their students learning and gives administrators on-going perfonnance reports. LRSD introduced CL (initially called Jostens) ten years ago but left election to use CL to each school. During 2004-2005, 19 elementary schools used CL in grades K-5. Lab attendants and/or technology specialists assist teachers with integrating lessons into their curriculums. Students work on language arts, reading, and/or math for 30 to 60 minutes per week in computer labs with a lab attendant and classroom teacher present. Some also had CL activities in their regular classrooms. B B Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for CL included: (1) analyses of CL student achievement and program data, and (2) surveys and interviews with principals, CL specialists, teachers, and parents. At school faculty meetings, 356 elementary teachers returned questionnaires in which they indicated their familiarity with CL and their opinions of it\n318 indicated at least some experience with CL. At the next page are evaluation team members. Bl B B Results: Evaluators found mixed, small CL effects in African American achievement scores. While LRSD provided fully adequate computer equipment and personnel, teachers used CL student reports little and exposed their students to less CL than prescribed. Teachers, lab attendants, and technology specialists regarded CL program implementation, impacts, and strengths very highly Parents/guardians of CL students supported CL, too, but did not fully understand it. Principals who stopped CL still supported it. Recommended Program Modifications: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Ensure students spend the recommended effort60 minutes each for language arts, reading, and math each week for grades K - 5, or 90 minutes in grades 3 - 5. Teachers should understand CL reports most critical for adapting lessons to needs of African American students and use the CL reports to assist lab attendants. Principals must use monthly CL class-level and school-level reports to monitor and adjust instructional interventions for African American students. Improve district coordination to ensure language and math activities align with the LRSD curriculum and follow recommended CL guidelines. B Expectations of Program Modifications \u0026lt; Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time 4 Closer adherence to CL guidelines 4 More proficiently using student perfonnance data to meet the individuals needs B B B Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C4. More effective instructional leaders of schools through deeper understanding of CL 4 resources and teacher skills to address student learning deficiencies Frequent monitoring and more timely supportive interventions Evaluation Team Members for CompassLeaming H Team Leader - Dr. Karen DeJamette, PRE Department CL program specialist - Mr. Travis Taylor, Instractional Technology Department Statistician - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - Dr. Deborah Lowther, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External consultants - Dr. Deborah Lowther, Dr. Dan Strahl, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies PRE Reviewers - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, and Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Amy Thompson Teachers - Ms. Amy Thompson and Ms. Thelma Watson, Fulbright Elementary School Principal - Ms. Deborah Mitchell, Fulbright Elementary School M IN IN IN IN IN IN Quarterly Written Update March 1, 20006 Appendix C Appendix D Reading Recovery (RR) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team M H Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District a K H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix D riSummary: Reading Recovery Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross, University of Memphis Summary by PRE Department Summary of Reading Recovery (RR) Implementation in LRSD: RR teachers tutor students one-on-one for 30 minutes every school day for 12 to 20 weeks. Successful completion (called discontinued) equips students to learn at grade level and lessens the need for special attention. RR teachers designate students not up to grade in less than 20 weeks as Incomplete and those not up to grade by 20 weeks as recommended for further action. LRSD has expanded RR and partnered with the UALR College of Education to train teachers and advance their skills. In the 2004-2005 school year, 28 trained RR teachers served 18 of the districts 34 elementary schools. Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for Reading Recovery included: (1) analyses of RR student achievement and program data, (2) principal, teacher, and parent surveys and interviews, and (3) observations of RR tutoring sessions. H Evaluators observed 16 RR teachers and collected questionnaires from 22 and another 156 nonRR teachers in classrooms. They also interviewed 10 principals and 4 teachers in training. Evaluation team members are found on the next page. H Results: n 91 9i in iR H 9{ RR improved African-American students reading skills. There are opportunities for further improvements in RR. RR experts observed well trained teachers who applied the RR model with high fidelity. RR teachers regard RR program highly for aiding African American students. RR impressed non-RR, classroom teachers, too, as beneficial to African American students. Principals agreed that their African American students are bridging the achievement gap through RR. Parents/guardians of RR students perceived RR as benefiting their children. H [fl Recommended Program Modifications: An expanded program with more RR teachers should monitor students more often after they discontinue RR to ensure sustaining their momentum. More LRSD students need RR than RR teachers can tutor. RR teachers might feel pressure to discontinue one group of students in order to begin another group. If true, the necessary follow-up contact can not occur\nand therefore the fl slippage in achievement that has been seen in other districts might occur in H LRSD, too. In an expanded RR program, RR teachers can more closely monitor their discontinued students and maintain their gains. In addition to expanding RR, LRSD should explore a transitional plan for students who discontinue. Such a plan could involve daily monitored reading that would also buffer against slippage. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix D fl Increased professional development of classroom (non-RR) teachers would better enable them to integrate their RR students back into the classroom once discontinued and to give them appropriate instruction and feedback so that they keep on improving. Increase LRSDs partnership with UALR to help develop the transitional plan and the professional development for classroom (non-RR) teachers. Future studies might analyze more in-depth a small number of students who kept on gaining after discontinuing RR. Many principals and RR teachers cited examples of profound student achievement and sustained, noteworthy success of former African-American RR students. Such studies could determine what factors led to successes and how teachers can better help other students. H Expectations of Program Modifications: Reading Recovery has valuable components that, with changes, can be even more effective. With program modifications, the Little Rock School District could expect: Progressive gains on standardized test scores over time. Increased number of students involved in the Reading Recovery program. Closer adherence to Reading Recovery guidelines, particularly the number of sessions required for optimum benefits. More teachers throughout the district better able to serve at-risk students. Sustained achievement of students upon completion of the Reading Recovery program. A stronger relationship with experts at UALR that would continue to provide the Little Rock School District with the most up-to-date research findings and best practices for reading and literacy instruction. Evaluation Team Members for Reading Recovery Team Leader - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Reading Recovery program specialist - Ms. Pat Busbea, Early Childhood / Elementary Literacy Department, and Dr. Linda Dorn, UALR College of Education Statistician - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External consultant - Dr. Anna Grehan, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies PRE reviewer - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Michelle Bonds-Hall Teacher - Ms. Michelle Dorsey, Chicot Elementary School Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix Dfl fl fl fl fl N fl fl fl Appendix E SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Evaluation by Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis Summary and Evaluation Team n Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District M M Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix E fl Summary: SMART/THRIVE Evaluation Evaluation conducted by Dr. Steven Ross, University of Memphis Reported by PRE Department Summary of SMART/THRIVE (S/T) Implementation in LRSD: SMART and THRIVE, designed by two veteran LRSD teachers, serve at-risk students. In 1999, LRSD implemented and funded them in part by the Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Program and NSF. w I S/T purposes are to prepare students entering Algebra I (8 to 9* grade) through supplemental lessons (SMART), prepare students to meet state standards in Algebra I (THRIVE), and instill confidence. SMART meets for two consecutive weeks in the summer. THRIVE meets every other Saturday in spring semester. SMART uses a co-teaching model with one teacher and one high school student mentor, while THRIVE uses a co-teaching model with two certified teachers. II Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for S/T included: (1) analyses of S/T student achievement and program data\n(2) surveys, focus groups, and interviews with principals, S/T specialists, teachers, students, and parents\nand (3) observations of classes and teachers. I I Evaluators observed five O^-grade classes and collected questionnaires from S/T teachers (IOS and 18 T) and Algebra I teachers (25 S and 33 T). Evaluation team members are listed on page 2. Results: o o o O O n Eighth and ninth grade African American students in either S, T, or both more likely scored as proficient or advanced. Substantial gains on Algebra I End of Course exam, strongest among students in both S and T. African American students in both comparison and S/T groups performed the same as others on the ITBS. Students, their parent and instructors, and principals expressed satisfaction with S/T. Students and teachers noted increased self-confidence. Recommended Program Modifications: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 1 Expand scope of S/T to more students. Increase frequency of classes for S/T. Train more teachers for S/T. Follow S/T students through graduation and beyond to learn long-term outcomes. Provide transportation to students. Expectations of Program Modifications A A raising student achievement among African American students provide the district with a model that can be easily replicated, gain information about factors that set S/T apart from classroom Algebra and preAlgebra classes sustained remediation of African American students Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix EEvaluation Team Members for SMART/THRIVE n Team leader - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Smart / Thrive program specialist - Ms. Vanessa Cleaver and Ms. Marcelline Carr Statistician - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy External evaluators - Dr. Lyle Davis, Mr. Aaron McDonald, and Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy, and Gail Weems, UALR College of Education External reviewer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies PRE reviewer - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Rose Cook Teacher - Ms. Tonjuna Iverson, Parkview Magnet High School N H H H M H M Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix E Appendix F Year Round Education (YRE) Evaluation by James Catterall, Ph.D. University of California at Los Angeles Summary and Evaluation Team Prepared by Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix FN M Summary: Year Round Education Evaluation Conducted by Dr. James Catterall Reported by PRE Department Summary of Year Round Education (YRE) Implementation in LRSD: The YRE design is a single track 45-10 calendar in which all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days enrolled during a quarter then 10 days of Intersession/vacation. Formal Intersession programs operate for five days within an Intersession break, and student attendance is voluntary. Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff Elementary Schools have operated on a YRE calendar since school year 2000-2001, while Cloverdale and Mitchell Elementary Schools began YRE in 2002-2003. fl Evaluation Plan and Participants: The evaluation plan for YRE included: analyses of YRE student achievement and program data, and surveys and interviews with administrators and principals, special education teachers, classroom teachers, and parents from each school. The following list shows the number of teachers included from each grade level\nPre-K, 10\nK, 9\n1 8\n2\"*, 9\n3\"*, 8\n4', 7\n5\"', 7\nself-contained, 3\nprincipal, 1\nand LRSD office, 3. fl fl Results: Conclusion III.l. YRE schools outperformed the comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five-year span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains. fl fl Conclusion III.2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, YRE schools outperformed other schools very modestly in literacy and significantly in math on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmarks. This means that YRE schools generally performed higher than would be expected from both past performance and student demographics. It also means that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly in mathematics. fl fl Conclusion IV. 1. YRE schools showed significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than did comparison schools in five important indicatorsstudent mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both math and literacy. Attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either school group. The magnitude of these changes for YRE schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in comparison schools are significant indications of positive developments in YRE schools. fl fl Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend YRE-school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not\nDirect comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests and correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators come to the same conclusion. Either in one way or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students chose to attend Intersessions and which students did not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. fl Conclusion VI. 1. Parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of achievement conditions in YRE- versus regular-calendar schools. With respect to academic advantages or conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students reported higher achievement in YRE schools. Teachers Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix F fl reported better conditions for learning, but feweronly about 35 percentreported actual academic achievement differences favoring YRE schools when asked this question directly. Recommended Program Modifications: Institute academic-enrichment and student-tutoring sessions during Intersessions, which are mainly recreational, or craft-, special interest-, or hobby-focused. Intersessions could be occasions of voluntary or urged academic assistance. Increase the numbers of students who participate in Intersessions. Since they particularly and YRE education generally showed positive impacts on student achievement, it makes sense to help the Intersession program reach more students. About 36 percent of all students in grades 3, 4, and 5 across YRE schools had never attended an Intersession as of spring 2005. Potentially effective steps to boost participation are communications between teachers and parents (although we did not find inadequacies in this area), family assistance that might foster attendance (such as child care for very young siblings), and added incentives for teachers to create and offer attractive opportunities. H Ml Ml Ml Ml Bl Bl Boost African American student participation in Intersessions. Participation rates among the few white and other non-African American students are extremely high. Attempts to recruit students for Intersessions will largely be greeted by African American audiences. Bl Retain the YRE structure of four evenly spaced terms punctuated by the two-week Intersession and vacation periods. Bl Bl Expectations of Program Modifications: The modification of Intersessions to include academic opportunities would increase instructional time and effectively shorten breaks between academic terms. This would add academic continuity. A direct expectation would be higher academic achievement levels. An indirect benefit would be improving teacher-student relationships through exposing more teachers and students to each other and additional experiences of teachers with the same students. n Increasing participation in Intersessions would extend academic benefits to greater portion of YRE-school students and permit additional Intersession course offerings. Both of these changes would lead to higher achievement. Similar to the indirect benefit above, expanded Intersession program would greater exposure would improve teacher-student relationships. M M Boosting Intersession enrollments of African American students would increase their academic success. B Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix FEvaluation Team Members for Year Round Education 4 4 Team Leader - Dr. Ed Williams, PRE Department YRE program specialists - Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal of Woodruff Elementary School, and Ms. Sophia Parchman, Assistant Principal of Mann Arts and Science Middle School Statistician - Ms. Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, PRE Department Programmer - Mr. Ken Savage, LRSD Computer Information Services Department Technical writer - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies External evaluators - Dr. James Catterall, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies External reviewer - Dr. Steve Ross, University of Memphis Center for Research in Educational Policy, and Gail Weems, UALR College of Education PRE reviewer - Jim Wohlleb, PRE Department Parent - Ms. Diana Layne-Jordan, parent and PT A president, Stephens Elementary School Teacher - Ms. Judy Harbour, fifth grade teacher at Stephens Elementary School N fl fl fl fl fl fl Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix F Appendix G Proposed Plan for Evaluation of the A+ Program at Woodruff Elementary School James Catterall, Ph.D. University of California at Los Angeles II II Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix GProposal for the Evaluation of the A+ Program at Woodruff Elementary School 4 Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question'. 4 1. Has the A+ program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Proposed Design Examination of achievement test scores between 2001 and 2005for Woodruff School and for comparison schools developed for the 2005 YRE program evaluation. (Scores will include 2006 if scale scores are made available for all applicable grades 60 days in advance of the due date of the draft report.) Descriptive year-to-year test score changes will be described. A predictive model for 2006 Benchmark test scale scores will be undertaken if data are available. H H Examining performance indicators from the Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District for differences between African American and white students (2005 edition or 2006 edition if available). These data include Benchmark proficiency scores, attendance, student mobility, and student behavioral indicators. Supplemental (Qualitative/Level 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of A+ at Woodruff Elementary School in 2005-06? Proposed Design Surveys and interviews with all Woodruff teachers will assess the scope and history of teacher and staff participation in A+. Expert observation of one demonstration A + lesson of each teacher followed by expert debriefing of teachers regarding purposes and methods, and teachers appraisal of outcomes. H Assessment of the impact of A+ on the Woodruff School Culture (norms, assumptions about students and teaching and learning) based on intervie'ws, surveys, and follow-ups. H M Collection of sample student group or individual art products with brief written student comment about the objects connections to their learning. Students to decide. About 2 per classroom. Public display in school hall(s). Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix G H n 2. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups? Proposed Design Assessing student participation by classroom for 2005-06 and 2004-05 using archival records and current student rosters. What are the perceptions of teachers and Art Specialists regarding A+ program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Proposed Design Assessed by surveys, interviews and observations of teachers and art specialists. 3. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Proposed Design It Assessed through a universal parent survey and by randomly selected telephone interviews of about 25 parents throughout the school, stratified K-2 versus grade 3-5. Basic school statistics 2005-06 Woodruff has 219 students in grades K-5 17 Caucasian, 2 other, and 238 African American (92% A-A) It It Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question It Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. What are the effects of participation in A+ on the achievement of African American and other students? Participants Students at Woodruff and comparison school(s Data Sources It ITBS Grades K-5 Arkansas Benchmarks for 3-5) It It Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality, nature, and level of implementation of A+ at Woodruff in 2005-06? All students All teachers Art Specialists District Arts Coordinator Grade 3-5 student surveys Parents Student surveys Teacher Survey (faculty meeting) Art Specialist Phone Interview District Art Coordinator Phone Interview Classroom Observations It M M H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix G4 4 4 4 4 4 2. What is the level of participation in A+ by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school?_____________________ 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and Art Specialists regarding A+ implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of A+ students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? All students Comparison schools All African American vs. all Caucasian All teachers Art Specialists Parents School records/archival data ITBS and Benchmark scores. Teacher Survey Art Specialist Interview Parent Survey In-depth parent interviews 4 Timelines September, 2005 Initial meeting with principal and lead teachers 4 January, 2006: 4 February: 4 March-April: May-June: July-August: 4 4 September 1: October 1: Planning/refinement, consultation with PRE and instrument development Review of proposed evaluation by team and any changes Begin observations. District Arts Coordinator Interview (phone)\nselect Art Specialist and Observation School Samples\nbegin Art Specialist Interviews (phone) Teacher Survey (at faculty meetings), complete Art Specialist Interviews\ncomplete observations\ncomplete Student Focus Groups. Records/Archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses, review of draft report by PRE and evaluation teams, feedback from PRE, and preparation of final report Submit final report to PRE. LRSD submits final report to U.S. District Court. 4 Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix GAppendix H Proposed Plan for Evaluation of 21 Century Community Learning Centers Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis p H W P P P P P P n R n n p p p Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HProposal for Evaluation of 21 Century Community Learning Centers in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)^ Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the 2L Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? 2. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? School and Program Descriptions fl fl Several schools in the LRSD have hosted CCLCs, which offer academic support\nmath/science activities\nmusic/arts/drama\nentrepreneurial programs\ndrug/violence prevention, counseling, and character education\ntutoring/mentoring\nparent involvement\ntechnology and communication\nfamily literacy/education\nrecreational programs\nextended library hours\nand services for truant, suspended or expelled students. Individual centers provide a subset of the possible activities. A summary of CCLC programs, based on their respective grant applications, is provided below\nfl fl Woodruff Elementary School (WES) is one of 30 elementary schools in the district. The WES program includes visual and performing arts enrichment, family services, educational technology, cultural activities, and educational and recreational field trips. Program sessions are both before- and after-school, on Saturdays, and during intersessions. Parent/family services are also provided. fl fl Henderson Health Sciences Middle Magnet School (HHSMMS) is one of eight middle schools in the district. The HHSMMS program was developed as a comprehensive out-of-school program which includes before- and after-school elements, a summer program, and a Saturday program. An after-school Tutoring Club is designed to assist students academically. Morning sessions are organized to provide homework help and extended access to the library and technology resources. Enrichment opportunities are coordinated with community partners. A summer camp focuses on mathematics, literacy, and science, with technology as a strong component. H M Mabelvale Magnet Middle School (MMMS) is another of eight middle schools in the LRSD. The CCLC at MMMS is intended to provide remediation and enrichment in the areas of mathematics and literacy, as well as social and emotional development for students. This Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H fl program extends the schools magnet thematic programs and also builds on a previous Safe Schools/Healthy Schools grant. The program includes an after-school Tutoring Club, a Homework Club, and an Enrichment Club which provide extended learning opportunities relating to MMMSs magnet areas of Environmental Science, Medical Studies, and Technology. ri ri Southwest Middle School (SMS) is the third LRSD middle school that provides a CCLC. The grant application from this site was not available for review, but CREP presumes that its program is similar to that of the other two middle schools in the district which host a CCLC. The design ofthe program will be determined during the initial implementation of the evaluation. ri ri McClellan High School (McCHS) is one of five high schools in the district. Its program includes a drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring and employment opportunities. Program sessions are scheduled both before- and after-school and on Saturdays. The program also operates in the summer, with a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week 9*** grade transition program. Parent/family sessions are also provided. ri ri Hall High School (HHS) is another of the five high schools in the district. The HHS program includes a drug and violence prevention program and a youth development component emphasizing counseling, service learning, mentoring, and employment opportunities. Program sessions are scheduled both before- and after-school and on Saturdays. The program also operates in the summer with a six-week Algebra 1 program and a two-week 9*** grade transition program. Parent/family sessions are also provided. ri ri Proposed Design ri A mixed methods design will be used to gather information about the various CCLCs in the LRSD. In addition, a case study design will be used gather information about MMMSs CCLC. The goal of the mixed methods design is to obtain broad information regarding a variety of programs with respect to stakeholder perceptions of implementation and impact. The goal of the case study design is to obtain in-depth information to assist in understanding and judging a program in the context in which it operates. The detailed program description can then lead to naturalistic generalization of the program to other contexts (Worthen, Sanders, \u0026amp; Fitzpatrick, 1997). Both quantitative and qualitative data sources will be employed to address the research questions as follows: 3 n n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H n K H ri riH I Primary Evaluation Question: 1. Have the Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? For the achievement analysis, the preliminary plan is to employ a quasi-experimental design which compares students participating in CCLCs activities versus matched comparison students who do not participate in CCLC activities. The actual analysis used will be the approach that is the most rigorous for the data sources available. Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? Interviews will be conducted with the school principal and site coordinator. All teachers will be surveyed. Students who participate in the program will be surveyed. For the Mabelvale case study, observations of program components will also be conducted. A brief (20-min.) student focus group (n = 5 to 7 students) will also be conducted to ascertain students perspectives of the program components. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? Participation records and observation data will be analyzed. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? This question will be addressed via the teacher survey and administrator interviews. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A parent survey consisting of closed- and open-ended items will be administered to parents. A student questionnaire will be administered at all schools. A focus group will be conducted with MMMS students. Table 1 below provides a summary of the research questions and associated data collection sources. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H Table 1. Summary of Instruments and Participants by Evaluation Question K Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. Have the Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Participants Data Sources LRSD Students ITBS and Arkansas Benchmark Reading and Math Subtests Supplemental Questions: 1. What is the nature and level of implementation of the CCLC programs? CCLC Program/School administrators CCLC Teachers CCLC Students Administrator Interviews Teacher Survey Student Survey Student Focus Group (case study) CCLC Observations (case study) A ] 2. What is the level of participation in CCLCs by African American students? CCLC Students School records/participation rosters CCLC Observations (case study) i 3. What are the perceptions of teachers and school administrators regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians and students of program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 2005 - 2006 Timeline September-February: Spring Semester\nMay-June: July-August: September 1: October 1: CCLC Teachers CCLC Program/School Administrators Teacher Survey Administrator Interviews K Parents of CCLC students CCLC Students Parent Survey Student Survey Student Focus Group (case study) \u0026gt;] li Planning/refmement, consultation with PRE and CCLC representatives, and instrument development\nreview by evaluation team Conduct observations, administer teacher questionnaire (at faculty meeting), conduct interviews and focus group, and administer parent and student questionnaires Analyses of records data\nanalyses of survey, observation, and interview data Analyses of achievement data\nanalyses of survey, observation, and interview data, submission of draft report of findings to PRE, review by evaluation team and feedback from PRE Delivery of final report to PRE LRSD delivers report to US District Court. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H H H H LRSD 21\"* CCLC (Mabelvale) DRAFT Observation Tool 4 444 44 4 44 44 Date Day of Week Time in Time Out Have attendance Sheet Yes/ No Which program was being observed? After school tutoring Homework Club Enrichment Club Summer Camp Other Locale: Locale: Locale: Locale: Library other: Student composition Number: | Estimate of the number of students identified as African-American: [ Student Activity: What were the students doing? (Check all that apply and annotate briefly) Literacy Math Computer use for: research, recreation, academic support/skiii development, homework Exploring Environmental Science Medical Studies Technology other: Were students working Alone? Purposively together? With an adult (teacher/volunteer/parent)? Adults: How many adults were present? Who were the responsible adults? What were the responsible adults doing? Were parents present? community volunteer CCLC staff Other: Yes No If yes, what were they doing? I I I I ] ] [ o o ] Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H r Describe the student/staff interaction: ID What materials were in use? n Overall Quality of Time and Social Atmosphere: How well did this slice of time represent a learning center? B Characteristic incius/Veness 4 All of the students were involved Time spent involved Students involved were involved all of the time Quality of activities: enqapement Quality of activities: academic relevance Individualized attention Activities were engaging for students Activities were relevant academically and adapted to the students needs Individualized attention was provided in a timely manner to students in need of it 3 Most of the students were involved Students who were involved were involved most of the time Activities were usually enqaqinq for students Activities were relevant to academics but less adapted to student needs Individual attention was provided when students asked 2 Some of the students were involved 1 Few to none of the students were involved B Inclusion of peers The students appeared to include all their peers in their group activities Students generally included one another in their group activities Students involved were involved some of the time Activities were marginally enqaqinq for students Academic relevance of activities was minimal or difficult to ascertain Individual attention was provided, but it was sporadic or delayed Student involvement was marginal at best Activities were not enqaqinq for students Activities were not academically relevant Students with needs for individual attention appeared to be ignored B B Interactions: social acceptability and resolution Most students were engaged effectively with others and in a socially acceptable manner Student interactions were occasionally marked by minor conflicts which were quickly and amicably resolved Social isolation appeared in a few instances (other than for disciplinary purposes) Student interactions were marked by minor conflicts which were somewhat resolved eventually Some students were clearly isolated by their peers Student interactions were contentious and adult intervention did not occur Additional Comments: Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H I F n n H H B BLRSD 2P' CCLC DRAFT Interview Items' Subjects'. Principal, Counselor, Coordinator What role(s) do you play in the operation of the 2P' CCLC at your school? 4 What is the primary purpose of your 2P CCLC program? Whom does your program serve? What type(s) of students do you believe benefited the most from the program? 4 Why? How? What do you see as the most successful aspects of the program? What challenges, if any, have there been to implementing the program? In terms of recruiting and retaining students, how successful do you think the program has been? What kinds of practices have contributed to success in recruiting and retaining students? If you do not think the program has been successful in recruitment and retention, what do you think has inhibited those efforts? How successful do you think the program has been in establishing a close partnership between the Center and your school? What kinds of practices have contributed to your success in establishing a close school/program relationship? If you do not think there is a close partnership, what do you think has hindered the relationship? How successful do you think your program has been in engaging the parents of the students who participate in the program? What kind of practices have contributed to your success in this area? If you do not think the program has engaged the parents, what do you think has stood in the way? How successful do you think your program has been in initiating community involvement or partnerships for the program? ' Items modeled on the CEEP Evaluation of KentuckyE 21 Century Community Learning Centers. Year 2 Interim Report. P 37 ff. Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix HWhat kinds of practices have contributed to your success in this area? If you think you have not been successful, what do you think have been the barriers? Your program offers a variety of approaches (clubs) and program schedules for reaching students. Have you seen any differences in participation by students of various ethnicities in any of these programs? (sub questions to be modified dependent upon individual program design) Approaches Homework club Tutoring club Enrichment club Program schedules Saturday program Summer camp (2005\n2006) Before-school program After-school program Is there anything else that you think we should know about your programs efforts to provide students with a 2T Century Community Learning Center? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix H I 14 14 Id n RI n MLRSD 2 TCCLC DRAFT Teacher Survey Items^ We are interested in knowing what you think about the 2P Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) program at your school. Your answers will remain anonymous. What is your role in the 2P Century Community Learning Center? (Mark the best description) 4 o o o I am part of the faculty at the school and I also work with the CCLC. I am part of the faculty at the school but I do not work with the CCLC. I am not part of the faculty\nI work only with the 2P Century Community Learning Center program. What is your opinion of the following statements about 2P Century Community Learning Center program at your school? (strongly agree\nagree\ndisagree\nstrongly disagree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The CCLC program offers students enough choice of activities. The CCLC program offers academic help to students who need it. The CCLC offers students a safe place to be after school. The CCLC program appeals to a wide variety of students. The CCLC program reaches students families. How many of the students that you know who participate in the program are exhibiting the following (Almost all of them, many of them, some of them, a few of them, almost none of them)? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Improved academic performance Increased school attendance Improvement in how they relate to classmates Improvement in how they relate to teachers Improvement in how they behave in class Greater self-worth and self-esteem Involvement in community services Development as leaders Greater awareness of health issues Greater awareness of drug and violence issues Improvement in computer skills/computer literacy Open-ended: 1. What do you think are the strengths of the current 21 Century program at your school? 2. In what ways, if any, do you think the program at your school might be improved? w T. Some items derived from the Fort Worth after-school teacher survey (program teachers, atxxjt the program) Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HLRSD 21 CCLC Possible Student Survey Items We would like to know what you think about your schools 2T Century Community Learning Center (CLCC). We will not use your name, but we do -want to know something about you. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. What grade are you in this year? (6, 7, 8) What is your gender? {male, female) Which ethnic group best describes you? {Native American, Asian American, African American, Hispanic American, Caucasian American, Other). Do you belong to the CLCC Homework Club? (Yes/No) Do you belong to the CLCC Tutoring Club? (Yes/No) Do you belong to the CCLC Enrichment Club? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the program before school? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the program after school? (Yes/No) Do you participate in the Saturday program? (Yes/No) Do you plan to attend the Summer Camp this summer? (Yes/No) I I n Please tell us how much you agree with these statements about the programs at your schools 2L' Century Community Learning Center, (strongly agree\nagree\ndisagree\nstrongly disagree) 1. I like the programs the community learning center offers. 2. There are enough different activities from which to choose. 3. I like the teachers who work in the community learning center program. 4. Being in the after-school program is better than other things I could be doing after school. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Teachers in the program give me help when I ask for it. I feel safe in the after-school program. Teachers and other adults in the program make me feel comfortable. I would sign up again for the program. 1 would tell other kids to sign up for the community learning center activities. n Please select the answer that best describes what you think. The Center has helped me to... 1. Like school more (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 2. Come to school more often (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 3. Get better grades (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 4. Behave better at school (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 5. Work better with other students (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) b. Feel better about myself (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 7. Talk to my teachers more (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) 8. Understand the importance of graduating from high school (a great deal, somewhat, a little, not at all) n n n n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix HLRSD 21 CCLC (Mabelvale) DRAFT Student Focus Group Items We would like to know what you think about Mabelvale's 21' Century Community Learning Center. 1. 2. What do you think are some of the best things at the Center? Do a lot of kids participate in the program? Why do you think that is? 3. What is the best thing about the Enrichment Club? Homework Club? 4. How could the program be improved? The Tutoring Club? 5. Does participating in the program help you with your school work? How do you know? 6. Does this program make you want to come to school? Why or why not? 7. What have you learned about working with other kids by participating in this program? 8. Does this program offer you extra opportunities that you dont have a chance to investigate during the regular school day? If so, what are some of them? 9. Do you plan to take part in the Summer Camp this year? Why? Why not? 10. Do you like being part of the schools Community Learning Center? 11. What activities offered by the Learning Center have the grown-ups in your family enjoyed? Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix HAppendix I IB HI HI w Proposed Plan for Evaluation of Pre-Kindergarten Literacy BB IB Bl Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis n Hl Hl HI HI Hl HI Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1fl fl Proposal for the 2005-2006 Evaluation of the Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Program Little Rock School District Outline Version Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten literacy programs in elementary schools with pre-kindergarten programs in the Little Rock School District in 2005-2006? 2. What is the level of participation in the pre-kindergarten program by African- American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African-American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? 4. What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers in the school regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre-kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description The Little Rock School District recently developed a Curriculum System for Pre- K Literacy. The program is a comprehensive map which emphasizes communication. collaboration, and coherency. Implemented in fall 2005 in all pre-kindergarten classrooms in the district, the Map for Pre-K Literacy provides content guides with strategies and resources, concrete benchmarks for each month of the school year, and formative assessments for planning. The structure specifically addresses critical early Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 learning skills such as oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, phonological awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge and early mathematics skills. Instructional orientations include group activities and learning centers using a variety of literature and hands-on activities which are theme-based. The curriculum map calls for recommended and required formative monthly assessments. pi PI Elementary Schools with Pre-K classrooms # of Pre-K Classrooms Bale Brady Baseline Fair Park Forest Park Chicot Western Hills Jefferson Carver Dodd Meadowcliff M. L. King Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Romine Washington Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Franklin Stephens Rockefeller McDermott 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 PI pl PI p n TOTAL 69 Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1Proposed Design A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? A. 2005-2006 Pre-Kindergarten Students: A treatment school, pre- and post-test design will be employed for pre-kindergarten students. All elementary schools with pre-kindergarten classrooms will be examined. Pretests'. Posttests'. Work Sampling System by Pearson Work Sampling System by Pearson B. 2005-2006 Pre-Kindergarten Students as Incoming Kindergarten Students in Fall 2006: In fall 2006 (when pre-kindergarten students enter kindergarten) comparisons will be made between students who attended pre-kindergarten in the district and those students who did not. Cunently, there are approximately 12 elementary schools in the district that administer Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to incoming kindergarten students. c. H 2004-2005 Pre-Kindergarten Students: Within each of the elementary schools in the district, kindergarten students who participated in the Little Rock district pre-kindergarten program in 2004-2005 will be identified and their achievement gains compared to other kindergarten students in the district. M Pretests'. Posttests'. DRA or DIBELS (whichever has the most usable database) administered in Kindergarten 2005-2006 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Reading and Math Subtests H Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions fl 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten classroom environments and instruction at the schools implementing in 2005- 2006? fl Observations of pre-kindergarten classrooms will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 15 classroom observations will be conducted. The pre-kindergarten teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. Paraprofessional teachers in each pre-kindergarten classroom will also be surveyed through closed-ended and open-ended items. A random sample of 10 principals will be interviewed Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I v by phone. Kindergarten and first grade classroom teachers in schools with pre-kindergarten classrooms will also be surveyed. 2. What is the level of participation in the pre-kindergarten program by African- American children relative to other ethnic groups at the school? Student records/archival data for 2005-2006 will be analyzed. 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African- American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? Analysis of available pre-kindergarten screening and program assessment data, including the Early Screening Inventory. The pre-kindergarten teacher survey, paraprofessional teacher survey, principal interview, and classroom observations will also address this question. 4. What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessionals regarding the pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? p The pre-kindergarten teacher survey and paraprofessional teacher survey will directly address this question. m 5. What are the perceptions of the principal, kindergarten teachers, and first grade teachers in the school regarding pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n The kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey will address this question via closed-ended and open-ended items. A random sample of principals will be interviewed by phone. w 6. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre-kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? The parents of pre-kindergarten children survey will be conducted to address this question via an instrument including closed- and open-ended items in schools with pre-kindergarten programs. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question Evaluation Question Primary Question Participants Data Sources 1. Has the pre-kindergarten program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afiican-American students? All kindergarten and first grade students at 30 pre-kindergarten schools and other elementary schools Pre-kindergarten student participants within above samples DIBELS (fall 2006 - approximately 12 schools for incoming K students) ITBS (2005-2006 kindergarten data) Pre-kindergarten student program data - Work Sampling System scores (2005-2006 data) Supplemental Questions II 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of pre-kindergarten classroom enviromnents and instruction at the 30 schools in 2005- 2006? All pre-kindergarten teachers All kindergarten and first grade classroom teachers at schools with pre-kindergarten programs Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Pre-kindergarten teacher survey Paraprofessional teacher survey Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey (faculty meeting) Pre-kindergarten classroom observations (min. of 15 observations) H II 2. What is the level of participation in pre-kindergarten by African- American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? All pre-kindergarten schools School records/archival data 3. To what extent does the pre-kindergarten program provide screening assessments and other appropriate measures to help identify African-American children who may be at-risk for academic failure and monitor progress? All pre-kindergarten teachers All pre-kindergarten teachers will provide student assessment data Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Pre-kindergarten student program and assessment data including the Early Screening Inventory. Pre-kindergarten teacher survey, paraprofessional teacher survey, and classroom observations (min. of 15 observations in at least 10 schools) Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 4. 5. 6. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question, Continued Evaluation Question What are the perceptions of pre-kindergarten teachers and paraprofessional teachers regarding pre-kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of principal, kindergarten, and first grade classroom teachers regarding the pre- kindergarten program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of pre- kindergarten children regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Fall 2005- February 2006 February-March April May-June July-August September 1 October 1 Participants All pre-kindergarten teachers All K-3 classroom teachers in experienced RR schools Principals at pre-kindergarten schools Parents of pre-kindergarten children in schools with programs Timelines Data Sources Pre-kindergarten teacher survey Paraprofessional teacher survey Kindergarten and first grade classroom teacher survey (disaggregated by grade) Random sample of 10 principal phone interviews Pre-kindergarten parent survey Planning, refinement, and consultation with PRE and pre-kindergarten experts\ninstrument development\nreview by evaluation team Conduct observations. Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, Paraprofessional Teacher, Kindergarten Teacher and First Grade Teacher Surveys Pre-kindergarten school Principal Phone Interviews Pre-Kindergarten student data, records/archival data analyses Achievement data analyses/complete survey and interview analyses Submit draft report of findings to PRE for review by evaluation team and feedback from PRE. Deliver final report to PRE. LRSD submits final report. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 H I I I I I I I I I n DRAFT Principal Interview Questions Little Rock School District Pre-K Schools I. General Information Describe the implementation of your schools PRE-K program. How does the PRE-K program fit within the broader literacy initiative in your school? Which of the components provided by the PRE-K literacy program do you feel are most effective? Are there any components that you feel are ineffective? Describe your role in the PRE-K program implementation. How would you describe teacher support for the PRE-K program? Can you think of specific positive or negative comments made by teachers about the program? What additional resources have been needed to support your PRE-K program? Resources include time, space, materials and personnel. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I IL Classroom Level Changes Specifically, what contributions has the PRE-K program made in terms of\n Providing African American students with equal learning and performance opportunities? V Reading instruction? H Identifying those children at risk for academic failure (especially with regard to African American students V n Teacher professional development? I Monitoring of student progress and achievement? n How does your PRE-K program accommodate special needs children? I n HI. Results What differences in achievement have you seen in PRE-K students? Specifically, how has the program impacted the achievement of African American students? I Do you think that PRE-K program is helping to close the achievement gap between African American and white students? Explain. I How has the PRE-K program impacted classroom teachers? I Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 RIV. Professional Development What specific training or support have you received as an administrator regarding the PRE-K program? What training or support have the PRE-K teachers received regarding the PRE-K program? Any plans/suggestions for continuing the professional development process at your school? V. Parental Involvement How would you describe parent support for the PRE-K program? Describe efforts to inform and involve parents. Are parents more involved now than in the past? How would you describe community support for the school in general, and the PRE-K students in particular? VI. Closure Do you have any suggestions to improve the PRE-K program? Are there any important aspects of program implementation that have not been mentioned today? Any additional comments you would like to make? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix 1 I DRAFT PRE-K TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE School Name:_________________ General: Please evaluate using the scale provided'. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE-K program.____________________________________ I have received adequate initial and ongoing professional development/training for implementation of the PRE-K program._____________ Professional development provided by the district has been valuable.__________________________________ The principal is an effective instructional leader. Teachers are given sufficient planning time to implement the PRE-K program.____________________ Student achievement has been positively impacted by the PRE-K program.____________________________ Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students._________ I have time to collaborate with other PRE-K teachers.____________________________________________ I have adequate materials to implement the program.___________________________________________ The content areas presented in the curriculum map are appropriate for pre-k literacy instruction._______ The monthly benchmark goals are realistic for pre-k literacy programs.__________________________________ The interim and anchor assessments in the pre-K literacy curriculum are useful in assessing growth and progress._______________________________________ I have a thorough understanding of the pre-k curriculum map.___________________________________ Because of the PRE-K program, more parents are involved in the school.______________________________ Preschool teachers in the school are generally supportive of the PRE-K program._________________ Teachers in the school (not preschool teachers) are generally supportive of the PRE-K program._______ Teachers are encouraged to communicate concerns, questions, and constructive ideas regarding the PRE-K program.__________________________________ The PRE-K program is useful in monitoring progress of African American students.____________ The PRE-K program is useful as a screening tool for assessing at-risk African American students._______ With the PRE-K program, children are excited about learning. u I I I n H n Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I Effectiveness of PRE-K Literacy Components: Please rate the effectiveness of the following components: Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree The PRE-K program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten._____________________ Instructional elements of the PRE-K program assessments, programs, materialsare based on scientifically-based reading research.___________ Because of the PRE-K program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, concepts of print, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms.______________________________ The literacy and language components are effective for reading readiness.________________ Group activities engage the students and complement instruction.______________________ Learning centers engage the students and complement instruction. DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years of experience do you have as a PRE-K teacher? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years of experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? Less than one yr.___ 1-5 yrs___ 6-10 yrs____ 11-15 yrs___15 or more yrs___ What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less___Associates Degree/Some college Bachelors Degree____Masters Degree____ Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial Gender: Male____ Female Age range: 29 yrs. or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older Open-Ended: What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? What are the least effective? Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DRAFT CLASSROOM TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE PRE-K SCHOOL PROGRAM School Name: Grade Level: Please describe your understanding of the PRE-K program at your school: n I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE- K program.__________________________________________ The PRE-K program will positively impact students at the school._________________________________________ The PRE-K program will improve the overall achievement of African American students at this school._______________________________________________ Our school has a sufficient number of preschool teachers._____________________________________________ Preschool teachers are positive about the PRE-K program.____________________________________________ The PRE-K program will help prepare students for success in kindergarten.______________________________ The PRE-K program can help identify at-risk students._____________________________________________ The PRE-K program will prepare students for reading readiness.___________________________________ It is my understanding the components of the PRE-K program are based on scientifically-based research. The principal supports the PRE-K program._________ Because of the PRE-K program, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness, oral language, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension occurs daily in our schools classrooms.______________ The PRE-K program is actively engaging parents in their childs learning. Strongly Agret Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I M M DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years of experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs____ 11-15 yrs____ 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ II How many years of experience do you have as an employee in this school? Less than one yr.___ 1-5 yrs___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs___15 or more yrs___ II What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less___ Associates Degree/Some college____ II Bachelors Degree Masters Degree____Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? II American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial II Gender: Male Female Age range: 29 yrs. or less___30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older II II Open-Ended: What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? Il What are the least effective? Il Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? II II II If Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I DRAFT PRE-K PARAPROFESSIONAL TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE School Name: General: Please evaluate using the scale provided: Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Agree I have a thorough understanding of my schools PRE-K program.________________________________ I have received training and development regarding my work with PRE-K students._______ The PRE-K teacher in my classroom is an effective leader._________________________________ The principal at this school is an effective instructional leader._____________________________ I am able to communicate concerns regarding the students with the PRE-K classroom teacher. The classroom teacher and I spend time planning instructional activities._________________ Student achievement has been positively impacted by the PRE-K program._______________ Overall, this program is valuable for improving the achievement of African-American students. I have time to collaborate with other PRE-K paraprofessionals at this school._________________ I have adequate materials in the classroom to do nyjob-_________________________________________ Pre-K classroom teachers in the school are generally supportive of the program.____________ Pre-K Paraprofessionals in the school are generally supportive of the program.____________ Children in the PRE-K class are excited about learning.________________________________________ The PRE-K program is useful in monitoring progress of African-American students._________ The PRE-K program is valuable in preparing children for kindergarten.______________________ My role as a PRE-K Paraprofessional is valuable in the PRE-K classroom.________________________ Mentoring and/or coaching I receive from the Pre-K classroom teacher is helpful to me._______ Because of the Pre-K program, more parents are involved in the school. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DEMOGRAPHICS: How many years experience do you have as a PRE-K Paraprofessional? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years experience do you have as an employee in any school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ How many years experience do you have as an employee in this school? 5 years or less___ 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs___20 or more yrs__ What is the highest level of education you have completed? High School Diploma or less Associates Degree/Some college Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Degree beyond Masters What best describes your cultural background? American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander African American Hispanic/Latino___Caucasian Multi-Racial Gender: Male Female II Age Range: 29 yrs. or less 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or older II OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS: H M M II What are the most effective aspects of the PRE-K program? II What are the least effective? Il II Do you think the PRE-K program should be continued? Why or Why Not? Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I DRAFT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PRE-K PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Parent/Guardian: We would like to know what you think about your childs preschool experience. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. All responses are completely confidential. Ethnicity of your Child: African American Caucasian_______ Hispanic________ Asian___________ Other Gender: Male Age:__ Female Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree strongly Disagree My child enjoys the preschool class. I believe my childs preschool class is adequately preparing him/her for kindergarten.________________________ My child is excited about learning. I receive information from my childs teacher regarding units or themes of study.________________________________ My child is becoming reading ready due to preschool._____________ I receive feedback regarding my childs language skills. My child enjoys group activities in the preschool class.___________________ My child enjoys the learning centers in the preschool class.________________ My childs preschool teacher is an effective instructor.__________________ My child enjoys looking at books/ being read to at home._______________ My child brings home information from the school that helps me understand what he/she is learning. 1 like the school my child is attending. I believe my child can get a good education at this school. I believe African American students can achieve at this school. Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix I R What are the best things about your childs preschool experience? What changes would you like to see in the preschool program at this school? M II II II II II II II H Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix I Appendix J Proposed Plan for Evaluation of Read 180 I Center for Research in Educational Policy University of Memphis I Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Appendix J * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered a I Proposal for the Evaluation of Read 180 in the Little Rock School District: Outline Version DRAFT COPY ONLY Evaluation Questions Primary Evaluation Question-. 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. M 5. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Program Description H Read 180 is a reading intervention program that is aimed at assisting struggling adolescent readers. Currently, five middle schools and all eight high schools in LRSD use this program. Students are targeted to participate in the program based on results from the Arkansas Benchmark Exam. Students that participate in the program typically spend equal portions of their 90-minute English or Language Arts class working with adaptive software, reading independently, and receiving instruction in large and small group settings. H I Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Une width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Appendix J fl I Proposed Design H A mixed-methods design will be employed to address the research questions as follows: Primary Evaluation Question'. n 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? The preliminary plan is discussed below. The actual analysis used will be the approach that is the most rigorous for the available data sources. I A. Whole School'. A treatment-control school, pretest-posttest design will be employed in Grades 6-9. The analysis will control for pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. It may be decided to examine (a) all schools relative to the entire district middle and high school database or (b) a stratified random sample of Read 180 schools relative to matched control schools (this will only be possible in the middle schools). p n B. Read 180 Sub sample: Within each of the Read 180 schools, students who participated in the program will be identified and their achievement gains compared to predicted scores based on school status, student pretest, gender, ethnicity, and SES. n Supplemental (Qualitative/Step 2) Evaluation Questions: n 1. What is the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? n Read 180 teachers will be surveyed and a random sample will be interviewed. The principals will also be interviewed. Observations of Read 180 sessions will be made at a sample of schools. A minimum of 10 observations will be conducted. To the extent resources are available an attempt will be made to observe at all the sites. n 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? n Student-level Read 180 records/archival data will be analyzed. n 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? n All of the Read 180 teachers will be surveyed, and a random sample will be asked to participate in brief interviews to address this question. 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? I Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Appendix) * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered -n 4i A survey will be developed and administered to non-Read 180 teachers to address this question. 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? A parent survey will be administered to address this question. Summary of Data Sources and Participants by Evaluation Question fl fl fl fl fl fl Evaluation Question Primary Question: 1. Has the Read 180 program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African- American students? Supplemental Questions: 1. What are the quality and level of implementation of Read 180 at the schools implementing it in 2005-06? 2. What is the level of participation in Read 180 by African American students relative to other ethnic groups at the school? 3. What are the perceptions of Read 180 teachers regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 4. What are the perceptions of other teachers in the school Participants Data Sources Read 180 students ITBS and Benchmark Exam Read 180 teachers Principals at Read 180 schools Read 180 students All Read 180 schools Read 180 teachers Non-Read 180 Teachers at schools using the program I Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Read 180 Teacher Survey Read 180 Teacher Interviews Principal Interviews Read 180 Observations (min. of 10 1-hour observations) SOM/Read 180 SCU/Quality Assessment Form Read 180 Student Survey (all Read 180 students) Read 180 Student Focus Group (random sample) School level Read 280 reports Read 180 Teacher Survey Teacher Survey (random selection of teachers) Appendix J * Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", CenteredI Evaluation Question regarding program implementation, impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? 5. What are the perceptions of parents/guardians of Read 180 students regarding program impacts, strengths, and weaknesses? Timelines January February-April May-June July-August September 1 October 1 Participants Data Sources v Parents of Read 180 students Read 180 Parent Survey H W Planning, refinement with PRE and other LRSD staff Instrument development Begin observations Continue observations Principal and teacher interviews Administer parent and teacher questionnaires Data analysis on non-achievement data sources Achievement data analysis Submit draft report of findings to PRE Receive feedback from PRE and evaluation teams Submit final report to PRE for Board approval the same month LRSD submits final report to court n n n n I n n n 1 Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Appendix J * n I ( Pead 180 Questionnaire For Non-Read 180 Teachers Draft Copy Only (NOTE: The Read 180 Questionnaire will be presented to teachers on a form that can be scanned) Circle the grade level(s) you teach: 6 7 8 9 Circle your ethnicity: Caucasian African American Circle your gender. Hispanic Asian Male I Multi-Ethnic Female Please let us know what you think about the effectiveness of Read 180 by rating the following items from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Arc you able to identify which students are taking or have taken the Read 180 classes? Yes No If \"yes\" please answer the flowing questions: Read 180 Items 1. I have an understanding of the Read 180 program _______goals._________________________________________ 2. I have an understanding of the Read 180 program classroom implementation (how the classes are _______structured).____________________________________ 3. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate continuous _______improvement in literacy skills_____________________ 4. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes submit work that reflects _______improved writing._______________________________ 5. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show more willingness to read _______aloud in class.__________________________________ 6. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate improved _______written and orol vocabulary skills._________________ 7. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes demonstrate better test _______taking skills.___________________________________ 8. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show increased _______comprehension of assigned reading._______________ 9. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes show increased attention and interest in learning. Quarterly Written Update March 1,2006 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly * Agree Appendix J * { Formatted Table Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line widfti), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered10. The students in my class who are taking or have taken Read 180 classes have improved classroom behavior. H Open ended: What do you think are the strengths of the Read 180 program? What do you think are the weaknesses of the Read 180 program? What changes do you recommend for the Read 180 program? Should your school continue using Read 180? _Yes _No Briefly explain why_____________________________________ I V H Quarterly Written Update March 1, 2006 Appendix) n n n n n n I n Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width). Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered n Survey of Computer Use for Read 180 Draft Copy Only School Observer Name Observation Date Grade Observed 6 7 3 9 Number of Students in Read 180 Class (by ethnicity):_____African American _____Non-African American How many computers were available for Read 180? ___One ___2-4 ___5-10 ___11 or more Computer Configuration and Use How frequently did malfunctions occur on computers used for Read 180? ___Never ___Rarely ___Occasionally ___Frequently ___Extensively Most of the computers used for Read 180 were: ___Up-to-date ___Aging but adequate ___Outdated/limited capacity Read 180 Computer Activities______________ In which subject areas did students complete Read 180 computer work (check all that were observed)? ___Reading Comprehension ___Vocabulary ___Spelling What was the overall level of African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 computer program? ___Low ___Moderate ___High TALLY the types of questions students asked while using the computer Read 180. ___Content area (e.g. how to solve a problem\nthe meaning of a word) ___Software use (e.g., how to log in\nhow to move to next section, how to take a test) ___Computer use (e.g., how to get the mouse or keyboard to work properly) ___Non-Read 180 questions, (e.g.. Do 1 have to sit next to John? Can I go to the restroom?) TALLY each time the teacher provided the following types of instruction specifically for student use of Read 180 computer activities: ___Content area (e.g. reading, vocabulary) ___Software use (e.g., how to log in, find correct lesson) ___Computer use (e.g., locate software, use mouse) ___Classroom behavior rules ___No Instructions were given Observer Notes: What was the overall level of NON-African American student attention, interest, and engagement while using the Read 180 program? ___Low ___Moderate ___High What was the level of academically focused time while students were using the computer for Read 180? ___Low ___Moderate ___High I Quarterly Written Update March I, 2006 Appendix J Formatted: Left, Border: Top: (Single solid line, Auto, 1 pt Line width), Tabs: 5.75\", Centered + 5.88\", Centered Draft Copy Only Parent/Guardian Consent Form Hl * Dear parent or guardian, As part of a study conducted by the Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis, and endorsed by the Little Rock School District, we are requesting permission for your child to participate in a group interview of 5 to 7 students from your childs school. During the group interview (focus group), a trained researcher will ask your child questions regarding his/her participation in the Read 180 program (your son's/daughter's language arts/reading class). The questions are designed to help us find out how well the Read 180 program is helping to improve student reading skills and learning. IB The focus group should take approximately 20 minutes and will only pertain to the Read 180 class that your child is taking. The focus group will be conducted during a Read 180 class. Individual responses to the questions will not be seen by anyone at the school, and the identity of individuals participating in the focus group will remain confidential. The responses to the focus group will be reported together in summary form to school personnel. I n Please note that your child is not required to participate in the focus group. Your permission is required to participate. If you give permission, please have your child return the completed form to his/her teacher. n\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\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_761","title":"'The Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock, Arkansas School District: An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement''","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":["Catterall, James S."],"dc_date":["2/6/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Parents","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["'The Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock, Arkansas School District: An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement''"],"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/761"],"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\nJames S. Catterall, Professor of Education, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies\nJames S. Catterall Professor of Education UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 This report was commissioned by the Little Rock School district through a contract with the author. The author takes sole responsibility for the contents of this report. Opinions stated in this report are not necessarily shared by personnel or constituents of the LSRD. This report was executed under standards for measurement and program evaluation established by the American Psychological Association and the National Council for Measurement in Education. Professor Catterall is Chair of the National Technical Advisory Panel for Accountability for the Commonwealth of Kentucky and a member of the California Department of Educations Technical Advisory Committee. The Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock, Arkansas School District An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement February 6, 2006MK I in II The Extended Year or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. II An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement n n February 6, 2006 RECEIVED \\ FEB -9 2006 II n n James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING n n Section I. Introduction IB n II This report is submitted under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Little Rock School District and the studys principal author. This evaluation of the Districts Extended Year Education program (also referred to as the Year Round Education or YRE program) was one of four studies mandated by the United States District Court pursuant to its long-running involvement in monitoring and assessing the quality of educational experiences of African American students in the Little Rock Schools.' These four programs, Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, Smart-Thrive, and Extended Year Education, are attempts to focus resources on the needs of the Districts African American constituents, not through pupil reassignment or other sorts of targeted pullout programs, but rather by improving the effectiveness of whole schools where very high proportions the students are African American. This brief background sets the stage for the analytical framework used in this evaluation. Since more than 90 percent of the students in Extended Year schools were African American over the period of this study, we trained our attention on how entire EY school student populations fared over time as a valid indicator of conditions ' This study was formally mandated in the Memorandum of Opinion by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al., Mrs.Lorene Joshua, et al. and Katherine Knight et al. Interveners. Page 1.111 n II n II involving African American Students. As a check on the validity of this approach, we do show in tables below certain contrasts between the approximately 585 EY students in grades 3, 4, and 5 on the one hand, and the approximately 525 African American students in the same schools and grades on the other hand. It becomes evident that there are simply too few non-African students in EY schools generally for this group to deflect school-level measures of achievement. Nor does the number of white students across these three grade levels, about 30 total, support stable achievement measures for EY school white students generally.^ As go the African American students, so goes the school, is one way of seeing things\nor alternatively, As goes the school, so fares the African American student population. \\ II n n n Extended Year (or Year Round) Education programs are built on a set of research-supported ideas about connections between the organization of the school calendar and the nature of student achievement. A main idea of extended year education is that an extended school year - and especially one with a shorter summer vacation - would forestall what has come to be known as summer learning loss. This loss is the well documented slide in reading and mathematics achievement levels occurring for many students between summer vacation dismissal and the start-up of school three months later. Cooper (et al.), 1996^, found in their meta-review of available studies that retrogression in grade-level measures over the summer for children at risk was typically in the 2-3 month range, corresponding to the time out of school. n II A second idea supporting extended year education is the benefit of more frequent shorter vacation periods throughout the school year. Not only might short breaks avert problems of learning loss, but also the breaks themselves can become opportunities for additional instructional programming - effectively adding to the number of instructional days over a school year. n II II EY schools in Little Rock. Little Rock built its EYE program directly upon these main ideas. The intent of EYE was to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status, or academic performance. EY schools in Little Rock reorganized their school calendars so that the standard instructional period was distributed throughout the year with breaks or vacations interspersed. Educational instruction and vacations were organized into smaller segments and spaced throughout 2 The issue of stable measures is well illustrated in the case of the 30 white students in grades 3-5 in EY schools. One critical measure used in this report is the d* grade Benchmark test in literacy and mathematics. This test is attractive because it was built around Arkansas academic performance standards and has been repeated annually. But only 10 or so white students take this 4* grade test each year in the EY schools. How white students do on this measure from year to year (which we might wish to contrast with African American test results) would be expected to influenced heavily by differences across the annual 10-student cohorts, much more so than by some systematic changes in their instructional environment. 3 Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K. Lindsay, J., \u0026amp; Greathouse. (1966). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A nanative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 66,227- 268. Page 1.2II II II II n the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. Little Rocks design is a single track 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Formal intersession programs operate for five-days within an intersession break, and student attendance is voluntary. Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff elementary schools have operated on a YRE calendar since school year 2000- 2001, with Cloverdale and Mitchell beginning EYE in 2002-2003. The Cloverdale and Mitchell experience with Year Round Education, with Cloverdale Elementary closing during the 2004-2005 school year because of crumbling facility issues and low student enrollment and Mitchell closing for the same reasons in 2003. \\ n The 2005-2006 LRSD YRE school calendar appears at the end of this introduction. n n Organization of the report. The main question of this evaluation study is the following: n I Have the Year-Round Education (YRE) Programs been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afncan American students? II As we suggest above, this question is tantamount to asking - are the EY schools themselves instructionally effective? Is there evidence that the success of their students has improved over time? u I We address questions of school effectiveness in Section III and Section IV of this report. The principal analyses are: a. I Comparisons of school level student proficiency between 2000 and 2005, for EY schools, for a set of matched comparison schools, and for all LRSD elementary schools. The data for this analysis includes mainly the grade 4 Benchmark test results for the five-year period. (Presented in Section III.) b. A comparative longitudinal analysis of changes in the percentages of African American students scoring proficient or above on the Benchmark tests. The data used in analysis (a) also supported this analysis. (Presented in Section IV.) c. An analysis of student proficiency trends through 2005 that compensates for a significant tightening of standards and lowering of Benchmark test Page 1.3 LII n II scores across the board in 2005. This analysis builds a predictive model for 2005 test scores and identifies schools that outpace their expected scores. (As explained in Section III, statisticians call this an analysis of residuals.) II d. Contrasting EYE, comparison, and all schools on other indicators of school effectiveness, using data on student attendance, mobility, and behavior over five years leading up to 2004-2005. (Section fV.) II A second principal question for this evaluation is the following: II What are the quality and level of implementation of intersession instructional strategies? | II We rest our assessment of the effectiveness of intersession programs on comparative assessments of student achievement - distinguishing primarily between students who participated in Intersessions and those who did not. a. I One analysis in Section V. displays literacy and mathematics proficiency levels for intersession attendees and non-attendees, for all students and for African American students. This analysis also discusses participation rates by group. b. A second analysis in Section V, explores mathematical correlations between participation in Intersessions and non-participation. We used data from the LSRD student database of analyses (a) and (b). hl c. Section VI. turns to our surveys of parents, student, and teachers and to III our parent interviews. These surveys, and especially the comments written by respondents, are sources of insight about the quality and implementation of the Intersessions. A third cluster of questions concern constituent perception\nWhat are the perceptions of YRE parents, students, and teachers regarding program impacts, strengths and weaknesses?________________________________________ Page 1.4 n n n n \\ kII in a. II We used written surveys of parents, students, and teachers as well as telephone interviews of a purposeful sample of parents (those with experience in both EYE and non EYE schools) to gather data about constituent perceptions. in b. in Consolidations of three years of parent, student, and teacher survey data are presented in Section VI. This section also contains a presentation of our extensive parent interview data. An appendix shows survey data from parents, students, and teachers for each of the five EYE schools individually. \\ in c. In October 2005 we conducted a small focus group to help clarify questions that emerged in the conduct of data collection and analyses, and especially the surveys. in Additional Introductory Notes II I More detailed information about the context, purposes, and methods of our assessments of the effectiveness of the LRSDs Extended Year schools is presented at the start of each of the reports main sections. Sections III through Section VI. II Since we reached conclusions in each of these analyses, we bring these conclusions forward Section II so that readers will have ready access to the outcomes of this report. II II District personnel providing data for this report. Our contract calls for specifying all district personnel providing data for this report. District teachers and administrators provided data in the following numbers\nLSRD data sources n II Teachers in Pre-K Teachers in K Teachers in 1st Teachers in 2nd Teachers in 3rd Teachers in 4th Teachers in 5*' Self-contained 10 9 8 9 8 7 7 3 Principal, elementary District office 1 3 Page 1.5 k11 n Table 1.1 11 Little Rock School District 2005 - 2006 Extended Year Calendar in in n nn n II I n I I This calendar applies only to Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Stephens and Woodruff elementary schools. Please see regular year calendar for all other LRSD schools. July 27-28, 2005 August 1,2005 August 8, 2005 September 5, 2005 September 13, 2005 September 26, 2005 September 27, 2005 Qctober 6, 2005 October 7, 2005 October 10-14, 2005 October 17-21,2005 November 3-4, 2005 November 23-25, 2005 December 19, 2005 January 2, 2006 January 12, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 16, 2006 Jan. 30 - Feb. 3, 2006 February 6-10, 2006 February 20, 2006 February 21,2006 March 24, 2006 March 27-31,2006 April 14, 2006 May 15-19, 2006 May 29, 2006 June 28, 2006 June 29, 2006 \"Check-In for Parents and Students at Schools First Day for Teachers First Day for Students Labor Day Holiday (Schools Closed) Open House - Elementary Schools Parent Conferences (Students Out) Staff Development (Students Out) End of V Quarter (41 Days) Staff Development (Students Out) Intersession Vacation Staff Development (Students Out) Thanksgiving Holiday (Schools Closed) Winter Vacation Begins (Schools Closed) Classes Resume End of 2\" Quarter (44 Days) Teachers Record Day (Students Out\n/a Day for Teachers) M.L. King, Jr. Holiday (Schools Closed) Intersession Vacation Parent Conference Day (Students Out) Staff Development (Students Out) Staff Development (Students Out) Spring Break (Schools Closed) End of 3' Quarter (46 Days) Intersession Memorial Day Holiday (Schools Closed) Last Day for Students/End of 4* Quarter (47 Days) Teachers Record Day/Last Day for Teachers (Vi \\ Day) Total Student Days: 178 Page 1.6 h II li Section IL Conclusions and Implications. II n This section brings forward the conclusions reached in the analyses presented in Sections III, IV, V, and VI. In addition, we present our recommendations for programs modifications, including rationales for these recommendations, and our expectations for what these program modifications would achieve. n Conclusions \\ n The following are the conclusions presented in Sections III through VI. n II n Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over the same time period. II II Conclusion IIL2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools very modestly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demographics and that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly in mathematics. II n II Conclusion IV.l. Extended year schools show significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than Comparison schools in five important indicators\nstudent mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both mathematics and literacy. Two indicators of attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either group of schools. The magnitude of these changes for EY schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools is a significant indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. L Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend Extended Year school Intersessions in comparison to smdents who do not attend. Direct comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests point to this conclusion. And our analysis of conelations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators comes to the same conclusion. Academic performance may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students choose to attend Page n.lII IE Intersessions and which students do not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. IE II n II Conclusion VI. 1. The parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular calendar schools. The result is that when reporting academic advantages or on conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students report higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for learning, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences favoring EY schools when asked this question directly. \\ n II These survey results are wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and mathematics achievement favoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. n Implications: Recommended Program Modifications II II 11 Institute academic enrichment and student tutoring offerings as Intersession opportunities. This evaluation study sought evidence of the influence of participation in YRE schools on academic achievement, particularly as reflected in student test scores. The most prominent difference between a YRE school experience and a non-YRE school experience is the opportunity to attend as many as 4 week-long intersessions during the course of the school year. As presently constituted, intersessions are mainly recreational, craft, or special interest/ hobby focused. Few if any intersessions aim at academic skills. The intersession could be the site of voluntary or urged academic assistance. n II Take steps to increase the numbers of students who participate in intersessions. Since the intersession in particular, and YRE education in general show positive impacts on student achievement, it makes sense to help the intersession program reach more students. About 36 percent of all students in grades 3, 4, and 5 across YRE schools had not ever attended an intersession as of spring 2005. Potentially effective steps to boost participation are improved communications between teachers and parents (we did not find inadequacies in this area), providing family assistance that might foster attendance (such as childcare for very young siblings, and added incentives for teachers to create and offer attractive intersession opportunities. Take steps to boost African American student participation in intersessions. Page 11.211 d 11 d While about 36 percent of all students have not taken up intersession opportunities, fully 41 percent of African American students have not participated in intersessions. Given the large share of YRE students generally who are African American, these statistics imply that participation rates among the few white and other background students are extremely high. As with our assessments of how YRE schools generally fare for African American students, attempts to recruit students for intersessions will largely be greeted by an African American audience. d Retain the YRE structure of four evenly spaced terms punctuated by the 2-week intersession and vacation periods. d II Expectations of Program Modifications M n II The modification of intersessions to include academic opportunities would increase instructional time for students and effectively shorten breaks between academic terms for participating students. This change would add academic continuity to the pattern of overall in-school continuity established by the short breaks between terms. A direct expectation is higher academic achievement levels for participating students. An indirect benefit is that teachers newly drawn to intersession teaching because of academic interests would get to know more students, or current students in different ways, thus improving teacher student relationships for some teachers and students. II n n II Increasing the numbers of students participating in intersessions would extend intersession academic benefits to a larger proportion of YRE school students. Larger enrollments might permit additional intersession course offerings. Both of these changes would bring benefits in the form of higher student achievement for new participants, for higher shares of participants, and perhaps more widely if the intersession schedule in general is enriched. An indirect benefit similar to one cited above is that teachers newly drawn to intersession teaching because of an expanded intersession program would get to know added students, or current students in different ways, thus improving teacher student relationships for some teachers and students. Boosting intersession enrollments of African American students would bring more benefits of intersessions, as they stand or as they may increase with certain modifications discussed above, to African American students. A critical benefit cited in the evaluation study is increased academic success. Retaining the present YRE calendar, or a schedule much like the present one, would sustain a benefit of YRE that most parents and teachers cite - namely that students maintain their engagement in school over the short breaks and avoid the possible learning loss and re-engagement costs associated with longer vacation di Page 11.3II Ii II breaks during the school year. This feature may account for some of the general achievement advantages of YRE schools reported in this study, and thus retention of the basic YRE schedule would help sustain those advantages. II II II II II Ml Page II.4 n H H n n u M \\n H Section III. Educational Effectiveness of EY Schools - Basic Test Scores II Question: II What do Arkansas standards test measures suggest about the effectiveness of EY schools? Methods: II II II The Benchmark tests. For this question, we focus on the annual Grade 4 Benchmark tests in literacy and mathematics as our main indicator of elementary school effectiveness. Our interest in this Grade 4 test stems from two factors - first its qualities as a standards-based test and second its consistent use in prior years allowing estimates of achievement change over time. The Benchmark tests are based on academic performance standards developed by the state of Arkansas. Unlike standardized norm- referenced tests, such as the ITBS or SAT9 which rank student performance according to national percentiles, the Benchmark tests are scored to rate student performance against a set of state-level proficiency standards and thus to provide objective measures of student learning. IB II n The Arkansas Benchmark test classifies students as advanced, proficient, basic, or below basic in both literacy and mathematics according to criteria established for each performance level. If standards are consistent from year to year, as they are designed to be, the Benchmark test can detect changes in levels of achievement from year to year for both individual students and for school grade levels and entire schools. Its the power of these standards-based tests to appraise student and school effectiveness that places them at the center of state school accountability programs nationwide. II n State and national goals for learners are expressed formally as the percentage of students performing at the proficient level or higher. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set annual performance targets that imply growth of student proficiency rates over time - with a goal of 100 percent of students performing at the proficient level by 2014. We use the percentage of students performing at the proficient or higher level as the key criterion in our assessment of test scores. II Our comparative frameworks. Assessing school performance is customarily assisted by comparisons. One comparison frame is cunent performance versus past performance - i.e. has the school improved over time? Another comparison is how well a school is doing in comparison to other schools. Appraising either absolute performance levels or performance trends across schools demands identifying like- situated schools as a basis for comparison. This is because schools do not operate from equal starting points - nor do they necessarily work with equally prepared children. Schools across a state serve differing economic, racial, and cultural populations. Schools serving more formally educated and higher income families tend to show relatively higher student achievement measures across the board than schools serving poor populations. Page III. 1a d n li A task for our evaluation team was to select an appropriate group of schools to compare with the five Extended Year schools of central interest to this study. Because of the overriding importance of the education of African American children driving this evaluation, we used the percentage of African American student attendance as the principal criterion for comparison group construction. The five EY schools are highlighted in Table III. 1 on the following page. Table III. 1 anays schools according to African American school attendance and also indicates a measure of student family economic disadvantage - the percent of students qualifying for free and reduced price lunches. H d d d For comparison (or control) schools, we selected a group of schools that suitably bracketed the five EY schools on the basis of African American attendance. These are also shown in Table III. 1. The average AA attendance for the EY schools is 87.8 percent. The average AA attendance for the control schools is 84.9 percent. The percentages of economically disadvantaged students are 87.8 (EY) and 90.0 (control) respectively. Among demographic predictors of student achievement, SES or student family disadvantage is considered by far the most important, apart from non- or limited English speaking status. (This latter factor is important in some states and urban areas that have high populations of immigrant families, especially Hispanics. This is not a systematic factor in the Little Rock schools.) \\ H The analyses. In this Section III we assess school performance with two separate analyses. n II A. The first analysis presents the percentages of students scoring proficient or better in literacy and mathematics respectively. Contrasts are drawn among an early two year period (2001 and 2002), a later two year period (2003 and 2004), and finally for the most recent year, the 2005 proficiency test scores.^ These statistics are reported for EY schools, all control schools, and all LRSD elementary schools combined. n II B. The second analysis reports an assessment of 2005 school performance - EY schools versus Control schools - that accommodates a change in standards implemented by LSRD for the 2005 Benchmark tests. This standards adjustment event is described and the resulting procedures outlined as the analysis is presented. ' These percentages are the simple averages of the school-level percentages listed. Taking school enrollment into account, the EY student population is about 90.2 percent African American. Control schools are about 88 percent African American. 2 For this and a subsequent set of analyses, we aggregated indicators from 01 and 02, and again from 03 dl and 04 in order to provide stable indications of performance (in other words, measures not subject to the random forces bearing on one-year statistics.) This procedure provides a bigger picture of whats going on in the data. Page III.2d d d TABLE III.l II n II c c c Little Rock School School District Extended Year (EY) and Comparison Schools, Selected Characteristics SCHOOL EY Percent AA Percent Disadv. d d d d n II II II c c c c c c c c c c c Rightsell Franklin Watson Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Wilson Geyer Sprs. Bale Baseline [Mablevale Western His. Wakefield Brady Meadowclf. [Cloverdale Romine Washington *** *** *** *** *** 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 95.0% 91.0% 89.0% 88.0% 82.0% 81.0% 80.0% 79.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 77.0% 76.0% 76.0% 87.0% 95.0% 94.0% 93.0% 92.0% 87.0% 94.0% 80.0% 89.0% 88.0% 88.0% [ 74.0% 92.0% 82.0% 85.0% 90.0% 77.0% 81.0% \\ [indicates Extended Year Schools Indicates Comparison or Control Schools Percent AA Percent Disadv. - ] Percent African American Enrollment Percent Qualified Free and Red. Price Lunch n B B fl fl TABLE III.2 fl II n IB II II II II II PERCENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS PROFICIENT BY SUBJECT, GROUP, AND SELECTED TIME PERIODS ALL EY SCHOOLS 2000-2002 2002-2004 2005 LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 15.7% 12.8% 40.0% 35.5% 21.5% 22.1% ALL COMPARISON SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 23.0% 15.6% 46.0% 31.6% 26.3% 23.8% ALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 37.5% 30.4% 59.5% 47.0% 39.5% 35.5% I a fi n II A. How have EY vs. Comparison Schools performed over time? Table III.2 (immediately following Table III.l) displays student proficiency statistics for EY and Control schools over five testing years. As described in footnote 2, the early data represent school years 2000 and 2001 combined, the later data combine school years 2003 and 2004, and the final statistics are for the latest full school year, 2004-2005. n n n 18 II II H n H Three patterns stand out in this table. One is that the proficiency percentages on the Grade 4 Benchmark tests are considerably higher for the schools overall than for either the EY or Comparison schools. This is expected, since the EY schools, and thus the comparison schools, were chosen because they represented schools with very high levels of economic disadvantage and high African American attendance. The second pattern is that schools in all three groups moved in a generally lockstep fashion over time. There were sizeable increases in student proficiency between the earliest biennium and the second more than doubling for the EY and Comparison schools with about 50 percent gains statewide. This of course heralded good news for many Little Rock schools over this four-year period. The third pattern is a significant downturn of proficiency rates in the 2005 school year for all three groups. There is an imposed reason for this downturn, the resetting of test performance standards, which precipitates our second score analysis just below. Extended Year vs. Comparison School performance. As far as appraising the fortunes of EY versus Comparison schools. Table III.2 shows comparable results for the two groups of schools over time, with an edge favoring the Extended Year schools. This edge comes in the larger advances between the 2000-02 biennium and 2005 for the EY schools. EY literacy scores are 37 percent higher in 2005 than 2002. EY math scores are 73 percent higher over the same time period. The comparable indices for the Comparison schools are 14 percent growth in literacy and 53 percent in mathematics. Interpretive note: differences are smaller than they seem. It is important to place these score changes in perspective. For example, the 37 percent increase in literacy scores for EY schools reported above does not signify a 37 percent increase in overall student performance. It represents movement from 15.7 percent of students proficient in the early biennium to 21.5 percent of students proficient in 2005. This is an absolute gain of 5.8 percentage points. The comparison school gain is 3.6 percentage points over the same time period. \\ Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over the same time period.________________________________________________________ 0 Page III.3 MII I! II II H n n n IB IB IB II II II B B. Comparing EY versus Control school performance given the 2005 change in the Arkansas Benchmark test score standards. Standards shift. The scores in Table IIL2 derived from a playing field that was the same for both EY and Comparison schools. So head to head comparisons between the two groups of schools are meaningful and were discussed above. However, the dramatic downturn of scores for 2005 for all schools, including the EY and comparison schools, was in part, and probably in large part, due to the fact that the Arkansas Department of Education revised the scoring standards for the 2005 Benchmark tests. Periodic standards resetting is common to state standards testing systems. Arkansas made their standards of performance stricter for the 2005 test The result of this standards shift was that, for example, some ample range of 2005 student test scores that would have warranted proficient ratings in 2004 and earlier test years was now classified as basic. Similar downshifts occurred across the spectrum. Therefore it is difficult to interpret the absolute levels of the 2005 scores in the context of the earlier scores. Without some sort of a translation guide that we have not seen, we cannot determine that a given student scoring in, say, the basic range might in fact be performing at the same level as the prior year - a year in which the student was classified as proficient. In short, we dont fully know what to make of the lower percentages of students rated as proficient on the Benchmark tests in 2005 other than to say that the game changed and the tougher standards took their toll. Appraising test scores when standards change. All state testing systems face needs to change standards from time to time - typically on the order of every five or six years. The meaning of proficient and other levels of performance needs occasional review in the context of state educational, economic, and cultural circumstances. Federal education policy directives or climate can also propel standards reviews and adjustments. One way that state systems have managed to maintain continuity between testing years where scores shift dramatically because of standards changes is to create a predictive model for the new scores. This model uses underlying numerical scores available for all Benchmark tests - statistics called a scale scores for each student which can be averaged for each school. Scale scores are typically used to derive student proficiency level statistics and are designed to provide comparability of tests from year to year. The model incorporates factors that would reasonably predict average school scale scores from year to year. The most important factors predicting school test scores are the schools test scores from prior years. In addition, controlling for student family economic status renders predictions across schools more fair. A common linear regression procedure then links the predictive factors and scores across all schools mathematically. What results is an equation that uses a school's previous average student \\ I Bi Page III.4H H II n test scale score in a subject such as literacy along with its economic status to predict its current average scale score in the same subject. A simple model or equation for predicting test scores can be created from the information described. Then when actual data for each school are placed into the equation, a predicted test score is generated for each school. In our case, if we know a schools 2003 average literacy score, its 2004 average literacy score, and its economic disadvantage index, a unique 2005 score can be predicted. The equations we derived for literacy and math score prediction are shown at the bottom of Table III.B.l (and I.a) and Table III.B.2 (and 2.a) respectively on the following four pages. \\ II H n IS II n II II n States wanting to create sound indicators of whether or not schools are making annual progress build such models and derive predicted school scores. Then each schools actual score is compared to its predicted score. To the extent that a schools actual score exceeds its predicted score, the school is considered to have made progress through the current year. Schools whose actual test scores fall short of their predicted scores are considered to have fallen back and to not have made progress. The individual school statistic describing the difference between its predicted and its actual score is formally called a residual. Positive residual numbers indicate progress. Negative residual numbers indicate slippage i.e. the actual scores fell short of predicted scores. Larger numbers or more negative numbers indicate larger degrees of progress or slippage respectively. Table III.B. 1 on the following page shows the results of our residual analyses of school level 2005 Benchmark literacy tests scores. Here is what is involved in the presentation: All LRSD elementary schools are listed. The literacy residual score is listed for each school. Pulaski for example scored 2.35 points lower than its predicted score. Dodd scored 11.44 points higher than its predicted score. Deviations from predicted scores of more than about 3.4 points (or about two standard enors) would be considered statistically significant and meaningful. Table III.B. 1 .a is a graphic version of the previous table. A residual score is listed for each school the five EY schools, the 12 EY comparison schools, and the other schools. How do EY schools fare in literacy? (Tables III.B.l and III.B. La) Three of the Extended Year schools have positive literacy score residuals, two of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that for at least two of these schools, these schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). One EY school shows a significant negative residual. The average literacy residual score for EY schools is a positive 2.8. How do Control Schools fare in literacy? Four of the twelve comparison schools show small positive literacy score residuals - none considered statistically 0 Page III.5a I H n a n H n H II n al II II TABLE III.B.l Schooi Lit Resid 2005 BENCHMARK LITERACY RESIDUALS FROM PREDICTED SCORES PULASKI WILLIAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Regression: 19.55 20.37 14.6 9.76 19.83 10.01 2.94 10.39 4.05 2.35 -2.94 -2.25 -1.5 -3.73 -0.52 2.07 -1.16 -6.28 -3.13 -5.34 -5.97 -3.58 -6.9 -3.5 -6.03 -7.28 -7.33 -10.65 -8.64 -12.07 -17.13 Average Resid. Benchmark Literacy Residual Controls PRED.LIT.05= 100.1 + (-24.1)SES04 + (.185)LIT03 + (.385)LIT04 R-Square Mean Scale Score St.Dev. SEM Minimum Maximum 0.66 198.28 9.54 1.71 198.29 218.66 -2.94 -2.25 Benchmark Literacy Residual EY schools -3.73 -0.52 -6.28 -3.13 -5.97 -3.58 -7.28 -10.65 -8.64 -17.13 -6.01 LIT03=AV.2003.SCH.LIT. SCALE SCORE LIT04=AV.2004.SCH.LIT. SCALE SCORE SES=PERCENT FREE AND REDUCED LNCH. page -1.5 -5.34 -3.5 -6.03 -12.07 -5.69 \\ 0 0 I I II II n IB IB IB IB Bl II n Table in. B.l.a Benchmark Literacy 2005 Average School Residuals from Predictive Model STEPHENS I aSsSESBBBBBSSSSH MABEL MITCHELL WOODRUFF h jnBMnnHBi VSBBSSSSSBai WBBBHB %S3SBHS ^SBXS\u0026amp;\u0026amp;BJUUU4X3 MHBSSBBS VCSTSOUC o o JuX {/} -20 -15 -10 iniyR babBSS PULAggag BOOKa MEADOW BRADY GEYER BALE FULBRIGT WASHING CHICOT WILSON OTTER McDERMT I CTSh KWWWWB. MWWSi BSBBgfe QaSBSSSSESSXLBUKUUBmBBSkSB 'BaaaBsasi FAIRPARK N@9BBSB9i HBSSSI^ DODD -5 0 5 10 15 20 Residual from Predictive Model k A H n II II II II n II II II n n M Table III.B.2 School PULASKI WILLIAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON 2005 BENCHMARK MATH RESIDUALS FROM PREDICTED SCORES Math Resid Control Schoo EY School Residuals Residuals 55.53 54.1 28.74 22.42 39.39 12.54 14.56 27.75 9.46 -3.8 -0.72 -3.89 12.7 10.58 -11.41 3.87 -9.28 -26.55 -1.21 -21.94 -12.59 13.76 -30.08 -18.22 31.93 -27.29 -3.92 -30.81 -41.48 -39.92 -52.73 -0.72 -3.89 10.58 -11.41 -26.55 -1.21 -12.59 13.76 -27.29 -30.81 -41.48 -52.73 12.7 -21.94 -18.22 31.93 -39.92 Averages -15.36 -7.09 Regression: Predicted 2005 Math Scale Score = 59.1-(11.85*SES)-i-.293*Math03+.492Math04 R-Square Mean Maximum Minimum St. Dev Std. Error 0.47 197.6 276.2 126.9 37.64 6.76 MATH03=A\\/.2003.SCH.MATH. SCALE SCORE MATHO4=AV.2OO4.SCH.MATH. SCALE SCORE SES=PERCENT FREE AND REDUCED LNCH. page \\ I I 0 table ni.B.2.a Benchmark Mathematics, 2005 Average School Residuals from Predictive Model n BSSSBSSSBBliB STEPHENS i MITCHELL V MABEL WOODRUFF BBBBBSXSSEXSSSEBBSiMMSJUJUBMWBSaSBMNflUlMKiB BasBSflHHHBHEBEEEBBHflBBBSBRSBSBlBSfe n n n IE II II II II o o x: BSS9BBEB9BMBCG9EGDE9 XSagSSSSSSSSSSSBBBBgESBSdCuSaEEB Illi mil I III IffMEI \\XUJnaX2mJUBiUUUIMHMIiMi iwwiwriafTMittlMflasB \"SESB\u0026amp;SSSB^BIBBSDBMaKiSSM QS99BB6@ BMSSBffiBHBBB ^UlUUUICSUalBaiUliiUlMMiiUB WASBHWSTS Fl II RHW ROCKFLERi FAIRPARK ROMINE PULASKI OTTER BALE CARVER WATSON MEADOW WILSON ft Mb B ymBft MWWft aHBHi HHIBBi CHICOT n TERRY DODD GEYER McDERMT T -60 -40 , -20 20 40 60 0 Residual from Predicted Score 0II H significant. Among the remaining eight schools, six have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -3.72. li H Without sifting this information with too fine a comb, the data suggest that the Extended Year schools modestly outperformed their comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. II n n How do EY schools fare in mathematics? Tables III.B.2 and III.B.2.a present the results of our residual analyses of Benchmark mathematics test scores. A glaring difference between these data and the literacy residual scores is that the numbers are much larger - large positive and large negative numbers show up frequently. The reason for this is that there is a much wider range of scores in mathematics than in literacy, with larger variation throughout the distribution. (The minimum and maximum predicted scale scores, along with standard deviations, are shown at the bottom of each table.) In plain terms, math performance varies much more widely across Little Rock elementary schools than does literacy performance. \\ n n As shown in the mathematics residual table, three of the EY schools have positive mathematics score residuals, all of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that these three schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). Two EY schools show significant negative residuals. The average mathematics residual score for EY schools is a positive 11.8. n II II How do Control Schools fare in mathematics? Five of the twelve comparison schools show positive mathematics score residuals - all considered statistically significant. All of the remaining seven control schools have significant negative mathematics score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -10.3. n These data suggest that the Extended Year schools significantly outperformed their comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. n General caveat. It is important to remember that outperforming in the residual analyses does not necessarily mean that schools attained higher 2005 Benchmark test scores than others. It that means that schools did better than predicted based on past performance and student family economic status. Conclusion HI.2 Based on analyses of test score residuals. Extended Year schools very modestly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed at a higher level than would be expected from past performance and student demographics and that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores. I Page III.6n H Section IV. Effectiveness of Extended Year versus Comparison Schools LRSD Portfolio of Data II II II In the fall of 2005, the Little Rock School District published a draft report titled Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District. This is a rich document that presents statistics related to most of the issues commonly tracked for schools. The report contains detailed displays of data each school, for each grade level, and for each of five school years, 2001 to 2005. Topics range across issues of attendance, student behavior, student mobility, and student achievement. For many topics, separate tables are presented for African American students. This last feature was attractive to our team, given our mission and the subjects of the litigation. H \\ n H This Portfolio of Data is a valuable resource for anyone wanting to do analyses of individual schools or groups of schools as well as wanting to conduct comparative analyses - across years or across schools. As we read the document, we identified seven mini-studies that the data would support. Each afforded opportunities to compare Extended Year schools with our Comparison schools - and to set these against data for all district elementary schools combined. II We chose to explore all topics in the Portfolio of Data that would commonly be regarded as indicators of the performance or effectiveness of an elementary school. This was the resulting inventory: II II a. b. c. d. e. f. g- Student mobility. Student attendance. African American student attendance. Student disciplinary referrals. Short-term student suspensions. African American student performance on Benchmark math tests. African American student performance on Benchmark literacy tests. n ) I n n Approach to the analyses. We used the same methods to pursue all seven analyses as follows: We assessed students in grades 3, 4, and 5 together. This selection reflected our interest in assessing students who potentially had enrolled for multiple years in the same school in order to benefit from whatever the school had to offer. And combining the grade levels supports indicators of whole school performance. We sought indications of performance-change over the past five years, from the earliest year to the latest year that data were reported. The EY school programs were launched during this time period and their effects stood to show up as changes in the Portfolios indicators, early to present. fl Page IV. 1 HH n on Our assessment of progress or change in each of the seven areas was based average performance in the two most recent years (2003-04 and 2004-05) with II the average performance in the first two years reported (2000-01 and 2001-02). This involved averaging the scores for each two year time period. When looking for trends in multi-year school data, change based on two year starting and ending points is less influenced by fluctuations in the statistics from one year to the next, which can mask patterns of change. II II We report growth as percentage changes in indicators for each of the seven areas. This choice reflects out interest in comparing these areas of performance in a common metric. li Table fV. 1 on the following page shows the results of all seven analyses, and for each of the three groups of schools - all EY schools. Comparison schools, and all district elementary schools. n n II Results. Positive advantages, i.e. higher percentage growth in measures, show for Extended Year schools than for control schools in all seven areas. In two areas, all student attendance and African American student attendance, the reported changes for all three groups are negligible and differences between school groups even smaller. In each of the five remaining areas, EY schools show quite favorably when contrasted with Comparison schools. We discuss each, starting from the leftmost column of Table fV.l. II n Student mobility. EY schools showed a decline in student mobility of about 19 percent over the five years. This means that their students tended to stay longer in the same school as the years progressed. Comparison school student mobility remained unchanged over the five years, and the mobility of students across all elementary schools combined decreased by about 11 percent. n n Student disciplinary referrals. As shown in the fourth column of Table IV. 1, student disciplinary referrals in Extended Year schools declined by about 14 percent between 2000 and 2005. In contrast, student disciplinary referrals increased by 85 percent in Comparison schools and by 44 percent in all schools combined. s Short-term suspensions. Change patterns in student suspensions paralleled change patterns in disciplinary referrals for the three groups of schools. Extended Year schools experienced a nearly 25 percent decline in short-term suspensions, while suspensions grew in Comparison schools by two-thirds and in all schools by about 34 percent between 2000 and 2005. African American student math proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test rose considerably in Extended Year schools Page IV.2II Table IV.l Percentage Change In Selected Indicators from 2001 to 2005, Extended Year Schools, Matched Comparison Schools, and All Elementary Schools Student Mobility Average Student Attendance Days African American Student Attendance Student Disciplinary Referrals Short-term Suspensions Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Math Tests Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Literacy Tests Growth (- decline) in percentage terms EY Schools Comparison Schs. All Elem Schools Notes: -19.10% 0.13% -11.36% Sig.Diff. 1.63% 1.59% 2.26% 1.96% 1.31% 2.01% No significant differences -13.86% f 84.98% 43.54% -24.38% I 178.43% | 154,78^ 66.67% 34.14% 102.46% 98.02% 54.61% 58.67% EY Schools Comparison Schs. All Elem Schools Significant differences (Significant difference refers to Extended Year Schools vs. Comparison Schools.) I 1. Data Source: LSRD: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District, 2005 2. Benchmark Test proficiency comparisons are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (averaged to establish a a baseline) versus 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (averaged to establish outcome years). 3. The remaining five comparisons compare 2004 and 2005 data to 2000 and 2001 data. 4. Combining two early and two late years respectively for pre- and post- measures provides more stable estimates than single school years, for which values tend to fluctuate due to random influences. page B It It Bl between 2000 and 2004' - by 178 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also increase but by lower margins\n102 percent and 55 percent respectively. It It African American student literacy proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test also rose considerably between 2000 and 2004 - by 155 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also grew again by less than the growth attained for the EY schools: 98 percent and 59 percent respectively. \\ It It Summing up It It The statistics presented in Table IV.l comparing patterns of change across seven performance indicators uniformly favor Extended Year schools over Comparison schools, in five areas substantially so. While it may ultimately prove difficult to link each of these indicators to conditions brought to the schools by virtue of participation in the Extended Year program, the uniformity of the trends reported suggests that some thing or things in common have been productively at work in the Extended Year schools. It II II II Conclusion IV.l. Extended year schools show significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and Afncan American student proficiency in both mathematics and literacy. Two indicators of attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either group of schools. The magnitude of these changes for EY schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools is a significant indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. II M The Portfolio of Data presents Benchmark test proficiency statistics for only four schools years - up through 2003-2004. The changes reported here are for the time span 2000 through 2004. We noted earlier that Benchmark proficiency scores declined systematically between 2004 and 2005, and declined for all schools because of standards resetting. This change for 2005 is not accommodated in this analysis. Page IV.3II II Section V. Assessing Extended Year School Intersessions II II A core component of the Extended Year school is the Intersession (IS). These are one or two week special study units that serve to extend the school year by as much as four weeks - into late June each year. The intersession programs vary a great deal - mainly offering special interest topics. They are not designed as academic remediation opportunities. Many regular school teachers take the opportunity to diversify their teaching and to earn extra compensation for conducting Intersession classes. n M ni About sixty percent of enrolled students in the Extended Year schools as of spring 2005 had participated in between 1 and 3 Intersessions. As shown in Table V.2 below, about 65 percent of all students in the Extended Year schools and 59 percent of African American students were IS participants. Because the number of non African American students in EY schools amounts account for only about 10 percent of students, these different participation rates imply that the approximately 60 non-African American students participate in Intersessions at very high rates. \\ M II M II In this section of our report, we display two ways of assessing the academic importance of intersession attendance. We must begin with the caution that because the Intersessions themselves are generally not devoted specific to mathematics or literacy skills, we would not expect strong influences on test scores due to the nature of Intersession instruction. Yet all Intersessions involve the use of the English language in a variety of ways. And they most probably incorporate language that is more aligned with school reading, writing, and spoken word than with out-of-school language. Moreover, Intersessions cause students to remain in school and school-like environments over more of the school year that what students experiences in regular calendar schools. II Intersessions also keep children in something of an in-school frame of mind for a longer school year than what children experience in non Extended Year schools. II Our inquiry results are consistent with an Intersession program with the qualities described above. As we soon present. Intersession attendance within EY schools is associated with small but meaningful academic advantages. n Intersessions and proficiency scores basic comparisons. Table V. 1 on the following page presents an overview of Intersession participation and the differences in student performance between Intersession attendees (lAs) and non-attendees (NAs). The following are the most important perspectives shown on these issues\nOf the 589 grade 3, 4, and 5 EY school students, 342 had attended one or more Intersessions and 244 had not. The student SES (economic disadvantage) percentages differ by only one point for the two groups. Page V. 1fl fl m Table V.l II M fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl All EY Schools, Intercession Participants vs. Non-participants, by selected groups and performance outcomes. Grades 3, 4, and 5\nN = 589 N students (Grades 3-5) Percent Econ. Disadvantaged /o Proficient /o Proficient Race/Ethnic Distr: African American White Hispanic Asian, Pacific Is N of students 244 90 121 132 0 LR District 5630 64.0% Literacy 39.5% Math 35.5% 68.5% 22.3% 4.1% 5.0% All 5 Extended year (EY) schools: Attended Intercession Did Not Attend I.S. 342 244 82.0% 26.0% 25.1% 92.7% 4.1% 2.0% 1.2% 83.0% 19.7% 22.2% 88.0% 4.0% 4.4% 3.6% \\ N of sessions 0 1 2 3 4 pagen M la Proficiency scores, using for our purposes the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in the 2005 Benchmark tests, are higher for lAs than for NAs. In literacy, the advantage for IS attendees is 26 percent proficient versus just under 20 percent proficient for non-attendees. The difference in mathematics is smaller - about 25 percent proficient versus 22 percent. M n While these differences and distinctions are small, they are consistent with some sort of language effect of Intersession attendance involved with language in various ways but not generally involved with mathematics instruction or math-related experiences. n M Table V.l also shows the racial/ethnic breakdown of both the LA and NA groups - the attending group was nearly 93 percent African American, while the non-attending group was a smaller 88 percent African American. Also shown in Table V.l are the number of Intersessions taken by children in the attendee group - 132 had taken 3 sessions, 121 had taken 2 sessions, and 90 attendees had taken 1 Intersession among the 2005 students in EY schools. IB M Table V.2 shows contrasts between Intersession attendees and NAs in finer detail than Table V. 1, while also showing statistics specifically for African American students as well some baseline comparisons statistics for all LRSD students. II II In general, similar academic performance advantages for Intersession attendees show for both African American and for all students. This makes sense given that about 90 percent of the EY school students are African American. Raw test scores (number of items correct on the 2005 literacy and math Benchmark tests) are shown along with test scale scores and the patterns in these scores parallel those reported for student proficiency. II n The message in the test comparisons, no matter which scores are used, is the small performance advantage shown for Intersession attendees over non-attendees. While the difference is very small and statistically insignificant, the advantages accruing to Intersession attendance appear to be a little smaller for African American students than for all students combined. After the next analysis which gets at the same questions in a different way, we comment further on the small differences between lAs and NAs shown in Table V.2 data. II Correlations of Intersession attendance with achievement indicators. Another way to explore the implications of Intersession attendance is a straightforward look at correlations between attendance (versus non-attendance) on the one hand and available performance indicators on the other hand. This analysis asks the question, does Intersession attendance associate with (or conelate with) higher individual literacy or math scores? For this analysis we assigned a 1 to each student who had attended one or more Intersessions and a 0 to non-attendees. We then incorporated more differentiated scales of literacy and mathematics than just proficiency versus non-proficiency. We used literacy and mathematics performance levels scaled 1 through 4 to capture the below basic to advanced range in student performance. We also explored literacy and math test raw scores (numbers of items correct) as alternative indicators of performance. Since the basic M Page V.2I I I B B B Table V.2 N Percent attending or not: Percent econ Disadv. % Proficient % Proficient Average Raw score, 2005 Average Raw score, 2005 Grade 4 Ave scale score Grade 4 Ave scale score Literacy Math Literacy Math Literacy Math Student performance In EY schools by participation in Intercessions\nAll students and All African American Students, Grades 3, 4, and 5. 2005 For reference: Alt Little Rock Students, Grade 3-5 All students in Extended Year Schools (N = 595): All African American Students in Extended Year Schools (N=:539) 5664 NA 63.8 39.5 55.5 (sd) (sd) (sd) (sd) 56.5 18.1 36 16.6 203 32.6 207.8 95.5 Attended Intercession Did Not Attend I.S. Attended Intercession Did Not Attend I.S. 343 249 318 219 35.5% 59.2% 40.8% 80.3% 84.3% 81.3% 28.1% 19.7% 24.6% 19.1% 29.5% 22.2% 23.3% 21.0% (sd) indicates standard deviation 50.7 19.2 45.8 20 50 18.1 45.5 19.8 33 17.7 29.7 17.2 30.7 16.1 29.2 16.7 189.1 38.4 188.3 0.28 189.7 33.1 187.8 27.6 190.8 108 183.9 108.6 180.2 100.3 179.24. 108.2 page B B B B B B B MHII II II concerns surrounding academic achievement are focused on standards and the requirements of No Child Left Behind, the performance level indicators should he considered more important than the raw score indicators. II II Table V.3 on the following page displays a standard correlation matrix showing relationships among five different variables, including literacy and mathematics performance indicators as well as Intersession attendance. The boxes contain data describing correlations between the scores in each row (labeled on the left side of the matrix), and the scores displayed respectively across the tops of the columns. n II M (The top number in each cell shows the correlation coefficient (Pearson's r), the center number is a standard indicator of statistical significance - any number less than .050 implies a significant correlation, and the bottom number is the number of students involved in the analysis. Note: the asterisks attaching to the correlation coefficients also conform to standard statistical reporting. Correlation coefficients with one asterisk are significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Two asterisks indicate a 99 percent confidence level. Ninety-five percent and higher confidence levels signify that the correlations show real positive relationships between the two scores as opposed to chance or spurious associations.) \\ n II Correlations show as the number 1 in a diagonal row of boxes result when an indicator is correlated with itself - perfect conelation. As another example of reading from this matrix, literacy performance levels correlate very highly with literacy raw scores: the correlation coefficient is .895 and this correlation is significant at the 99 percent confidence level. I II II n The main display of interest in the Table V.3 matrix is the bottom row. Reading across, this shows correlations between Intersession attendance and four respective performance indicators: literacy performance level, literacy raw scores, math performance levels and math raw scores. All of these performance indicators derive from the 2005 Benchmark standards tests. Intersession attendance would have occurred largely in spring 2004 and spring 2003. A few sessions would go back as far as spring 2002 for these students. n M What is shown is fairly straightforward. Intersession attendance correlates positively and significantly with both literacy indicators, and with the mathematics test raw scores. The correlation between Intersession attendance and mathematics performance level warrants about a 0.91 confidence level - approaching statistical significance. I I I 01 While there are positive conelations between Intersession attendance and the literacy and mathematics performance indicators, the correlations are small - all are in the 0.10 range. These small conelations are entirely consistent with the contrasts in proficiency levels between Intersession attendees and non-attendees reported in the previous analysis and shown in Table V.l. Bi Page V.3n n TABLE V.3 n INTERSESSION CORRELATIONS WITH PERFORMANCE ALL GRADE 3,4 and 5 EY STUDENTS, 2005 n n Cbrrebtions n HI n n n LhwlEV UTRW MAPBRFLV MA.THRAW intersession yes no UTPFlfV Pearson Corre btion Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corre btion Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Corre iation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Cctc Iation Sig. tailed) N Pearson Corre iation Sig. ^-tailed) N 1 589 .895* .000 589 .686* .000 589 .733* .000 589 .101* .032 454 LTIRAW .895* .000 589 1 595 .679* .000 589 .756* .000 595 .124* .008 460 MAPKFLV .686* .000 589 .679* .000 589 1 589 .932* .000 589 .080 .089 454 M^JHRAW .733* .000 589 .756* .000 595 .932* .000 589 1 595 .093* .046 460 intersession yes no .101* .032 454 .124* .008 460 .080 .089 454 .093* .046 460 1 460 n Goirelation is significant at the 0.01 level (2- tailed). *. GorrelMion is significant at the0.05 level (2-tailed). n n n n LITPFLEV LITRAW MAPERFLV MATHRAW Literacy performance level Literacy raw Score (N items correct) Mathematics performance level Mathematics raw score (N items conect) Intersession Yes/NO Contrasts students who have taken one or more EY intersessions with those who have not participated.q q q Interpretative note. The performance advantages shown in Table V.l and Table V.2 are statistically significant, but the differences are small. The differences are real, but there is no certain way of answering an important underlying question. This is whether the differences result from intersession attendance, or whether they simply reflect differences between students who choose to attend Intersessions and those who do not. In typical appraisals of this sort of quandary, the larger are the differences the greater is the importance of the question. So this is not a crucial question facing this evaluation. q q q There is some reason to not be too concerned about the genesis of performance differences shown in this section for Intersession attendees. Under either circumstance, we would be inclined to recommend that students attend Intersessions. As one possibility, the experience would provide a boost to achievement. As another possibility, students who choose to attend Intersessions give themselves an opportunity to associate and work with students who, on average, are doing somewhat better in school. This alternative possibility might also bring advantages to Intersession attendees. \\ q q q q Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend Extended Year school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not attend. Direct comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests point to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators comes to the same conclusion. Academic performance may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. q q q q q a a Page V,4m II Section VI. Surveys of Parents, Students, and Teachers Specialized Parent Interviews II II II This section reports the results of surveys of Extended Year school parents, students, and teachers in all five EY schools. We also conducted a set of in-depth telephone interviews with EY school parents who had parent experience in both EY and regular calendar schools. Some of the children of interviewed parents had transfened schools, some parents had students in both types of schools, and some parents had experienced the conversion of their school from a regular calendar to Extended Year. In all of these instances, parents were in a position to point out differences between the two sorts of school experiences. II II ii Survey methods. LRSD research and evaluation staff began surveys of EY school parents, students, and teachers in 2002-2003. The questions in these surveys focused on academic achievement issues as well as on qualities of the EY experience. For this evaluation, we replicated verbatim the multiple-choice questions from past year surveys. The multiple choice questions from these surveys can be seen in Tables VI.l.G, yi.2.G, and VI. 3. G below where we consolidate the responses of all five schools and display the results for parent, student, and teacher surveys respectively. Each of these tables shows all of the survey questions along with distributions of responses. II We also invited parents, students, and teachers to respond in writing to open questions related to differences between EY school and regular calendar school experiences. These open-response questions focused on achievement issues and offered opportunities for respondents to suggest ways to improve EY schools. These open questions were composed with consultation from the LRSD PRE staff who in turn consulted with individual EY school personnel as these questions were written. These questions were concerned mainly with differences between Extended Year schools and traditional calendar schools. The surveys were finalized in late summer of 2005. The surveys were administered to students in grades 3, 4, and 5 by LRSD PRE staff who coordinated administration efforts in the five EY schools. Schools sent parent surveys home and collected completed surveys. And EY school teachers completed our surveys directly. In total, we amassed 525 individual parent surveys, 636 student surveys, and 157 teacher surveys. The teacher survey response rate was close to 100 percent. Parent and student survey returns rates were about 30 percent overall. Page VI. 1 n n n n n \\11 II Organization of the interview data II The following 26 pages display a great many statistics and much information generated from our parent student and teacher surveys. We also append to this report 30 pages of survey data showing results for EY schools individually. II Here is a guide to what is included, in order: II From Parent Surveys II Table VLl.F Table VL2.F.2 Table VI.1.G Parent written response table Parent comparisons of schools Consolidated parent survey data for eight multiple choice questions 1 page 2 pages 3 pages II From Student Surveys il Table VL2.F Table VL2.G il Student written response table Consolidated student survey data for 11 multiple choice questions From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3.F Table VL3.G 1 page 3 pages II Teacher written response table Consolidated teacher survey data for 12 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages II From Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and response distributions for 8 questions 12 pages II Appendix: Individual school results from parent, student and teacher surveys 30 pages n n \\ For this section of the report, we focus on the core issue of student achievement and the differences that the Extended Year calendar may bring to students. We draw on observations and assessments from each table. All contrasts reported are between Extended Year and regular calendar year schools. Page VI.2II II Notes from survey and interview tables II From Parent Surveys DI Table VI.l.F Parent written response table 1 page II About two-thirds of parents report that EY schools are better when it comes to student academic success. The largest cluster of reasons for this is that shorter breaks cause students to forget less and that staying in school longer helps keep student minds fresh. \\ n II Parent suggestions for improvement of the EY program are spread across several ideas, although more than half claim there is no need for improvement. Suggestions include more educational opportunities (e.g. as opposed to recreational or hobby-focused Intersessions), more tutoring, better parent information, and better childcare to boost after school and Intersession opportunities. n Table VI.2.F.2 il Parent survey quotes 2 pages This table contains the raw quotes that support the analysis of parent survey comments presented in the previous table. Table VI. 1 .F Table VLl.G Consolidated parent survey data 3 pages n n II This table displays distributions of parent answers to multiple-choice questions on the parent survey. Fall 2005 parent survey responses from all five YRE schools are consolidated for this presentation. n n The most important observations regarding student achievement from this table include: Just over half of all parents cite higher achievement in EY schools and over 60 percent would prefer that their children continue in EY schools. A large majority of parents believe that children are more interested in school when in EY schools. Half of the parents support the expansion of the EY model to other schools. From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Student yvritten response table. 1 page The student quotes reveal mixed feelings on the part of students about whether or not students do better academically in EY schools. Positive answers center on having more time in school and having a greater variety of school experiences. Negative answers are spread out, but concentrate somewhat on the fact that some EY students have Page VI,3m m siblings in regular schools and that the clash of two different annual school calendars can be disruptive. m Table VI.2.G Consolidated student survey data 3 pages II m Students report more interest in school in EY schools (84 percent) and that the EY school teachers are more patient and helpful (89 percent). These two questions gained more consensus than other questions across all surveys. Most (79 percent) feel that they have more time to secure extra help when its needed in EY schools. \\ I. m About 56 percent of students claim that they learn more in the EY structure than in regular schools. Students do not favor shorter vacation periods, however. IH II From Teacher Surveys TaWg VL3.F Teacher written response table 1 page n II As with parents and student, teachers offered comments indicating that students achieve at higher levels in EY schools than in regular calendar schools. The teachers who feel this way report three main reasons: students forget less with shorter summers, the whole schedule produces less stress and less burnout than regular calendars, and it is easier for students to catch up in EY schools if they get behind. I IR n Among teachers feeling that EY schools do not present academic advantages, many report that there is essentially no difference between the two types of calendars when it comes to academic achievement\nothers cite attendance problems at Intersessions in the EY schools as holding back what could be higher student performance. n n Teacher suggestions for improving EY schools include adding professional development opportunities for EY school teachers, extending all schools to the EY model to bring benefits to all and to make school calendars consistent for all children. A prominent suggestion for improvement was adjusting the calendar to have a shorter break in February and a longer break before Intersessions in May. TaWe VL3.G Consolidated teacher survey data 3 pages Teachers are less positive than parents or students about the relative academic benefits of Extended Year schooling. Just over one-third of teachers feel that EY schools boost academic achievement. (Teacher survey responses were less sanguine on EY school student achievement advantages than were their transcribed comments from the interviews. Teachers tend to agree that EY schools bring a wider variety of educational Page VI.4II II II experiences to their students and two thirds believe that students benefit from the Intersessions. A majority believes that EY schools offer more academic continuity. About half of teachers find EY schools less stressful. A large majority of teachers report that they benefit from opportunities to earn stipends for optional Intersession employment. n Rounding up the surveys \\ II n There are many questions worth exploring in the survey data we collected. The constituents involved, especially parents and teachers, will probably take interest in the results for their respective school communities. Discussions of the surveys may lead to further insights and suggestions for Extended Year. We venture a global survey-based conclusion at this point regarding our most important subject, student achievement. II n K n n n n Conclusion VLl. The parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated across all five EY schools provide an overall appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular calendar schools. The result is that when reporting academic advantages or on conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and 80 percent of students report higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for learning, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences favoring EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results are wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and mathematics achievement favoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Parent Interviews The final entry in Section VI of this report is our report of our parent interviews. The responses to parent interviews should be set against insights reported by parents, students, and teachers from surveys in this report. The parent interviews, having been conducted in fall of 2005, also serve as a contemporary check on conditions in EY schools from the parents perspectives. Page VI.5m n m Immediately following the consolidated parent, student, and teacher surveys, and before the Appendix containing individual school survey results, is a report of our fall 2005 parent interviews. Parents from all five EY schools were sampled for this report. We developed our sample with the assistance of personnel at the LRSD central office. We generated a list of all families who had had a child enrolled in an EY school for at least two years AND had also had a child enrolled in a non-year round school for two years. Thus we sought parents who had a valid basis for drawing comparisons between the two school calendars. \\ m n Out of an initial sample of 104 families who met these criteria, we could reach only 41 families for interviews. Parent phone contact lists contained many numbers that had been disconnected and some numbers that did not reach the designated family. The families we managed to contact fully cooperated with the effort. I' n n The parent interview report is organized according to the eight questions on the interview protocol. For each of questions 1-6, we recorded parent responses and then classified them into the categories used to depict response patterns. We also include the essence of all parent statements in their responses to questions 1-6. n n How did you come to be a parent with experience in both EY and non-EY schools? As can be seen in the display for Question 1, nearly 70 percent of the parents met the two-school criterion because their childs school had converted to the EY calendar. Thirty percent had transferred their child(ren) from a regular calendar to an EY calendar school. As can be seen from the quotes on page 1 of the parent interview display, the reasons for switching schools and opinions about school conversions are extremely diverse. n n Main differences, EY versus regular calendar. Parents cited two main differences between the two school calendars. About 39 percent cited better learning in EY schools. The same percentage cited the schedule as the main difference, as neither a plus nor a minus as far as achievement was concerned. The reasons cited for achievement differences were largely the longer school year. t n Focus on learning differences. After letting the parent come up with his or her own perceptions of differences between the EY and regular calendars, in Question 3 we asked specifically about learning differences. The response to this question was a strong vote in favor of EY schools. Just over eighty percent of parents reported EY schools to generally be better, with more learning. As they talked about this observation, about 31 percent attributed reduced learning loss as the reason children performed better in EY schools. Why learning advantages in EY schools? The 80 percent of parents who thought learning was better in EY schools offered a number of reasons for this in responding to Question 4. Less learning loss was claimed by 30 percent of parents. Page VI.6n m Fourteen parents cited a companion reason - shorter breaks and vacations in EY schools. About 1 in 8 parents said the teachers were better and another 1 in 8 claimed that the Intersessions helped the students learn more. m Do children feel differently about themselves in EY schools (Question 5)? Parents generally interpreted this question to mean, does your child like being in the EY school better. The answer to this question is no for nearly two-thirds of the parents - they feel the same or question the model - especially the calendar in which they feel they go to school longer. This is pronounced in early June, as regular school start vacations and EY schools are still in session or starting Intersessions. IH q Do children talk about being in an EY school (Question 6)? The responses to this question parallel those offered regarding the previous question. A majority of responses reflect children asking about/ or complaining about the schedule differences - usually with their eyes on vacation schedules. Some children adjust and like the EY schedule. n n Does your child receive any specialized education services (Question 7)? About 16 percent of the students in our EY parent sample were participating in the gifted and talented program. Only about 3 percent mentioned resources classes and 3 percent cited music as a special service. n Does your family utilize before or after school childcare programs (Question 8)? Eleven percent of families participate in childcare. Eighty-nine percent do not. n What stands out in the parent interviews? n n n Parent responses about perceived better learning are one highlight of the interview responses - this was offered spontaneously but about 40 percent of parents and by about 80 percent of parents when asked to report on any learning differences. The main reasons for reported learning differences center on the EY schedule - more focus on school and less learning loss. The Intersessions are generally not cited as a contributor to added learning - not academic learning anyway. According to their parents, more children complain about the EY school situation than praise it. Children tend to focus on the shorter vacations and being in school at times when others are out. It is not clear from the responses whether or not achievement levels are impacted for the children who have issues with the EY calendar. Page VI.7m K m Appendix II Detailed reports of all survey data by school are shown in the appendix to this report which follows. These data were the building blocks for the consolidated interview data we have focused on for this draft report. These individual school charts may inspire feedback from constituents at specific schools as we proceed to our final report. II \\ II II n n n II n n n Page VI.8TABLE VI.l.F Parent Discussion Questions 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because: Keeps students' minds fresh/they forget less during breaks More time for education/less distractions Keeps them focused on school They learn more My student likes it Gives students who are behind more time to catch up Student gets more vacation time #this answer 26 21 21 17 3 7 6 total who answered 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 %this answer 19% 15% 15% 12% 2% 5% 4% No, Because: Student is left out from summer activites and family vacations Student gets burned out Kids in the family are on different schedules Childcare problems for working parent 14 6 6 11 138 138 138 138 10% 4% 4% 8% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? More educational activities and field trips More tutoring Childcare for working parents during after school and intersessions More favorable teacher/student ratio Keep parents more informed Good as is/No improvements needed 14 17 15 3 12 26 87 87 87 87 87 87 16% 20% 17% 3% 14% 30% page s s sn TABLE VL1.F.2 V m Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? m ii II II n n n n Because it provides a continuous learning environment and a safe place to be. I feel that Year Round Education has kept my childrens minds active and they retain more of what they learn. Educators spend more time teaching rather than re-teaching skills that have been displaced due to long gaps within the summer. I feel that the short breaks within the school year give the parents, teachers, and students much needed time away from school activities, such as homework, etc., and when school resumes everyone comes back replenished. I dont like YRE because the program takes away summer vacation from the children and their family. I think they have more time to know the concept of study in the YRE school. Its not the length of time at school, its the quality and caring of the teachers and assistants. The staff are more attentive with students. Intersessions give students the opportunity to do extra educational activities during school hours. I think the year round school molds kids into loving school and I think it will help a lot of children in the long run because I think the longer you work at something the more things you can accomplish. Year round schools interfere with our family vacations in the summer. We cannot plan our family activities now as we did before because we knew the months the kids were out of school. Students should have their summer available to stay away from regular academic studies for fun and refreshment. My kids are fed up with the year round program and are starting to dislike school. The YRE school has not been beneficial to my child due to the fact that she was never included in the intersessions. She is not performing to the best of her abilities and could have used the extra help. I am very disappointed in the YRE. We were never notified of the intersession in time to sign up. Its good because the student doesnt have a long period between breaks. This allows the student to remember previous information. My daughter aint learning nothing anyway. Her teacher is just giving her grades to pass her to the next grade. My daughter is a first grader and she cant read she dont know small words like was, come, is, words like that. There is no difference. The students spend the same amount of time in school, just different time spans. \\ TABLE VL1.F.2 m Question 2: How Can we improve Year Round Education Schools? IV IV IV IV IV iV II IV n Making their summer vacation a little longer and start their summer with regular school. By making intersession available for every child who wishes to attend. I think they need to have tutors. Like hire students from high school. They help the little ones and they can have some cash. Have more meetings and have the parents come in and see what the parents are doing in class. Make conferences with the teachers and parents. Keep the parents excited about the program and let them know how important it is that parents are visible so our children can develop in a more positive academic manner. I think they need more teachers and less students in the classrooms because some students struggle more than others and need more attention. They need to have teachers who just work with struggling students, so it wont effect the students who are where they need to be. Teachers need more time with kids and really teach them what they know. Ive come across a lot of teachers who are not happy doing what they do and its just sad because I get scared that it will make school a bad experience for my daughter. I think they should stop being so mean and let the children talk at lunch and on the playground. Revamp the curriculum to coincide with testing. Make sure your students are working on their educational level. Some students are more advanced than others. They need to be taught on that level any other will stifle what they are learning and they become bored. \\ IV nn n TABLE VI.l.G CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED. n My children show a greater interest in their educational program. II Number N = Percent n Agree Disagree No Opinion total 395 55 75 525 525 525 525 75% 10% 14% 100% \\ IB My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N = Percent IB Agree Disagree No Opinion total 306 153 64 523 523 523 523 59% 29% 12% 100% n A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent SB II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 313 115 102 530 530 530 530 59% 22% 19% 100% II My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 282 120 130 532 532 532 532 0 53% 23% 24% #DIV/0! n Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. n Number N= Percent II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 405 75 43 523 523 523 523 77% 14% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 383 92 65 540 540 540 540 71% 17% 12% 100% n m CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED. CONT'D n This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. II Number Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 278 118 145 541 541 541 541 51% 22% 27% n 100% N = \\ n I want my children to continue in this program. Number N = Percent n Agree Disagree No Opinion total 337 111 89 537 537 537 537 63% 21% 17% 100% nn Gender Male Female Total II n Ethnicity Black White Other Total 100 430 530 0 0 429 29 53 511 nn Number of children in a YRE school 8 16 24 n 235 183 97 21 536 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0123 4+ total 147 168 124 37 23 499 mn li CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED. CONT'D Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar li Elementary Middle school senior high 124 81 58 \\ n Grade level of children nn Total n nnnnn K 12 34 5 15 148 153 119 120 143 698 n TABLE VI.l.F n YRE Schools: Collected Student Quotes II Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this wav? II Year round school help us learn for a long time because we go longer. My year round school is better because we got a computer lab. II Yes. No. No. Yes. / feel this way because I like being out of school. I think that because when I cousin is out I be still going to school. I feel very good at the regular school and I study more every day there. It helps your education and we get caught up more on fourth grade work. II II II I say yes because you can learn more. Also you can get more education. Also get better at things. Yes. Because you are starting to talk in English and get friends you will know better. No, the reason why is because we 're always out and we 're hardly learning. Yes. I think it does because you can learn more things about school and learn to do different kinds of work. Yes. Why I pick yes because I like doing work. No. Ifeel this way because all the other schools are out and we are still in. I like all yearround because you be out for a month. And plus you get to spend time with your family you get to stay up and night until you feel sleepy. Yes. I feel this way because you stay in school you learn more. No. My brother is out of school while I am in school. No. My other school was more advanced and if we have short period vacations I forget stuff and lose discipline. Yes. Because we can go for recess one in the morning in second recess you can get pizza and candy. Yes. Because you get a lot of education in your life. nn \\ II Question 2: How can we improve Year Round Education? II nn We need new teachers to help us learn new stuff. We could improve with a new playground. We have to improve by building a new school. They should have a new playground and new restrooms. New playground. Urgent. Go on more field trips. And new restroom. They can let us stay in until June T' because then I can get out with my cousins. I think they are fine and the year round schools can stay like they are. They need to improve because my friends they are telling me school information that I have not heard about they are smarter than me. By getting teachers to help us understand our work. They got to make new playground. We can improve them by letting someone help you. I will make a list: Nice teachers some are mean, Kill these bugs, put a new lock on the school lit is looking like a dump. More intercessions. You can start by telling everyone in this school about it and start having calendars about year round. We can even send a letter home about it. It will make it better if they change it like regular schools. By not having short vacations and having better classrooms, better technology, and better lunches. By letting us play, be out of uniform, and do fun things. Get a bigger TY. page n n TABLE VI.2.G STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED n I have been more interested in my education this year. Number II n Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 524 50 62 636 Percent n II II II n II II II n 636 636 636 0 84% 3% 13% 100% \\ I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= 243 346 53 642 Percent 642 642 642 0 39% 49% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= 370 150 108 628 Percent 628 628 628 0 56% 10% 34% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= 329 242 76 647 Percent 647 647 647 0 50% 38% 12% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 525 59 60 644 Percent 644 644 644 0 89% 4% 7% 100%n II II STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONT'D II I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. n Number N= Percent n Agree Disagree No Opinion total 493 85 75 653 653 653 653 0 79% 10% 11% 100% n I look forward to coming to school. II Number II Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 474 99 78 651 Percent II I have liked the intersessions. Number n n Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 408 124 119 651 il II 651 651 651 0 651 651 651 0 84% 8% 8% 100% Percent 71% 13% 16% 100% My parents like the extended-year program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 368 138 140 646 Percent 646 646 646 0 60% 15% 26% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 286 275 73 634 634 634 634 0 53% 24% 24% 100%II II II II STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONT'D n Intersession has helped me be a better student. Percent n n Agree Disagree No Opinion total 357 100 120 577 577 577 577 0 62% 20% 18% 100% n n Gender Male Female Total 291 353 644 n n Ethnicity Black White Other Total 562 20 54 636 II n Grade Level 3rd 4th 5th Total 236 234 232 504 n Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 7 6 10 9 4 3 47B B B B B B B B B B BW B B TABLE VI.S.F Teacher discussion questions 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because: N total Percent Less time reteaching/kids don't forget as much over break More extracurricular activites and enrichment Easier for kids who are behind to catch up Less stressful/less burnout for kids and teachers Like the extra time in school Kids need structure during the summer this answer: responses: this answer: 22 4 9 12 2 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 44% 8% 18% 24% 4% 2% No, Because: Both are the sameschedule does not matter Students' attendance is low at YREs/Students leave in the summer Childcare is difficult for parents during breaks Too many breaks create MORE need to re-teach More burnout for teachers and students 11 11 3 7 7 39 39 39 39 39 28% 28% 8% 18% 18% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? Better schedule/Shorter February break longer May break Open intercession to all students Schedule Trainings and In-Service days for YRE teachers Teachers need more input on the curriculum and calendar Extend YRE to all schools/make all schools the same Change testing dates 15 5 17 9 12 5 63 63 63 63 63 63 24% 8% 27% 14% 19% 8% pageH II TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated Bl My students show a greater interest in their educational program. Number II II Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 66 45 50 161 161 161 161 Percent 41% 28% 31% 100% n My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N = II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 104 19 29 152 152 152 152 Percent 68% 13% 19% 100% n n A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number n II Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 99 37 20 156 156 156 156 Percent 63% 24% 13% 100% n My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number n II Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 56 52 52 160 160 160 160 Percent 35% 33% 33% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 24 87 47 158 158 158 158 Percent 15% 55% 30% 100%n n II TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D II This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district n on an optional basis. Number II Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 82 50 25 157 157 157 157 Percent 52% 32% 16% 100% \\ II I want my school to continue with this program. Number II n Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 77 54 26 157 157 157 157 Percent 49% 34% 17% 100% II My students benefit from their intersession(s). Number N= n n Agree Disagree No Opinion total 102 21 33 156 156 156 156 Percent 65% 13% 21% 100% n The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. II Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 87 39 32 158 158 158 158 Percent 55% 25% 20% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Agree Disagree Number N= 85 55 159 159 Percent 53% 35%n n No Opinion total 19 159 159 12% 100% II II TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D II The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number II II Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 69 57 27 153 153 153 153 Percent 45% 37% 18% 100% \\ II Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. 11 II Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 129 16 14 159 N = 159 159 159 Percent 81% 10% 9% 100% n n Male Female Total 15 132 147 n n Ethnicity Black White Other Total 67 72 2 141II n II n n n II II II II Little Rock, Arkansas Family Inten/iews Year-round - vs - 9-month Schools n II II n Ii n LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 1: What was the reason your child(ren) changed from 9-month to EY calendar? n \\ Description Percentage of Responses The school changed from 9-month to EY. 69% My child transferred from a 9-monlh school to an EY school. 25% II Multiple children. Both reasons apply. 6% II II Free Responses: II \"We were already in the area.\" (18 responses) \"We moved into the district. (4 responses) \"1 don't know why the school changed. I guess they were just trying something new.\" \"They've been going for so long, I don't even remember when things changed or why.\" \"The school changed and we were not happy about it at all.\" I don't really know why the school changed.' II \"Cloverdale is a much better school than where they were going. The one we were at was pretty awful.\" \"I had one school that one his home school, but my other one was here, so I got him transferred because it's easier for me for dropping them off.\" 'I'm in the neighborhood. I just adopted them, and Fiasco Heights didn't have enough room for them.' They were having problems at Forest Park, and I decided to put them in a black school. There was a larger black student population at Woodruff.\" n n \"It was in the neighborhood, and I liked the school.\" \"We moved closer to this school, so 1 moved my younger son here, but I still have another child at our old school.' REASONS FOR CHANCING TO YEAR-ROUND SCHOOL n g LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS g Question 2: g What are the main differences you see between EY and 9-month schools? n \\ B Description Percentage of Responses Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus 38.9% fl fl fl Childcare a problem with EY Don't know or no difference No difference Better learning with EY\nEY better 11.1% 16.87% 5.6% 38.9% Less learning loss in EY 8.3% fl Intersession noted as difference 8.3% fl II Free Responses: Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus II '7hey go longer than the regular school and the summer is much shorter.\" \"Well, actually the only difference I've noticed is that they seem to be out more than everyone else.\" They have more vacations. That's about it.' II \"The difference is that it seemed like they were out a little more often.' \"What 1 noticed is that they are out more than the public school is.\" \"Naturally they go a little longer and they start earlier.\" \"I actually liked it a lot. It seems like the kids are in school a lot longer. I know it just seems that way, but I liked it.\" \"Well, obviously they don't have the long summer break.\" Childcare a problem with EY \"The only differences I noticed were that they don't get as long a vacation during the summer, and it's also tough to find a babysitter for the days when they are out. The days that she was out was difficult.\" (free responses continued on next page) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SCHOOLS 2II n LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"What are the main differences,\" continued from previous page. II Childcare a problem with EY II HI \"They have less time out, and they have an extra week called Intercession where they do special things. The only thing that is really different is that if you have a middle school kid, it really throws off the balance in the family when they are out for two weeks and you don't have anybody to watch them.\" \"The year round school is so different. I don't like it. Period. It's important to have their summer open so that you can take family trips. Also, the year round school is really hard for working parents. With the 9-month calendar it is easier to restructure the family schedule.\" \"It makes it very difficult for us to do family vacations, do trips, or plan anything together because our oldest was in high school and II they weren't on a year-round calendar.' \"Academically, I'm a big fan of that school anyway. At the time I wasn't crazy about it because I was working and it was hard to find childcare.\" \\ n Don't know or no difference II \"I really can't say.\" \"I don't really know.\" \"All the work seems to be about the same. Maybe a little more of it since they are in school more. I don't really know.\" II No difference \"No. I didn't notice anything.\" \"Well, it seems to be doing the same thing. He does his homework\nhe studies. I haven't noticed any differences.\" n Better learning with EY\nEY better II II '7he kids learned more. My sixth grader is in the seventh grade now and they are on a regular calendar, and it's the first time he's ever gotten an F in his whole life. He was always on the honor roil before.\" \"Yes. It seems like they get farther ahead. He seems like he has really learned a lot \"I love that school. My kids loved it. I wish they could still go there. I just liked everything about it. They learned better, the Resource classes were good, and they really liked the Inter-sessions. They whole school was really, really good.\" I really liked Stephens. They were more attentive to the students. They learned more.' II \"It seems, well, it's a little a little different. This school has a little more strict rules, which is good. And they go year-round.\" \"In the year-round school I think they were learning more.\" \"The teachers seemed to be more concerned about them there.\" \"It was easier for them to catch up on everything.\" \"I really like it, and I think they do, too. They seem like they learn better.\" \"Well, I really think it's good. My kids are really doing better now than before. The teachers really seem to help them a lot more.\" n Less learning loss in EY \"I've seen some good things and some bad things. I don't think the year-round school is such a bad thing. There are some good things to it. I've noticed they don't seem to forget as much because they aren't out for as long a time.\" \"They seem like they remember a little bit more I think.\" Intersession noted as difference Ihe only really different is the Intersession part and being in school a little bit longer.' Ihey've got all the Inter-sessions and all that. I like the school and I think they do, too.\" DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SCHOOLS 3 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 3: Let's focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn. What do you see as the main differences in student learning in EY vs. 9-month schools? Description Percentage of Responses Do not see a difference 13.9% EY generally better/more learning 80.6% Less learning loss 30.6% II Intersession 2.8% II Free Responses\nII Do not see a difference nn m \"No. I don't really think there is a difference.\" \"1 don't really know if there is a difference. I mean, he always seems to do okay.\" My kids are extremely smart, so it's hard to tell if there's a difference. They always made the honor roll and they still do.\" \"1 n 'No, there is no difference in the way that my kids learn. The school work is the same, and they are getting it done.\" \"I didn't see no great improvement in my kids' grades being in a year-round school versus a regular school.\" n EY generally better/more learning \"Well, actually it's the school that they are attending. I had better results over at Mabelville Elementary, and it's a year-round. But actually, with the year round, of my kids is in gifted and talented, and I think they are educated a little more in the year round.\" \"Actually, she got more into her studies in the year round than I feel like she would have done in the 9-month.\" \"Yes, I think they are constantly learning, so it keeps all the information fresh.\" \"Yes. They are more advanced.\" \"Actually, I think it is difficult because it's year-round, but I do think it's a good idea.\" \"1 really don't have a good answer. I have a pretty sharp son. I don't know if it's because he's smart or if it's because of the school.\" \"It seems like they do more work, but I don't really know. Maybe it just seems that way since they are in school more.\" \"My son did learn well when he was there, but he's at Washington now and he's doing okay there, too.\" (free responses continued on next page) STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES D B n LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. EY generally better/more learning \"I'I think they learn a little bit more.\" fl \"Well, I think it helps the kids that they are there more. I think they get a lot more advanced. That has been the case with Cameron.' \"I think they are doing just the same. I do think there are more programs for the kids. Like the Resource program and that.\" \"Everything about it' fl fl \"I think they are better at getting down on the kids if they don't do their work.\" \"In the regular school, they got more off days then days in school. In the all-around school they were just teaching them more.\" \"Yes. I just personally think it has a lot to do with the teachers. I think they are more motivated to help that child.\" \"They have more time to do the work because they are going all the time.\" \"The teachers are really good. I mean if they don't do their work, the teachers get after them. 1 think that makes a big difference.\" Less learning loss \\ fl n \"I guess they learned more because they went year-round. They weren't out for a long summer break when they might lose or forget what they had learned.\" \"They seem to remember more.\" \"They don't have a chance to forget as much, I think.\" \"They just seem to remember more. Not having that long summer break, I think, makes it much better.\" \"1'I don't think there's really much difference. They don't forget as much, I guess.\" II n \"It seems like they know more, the remember more having the shorter breaks.\" \"It helps them not forget as much. Instead of having that long summer break, they don't have as much of a chance to forget as much.\" \"Well, I think it teaches them a little more. What I mean by that is that they still have the learning going on, and they don't loose it as quick.\" \"I think the main difference is just that they are in school more. They don't have a chance to forget as much and they learn more.\" fl Intersession n \"I think it's the Inter-sessions that are good.\" \"I guess when they are doing the Intersession. That's different.\" \"The Intersession program helps them pick up where they left off. It helps them catch up and not forget things. My three did really well with it\" n fl STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES B B 5 B 9 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHCXJLS Question 4: Are there things about the EY calendar that help kids learn better? Description Percentage of Responses Kids are in school more. 70/0 Shorter breaks/vacations. 140/0 Kids forget less academic content. 29% Shorter gaps in teaching. 3% Kids remember better how to behave in school. 30/0 Inter-sessions help kids learn more. 12% Teachers 12% No difference noted 20 % Free Responses\n\"I really don't see a difference. If you had said a magnet school, I might have been able to elaborate a little more.\" '7hey don't forget as much.\" I can't say, but they should explain the take home lessons more to the students so that we can help more - but that may be on her. Let's not lay the blame on the school. We'll split it\" No, academically, my kids are smart enough that they will achieve. There is nothing about the year-round school that is better. I don't like it \"That's a tough question. What can I say? All I know is that he is a good boy and has good grades so far.\" \"They are just in more, so they don't forget as much and they have more time to learn new information.\" I do think that only being out for five weeks in the summer helps them get back into the swing of things faster.\" \"The kids learn a lot more for the next grade.\" \"I know when I was in elementary school I would come back to school half-way clueless after the summer. I don't think so. I don't think they really do anything differently. It's the longer time that makes the difference.' Summer is not so long, so he seems to remember things better.\" (free responses continued on next page) fy SCHOOi LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS nnnnnnnn \\ 6 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. \"She doesn't seem to forget as much.\" \"He doesn't seem to forget as much. He seems to have a short attention span sometimes, so I think it tends to help kids like him.' 7hey seem like they remember better.'n 'The intersession program. We really liked that.\" \"I don't know why. It seems like the teachers pay a little bit more attention to them.\" \"The inter-sessions are good.' \"They are learning all the time, so they just don't have chance to forget.' \"The shorter breaks are better.\" \"I like the fact that there are more short breaks rather than one long break.\" \"Special programs like the inter-sessions and resource classes are really good.' \"Well, the kids are in school more, and I think that helps.\" \"The shorter breaks.' n I liked the inter-sessions.\" \"The teachers, I guess. They just stay on the kids more.' m hi \"The shorter break, I think, makes the biggest difference for my kids.\" \"The teachers just have more time to teach them more. 'The teachers are really good.\" 'They are in school more, it seems. 1 think it's actually about the same number of days, but it seems like they are in more. I like it much better.\" \"They just remember more.\" I think the teachers are much better here. They listen, and they really work with the kids.\" m \"They don't forget everything over summer. It's easier on them, in my opinion.' EY SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS 8 01 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 5: II In comparing EY to 9-month schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? \\ II Description Percentage of Responses II Yes, a lot 25% Yes, a little. 12% No. 63% II Free Responses (note: only parents who answered \"yes\" are recorded.): \"'II think she enjoyed going, but when the other kids were out, she hated going, and it shorted our vacation time, too.' '7hey don't like it when other families get to go on vacations in the summer and we cannot. We don't like it at all. Period.' II II \"The only difference that I noticed is that they were upset because they had to stay longer - everyone else being on break and them being in school.\" \"From my house, in a one mile radius, 1 can hit three elementary schools with a stone. On my street alone, there are kids that go to all three. So for my boys, it's a real problem when they are on break because no one else is. They are all alone. That sucks.\" \"He likes to be out when the other children are out.\" \"When they switched over, the girls were in a lower grade and they enjoyed this more because there are bigger breaks spread out over the year.' \"At first it bothered her when she had friends that were on summer vacation and she wasn't. But now, 1 think she likes have more breaks during the year.' \"This is his last year, and now it seems to bother him that other kids are out and he isn't. But he likes school.\" \"My second grader does not even like school any more, and that is not good at all. She did really well in year-round school, and now she is in a regular calendar and she isn't doing well at all.\" \"They complain a little about, you know, that other kids are out and they aren't.\" \"They do complain. \"Why do we have to go so long?' They don't like that too much.\" \"My oldest loves school, and when they are out of school she doesn't really like it. She's an A student, she is.' \"I'll tell you, they didn't particularly like it, but it worked well for me.\" \"My baby has been in it the whole time, ever since they started, so he doesn't know anything different.' \"He does complain when my other is out for summer, but I think he really, in general, likes it a lot.\" STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL nnn n 0 8 I n LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS II Question 6 (note: only asked of parents who answered \"yes\" to question 5.): II Does your child/children talk about the fact that they are in an EY school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? II II Free Responses: II II \"No, not that I can say.\" They complain about it all the time! \"No. He's a quiet kid.\" \"Yes. A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections, and they really liked that.\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandma's house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out.\" \"Yes. 'Why am I still in school and they are out'.' \"All the time. They didn't like the year-round school at first, but they are adjusting.\" \"Not really. I guess it's just fine.\" \"1 think they like it. They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" \"Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldnt stay.' II \"When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others are out. But, like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" II \"No, not that I can say.' They complain about it all the time!\" \"'INo. He's a quiet kid.\" II il \"Yes. A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections, and they really liked that \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandma's house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out\" \"Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are out.\" \"All the time. They didn't like the year-round school at first, but they are adjusting.\" \"Not really. I guess it's just fine.\" \"I think they like it. They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" \"Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldn't stay.\" \"When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that.\" \"You know, 1 have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others are out. But, like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" n m \\ STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 9 0 II El LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS II Question 7: II Does your child/children receive any specialized education services (gifted programs, ESL classes, remedial classes)? n \\ II Description Percentage of Responses Gifted and talented 16.2% n Music 2.7% II Resource classes No. 2.7% 78.4% II II II n n n I STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 10II El LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS II Question 8: II Does your family utilize before or afterschool childcare programs? II \\ II Description Percentage of Responses Yes. 10.8% II No. 89.2 % II II II n n II n II STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL nla APPENDICES n il m II II 0IM TABLE VI.1 .A Cloverdale Parent Survey Results BM My children show a greater interest in Iheir educational program. Number N = Percent IM Agree Disagree No Opinion total 95 23 30 148 148 148 148 64% 16% 20% 100% Id My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent US Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 49 18 148 148 146 748 55% 33% 12% 100% \\ Id A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Id Agree Disagree No Opinion total 63 50 38 151 151 151 151 42% 33% 25% 100% Id My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Id Agree Disagree No Opinion total 58 53 41 7w 152 152 152 38% 35% 27% 100% Id Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Id Agree Disagree No Opinirjn total 105, 30 11 146 146 146 146 72% 21% 8% 100% Id My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N= Percent Id \\giee Disagree No Opinion total 87 40 28 155 155 155 155 56% 26% 18% 100% Id This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis Number N= Percent Id Agree Disagree No Opinion total 69 45 42 156 156 156 156 44% 29% 27% 100% I want my children to continue in this program. Number Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 80 44 \"30 154 154 154 154 52% 29% 19% 100% I fl fl fl Gender Male Female Total 32 119 151 fl Ethnicity Black While Other Total 113 5 25 143 fl Number of children in a YRE school u 1 2 3 fl 4 + total 70 50 24 6 150 fl fl Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 fl 2 3 29 52 39 11 4* total 8 139 fl fl Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar fl Elementary Middle schoo senior high 40 21 18 fl Grade level of children K 1 2 3 fl 4 5 Total 35 51 35 28 36 13 198 fl M TABLE VI.2.A Cloverdale Student Survey Results fl I have been more interested in my education this year Number N = Percent fl fl fl fl M fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85, 8 2 95 95 95 95 89% 8% 2% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= Percent 47 48 4 99 99 99 99 47% 48% 4% 100% \\ I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Agree Disagree No Opinion tola! Number N= Percent 55 22 IT 98 98 98 98 56% 22% 21% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= Percent 55 33 9 97 97 97 97 57% 34% 9% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Agree_______ Disagree No Opinion total Number N = Percent 83 11 4 98 98 98 98 85% 11% 4% 100% I have had more lime to learn and time to gel extra help when I ve needed it. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= Percent 84 5 99 99 99 99 85% 5% 10% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= Percent 82 10 \"T 99 I have liked the intersessions Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number N= 99 99 99 83% 10% 7% 100% Percent 66 18 15 99 99 99 67% 18% 15% 100% IN IN My parents like the extended-year program. Number N = Percent IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN Agree Disagree No Opinion total 51 33 16 100 100 100 wo 51% 33% 16% 100% 1 want my school to continue with this program. Number N = Percent Agree_______ Disagree No Opinion total 41 47 T 97 97 97 97 42% 48% 9% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black While Other Total Number N = 65 12 11 88 46 49 96 72 4 20 96 Percent Grade Level 3rd 4th 5lh Total 27 31 27 85 88 88 88 74% 14% 13% 100% Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 6 17 2 20 27 17 Total 8 5 96 II TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results II I have been more interesled in my education this year. Number N = Percent II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 \"T 34 34 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% II I like having a shorter number ol vacation periods. Number N= Percent II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% n I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N = Percent n Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% II The Year Round Education program should be oHered to all Little Rock School District Students Number N= Percent II Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 ~5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% II My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Nu\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\u003eCatterall, James S.\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_98","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":["2006-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/98"],"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 EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMALL LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501)682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education February 28, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED MAR 1 - 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 February 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: 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 *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 1 - 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 February 2006. Respectfully Submitted, J~*~ Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan ancf itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 Based on the information available at January 31, 2006, the ADE calculated tfie 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 February 28, 2006 Based on the information available at Janua 3'1 2006 tne AD calculated o Y 05/06, subect to eriodic adustments C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 0 n January 31, 2006, distrib:\n.u:=ti=o.:n..:.=s--o=cf.:..-S==ta=t=e........,,..:::.w=-::.='\"-'-=..:..:..:~\"'. ....~ -\"\"0'=5/-=0=6 were as follows LRSD - $35,000,44~ NLRSD - $18,225,870 PCSSD - $30 312,576 he allotments of State Foundation Funaing calculatea for FY 05/06 at Janua[}l 31 2006 subject to ger\"odic adustments were as follows. RSD -$64,167,47 t'JLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD -$55 573,061 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at Jaouary 31, 2006 for Y 05/06 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 February 28, 2006 Basea on ttie information availaole, tfie ADE calculatecl at Janua[}'. 31 2006 fo~ 05/06, sub\"ect to eriodic adustments It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD_ based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 Based on tne information available, the ADE calculated at January 31 2006 for. FY 05/06 subect to periodic adjustments G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at January 31, 2006, totaled $7,633,821. Allotment calculated for FY 05/06 was $14,011,194 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at Janua 31 2006, were RSD - $2,024,090 NLRSD - $2,015,935 PCSSD - $5,400 480 The allotments calculated for FY 05/06 at Janua!)'._3_1 __ ~ adjustments were RSD - $4,048, 1 NLRSD - $4,031 CSSD-$ 0 8 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 2006 In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. 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. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD - $1,690,442.44 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 2004, 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 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 quc1rter. 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 2006 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are m~nitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 ST A TUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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. 2 7 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 PMTwas 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 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 Boa~d 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 February 28, 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 Feoruary 13, 2006, the Arkansas State Board of Education ewed and ap12roved the PMT and its executive su a[)'. for the month of January 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 EOG 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 February 28, 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 on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e ., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 59 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) On September 30 through October 11, 2002, the ADE provided Professional Development for Test Administrators on the End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport. All three districts in Pulaski County sent representatives to the training. On October 3, 2002, Charlotte Marvel provided in-service training for LEP teachers in the Little Rock School District. On December 6, 2002, the Community and Parent Empowerment Summit was held for parents of children attending the LRSD. It took place at the Saint Mark Baptist Church in Little Rock. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, presented information on No Child Left Behind, Supplemental Services, after school tutoring, how parents can help, and the Refrigerator Curriculum. Mr. Reginald Wilson, Senior Coordinator for Accountability, presented information on ACT AAP, including how to find information on the ASIS Website and what is included in the school report cards. Donna Elam spoke on the topic \"From the School House to the Jail House\". On December 10 -12, 2002, the Math Workshop \"Investigations in Number, Data and Space\" was held at the Clinton Elementary Magnet School in Sherwood. Training for Kindergarten and First Grade Teachers was held on December 10, and included Making Shapes and Building Blocks, Quilts, Squares and Block Towns. Training for Second and Third Grade Teachers was held on December 11 , and included Shapes, Halves, Symmetry and Turtle Paths. Training for Fourth and Fifth Grade Teachers was held on December 12. Fourth grade covered Seeing Solids and Silhouettes. Fifth Grade was about Containers and Cubes. The sessions provided quality time for teachers to discuss the curriculum, reflect on implications, provide mutual support, and continue planning. The ADE provided professional development for all school districts on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems on January 7-9, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. The LRSD had two in attendance, NLRSD had one in attendance, and the PCSSD had two in attendance. The ADE conducted the Smart Start Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 12, 2003. The ADE conducted the Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 13, 2003. 60 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) Test Coordinator training was provided throughout the state during the weeks starting February 10 and February 17, 2003. The training in Little Rock was February 20, 2003. The Little Rock School District had two attendees for the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. The North Little Rock School District had one attendee at the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. The Pulaski County Special School District had one attendee at the Benchmark, End of Course, and Stanford 9 training. Two sixth grade teachers from each district attended the Professional Development for Benchmark assessments during the week of February 17, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. Two fourth and two eighth grade teachers from each district attended the Professional Development for Benchmark assessments during the week of March 3, 2003 at the Holiday Inn Airport. The ADE announces the opportunity for schools to participate in the Arkansas Literacy Coaching Model and to train a school employee to serve as a full-time literacy coach. Training will be held at the Early Literacy Training Center at UALR. A literacy coach is a site-based employee who works full time with the school staff providing professional development, technical assistance, and support to teachers. They demonstrate exemplary classroom literacy practices, observe and coach teachers, provide sustained mentoring to classroom teachers, plan and conduct professional literacy team meetings, provide workshops on the literacy framework, and maintain data on student performance. Depending on the number of qualifying school districts who agree to participate, training expenses will be funded by the ADE through the Early Literacy Training Center at UALR. Grant funds will provide graduate level training, lodging and travel expenses, and materials to establish a model classroom. The Smart Summer Conference took place on July 14-17, 2003, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The event covered Smart Start and Smart Step. The following topics were included: Lisa Carter - Instructional Alignment John Antonetti - Assessment Literacy for Literacy(and Numeracy) Assessment Jim Garver - Authentic Student Engagement Evelyn Arroyo - High Yield Strategies in Action Barbara Brown - Focusing in on the Benchmarks Dana Chadwick \u0026amp; Lynn Nash - Teaching From the Heart Tommy Tyler \u0026amp; Monticello Team - Actions, Changes, and Results. 61 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) The ADE did workshops on the No Child Left Behind legislation for the following groups from the LRSD: August 11, 2003 - Horace Mann Middle School, 1 :30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. August 12, 2003 - LRSD Special Education Staff, 9:30 a.m. - 11 :30 a.m. and 1 :30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. The ADE provided an English/Writing Workshop at Parkview Magnet High School for 30 teachers on August 8, 2003. The ADE provided a School Improvement Workshop at the LRSD Leadership Team Meeting held at the Greater Second Baptist Church in Little Rock on September 17, 2003. The No Child Left Behind Accountability Plan for Arkansas was presented. The elnstruction Classroom Performance System(CPS) was demonstrated. CPS displays questions from a laptop computer using released items from ACTAAP. Participants use remote control devices to select the answer to each question that is displayed. After all questions are answered, CPS generates a report showing which questions were answered correctly and incorrectly by the group as a whole, and by each individual. This is used with students to determine which topics need to be reviewed by each student. The ADE conducted the Smart Start and Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on October 1 and 2, 2003. This staff development is recommended for K-8 teachers and Principal Teams. ADE staff provided a Science Workshop for Pulaski County Special School District grade 5 teachers on September 30, grade 7 teachers on October 7, and biology teachers on October 14, 2003 at the PCSSD Central Office. The upcoming science exams were discussed. The teachers were encouraged to meet as a group to develop a district exam to prepare their students for state science exams in 2007. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for EOG Literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry during the weeks of September 29 and October 6, 2003. The LRSD had 5 teachers attend on October 3, 2003. The NLRSD had 3 teachers attend on October 6, 2003. The PCSSD had 7 teachers attend on October 7, 2003. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for the Benchmark exams being field tested in Grades 3 and 5 reading and math on the week of October 13, 2003. The LRSD had 6 attend on October 14, 2003. The NLRSD had 4 attend on October 17, 2003. The PCSSD had 3 attend on October 17, 2003. 62 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) Professional Development was provided during the week of November 10, 2003, at the Holiday Inn Airport. The LRSD received training for two teachers in Grade 7 reading and math. The NLRSD received training for three teachers in Grade 7 reading and math, and one teacher in Grade 4 writing. The PCSSD received training for one teacher in Grade 7 reading, two teachers in Grade 7 math, and three teachers in Grade 4 writing. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for the Benchmark exams in Grade 6 writing during the week of December 8, 2003, at the Holiday Inn Airport. PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD each sent one person to the training. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for the Alternative Portfolios on January 20-21, 2004, at the North Little Rock Wyndham Hotel. The NLRSD sent three people to the training, and the LRSD sent two. The ADE conducted the Smart Start and Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 11 - 12, 2004. The intended audience is K-8 Teachers and Principal Teams. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Test Coordinator Training at eight different locations throughout the state. The school districts in Pulaski County attended training held in Little Rock on February 20, 2004. The PCSSD and the NLRSD each had one in the training, and the LRSD had four in attendance. The Smart Summer Conference took place on July 19-22, 2004, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The event covered Smart Start and Smart Step with the following speakers and topics: Dr. Rick Stiggins - Overcoming a Legacy of Mistaken Assessment Beliefs, Dr. A. Marcus Nelson - Beyond Rhetoric, John Antonetti - Putting It Together, John Antonetti - From Smart Start to Starting Smart. Peggy Woosley, Debbie Miller and Karen Eoff led group sessions on \"Assessment for Learning\". On August 13, 2004, professional development was provided to approximately 35 librarians at the LRSD Technology Center on Scott Hamilton. Margaret Crank-Amps of the ADE talked about legislation related to libraries, information on specific websites related to libraries, Library Skills Teaching, and Equipment and Facilities Taskforce Information. 63 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) The ADE conducted the Smart Start and Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on October 6 - 7, 2004. The intended audience was K-8 Teachers and Principal Teams. The ADE conducted the Smart Start and Smart Step Administrators Video Conference at the ADE/AETN Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 1 :00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. on October 6, 2004. The intended audience was School Administrators. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for EOC exams. During the week of October 4, 2004, the LRSD sent 8 staff members, the NLRSD sent 3, and 6 attended the training for the PCSSD. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for the Benchmark exams for grades 3 and 7. During the week of October 18, 2004, the LRSD sent 5 staff members, the NLRSD sent 2, and 1 attended the training for the PCSSD. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for Math and Reading for grades 4 and 5. During the week of November 15, 2004, the LRSD sent 2 staff members, the NLRSD sent 4, and 3 attended the training for the PCSSD. All districts in the state had an opportunity to attend Professional Development for Math and Reading for grades 6 and 8. During the week of December 6, 2004, the LRSD sent 5 staff members, the NLRSD sent 4, and 2 attended the training for the PCSSD. The ADE conducted the Smart Start and Smart Step Statewide Professional Staff Development Video Conference at the ADE Maumelle V Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on February 9-10, 2005. The intended audience was K-8 Teachers and Principal Teams. The ADE conducted the Smart Start and Smart Step Administrators Video Conference at the ADE Maumelle V Studio and at participating Education Service Cooperatives from 1 :00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. on February 9, 2005. The intended audience was School Administrators and Colleges of Education. 64 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) During February of 2005, all districts in the state had an opportunity to attend District Test Coordinator Training at nine different locations throughout the state. The school districts in Pulaski County attended training held at the Arkansas School for the Blind in Little Rock on February 11. The LRSD had nine individuals in attendance, the NLRSD had one, and the PCSSD had six. The Next Step Summit on High School Reform took place on April 4, 2005, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. The event had the following speakers and topics: Dr. Kenneth James\nRe-Engineering The Curriculum - Dr. loannis Miaoulis\nRigor, Relevance, And Relationships - Successful Schools - What Makes Them Work? - Dr. William Daggett\nRaising Achievement And Increasing High School Completion Rates - The Story Of Two High Schools - Dr. Gene Bottoms, Susy Wynn, Lannie Edwards\nCreating a High School Diploma That Counts - Dr. Matthew Gandal. The Next Step/Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 11-12, 2005, at the Little Rock State House Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The event had the following speakers and topics: All Students Learning - The Promise, The Practice - Dr. Gerrita Postlewait\nImproving Student Achievement with a Diverse Student Population - Bonnie Haynie\nInstructional Alignment, How To Make it Happen - Myra Graham, Kim Wilbanks\nWhat is EZAIP - Harry Dickens\nPractical Application for Incorporating NEXT STEP into Secondary Classes - Jan Loyd\nEnsuring Success by Providing Students with On-going Individual Guidance and Support - Johnny Williams, Carolyn Farrell, Sherry Bell\nEffective School Leadership, Collaborative Leadership from the Center Out - Becky Guthrie, Jim Lewis\nStudent Assessment Success in Mathematics - Beth Jones, Chris Epperson\nBreaking Through, From Condemned to Commended - Mel Riddile\nWhat's in Bobby's Backpack? How Different is Differentiation? - John Antonetti\nLiteracy Lab - Debra Coffman\nProfessional Learning Communities at Work, Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement - Dr. Rick and Becky DuFour. 65 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of February 28, 2006 (Continued) The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 13-14, 2005, atthe Little Rock State House Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The event had the following speakers and topics: Professional Learning Communities at Work, Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement- Dr. Rick and Becky Dufour\nHow Effective Leaders Build Professional Learning Communities - Dr. Rick Dufour\nOperation Respect, Don't Laugh at Me - Peter Yarrow\nThe Amazing Race! - Brian Summerhill\nInstructional Alignment, How To Make it Happen - Myra Graham, Kim Wilbanks\nGraphic Organizers and Writing in the Science Content Area - Lola Perritt\nUsing Data to Inform Instruction, Focusing on Learners and Learning - Denise Airola\nStructure, Sanity, and Success - Amy Cooper\nUsing Assessments and Data to Build Better Schools - Joel Rush\nMeeting the Challenge of \"No Child Left Behind\", A Story of Two Schools With a Common Goal - Sandra Eldridge\nImproving Our Student's Academic Performance, AIPsBelinda Akin\nHow Different is Differentiation? - John Antonetti\nLiteracy Lab - Debra Coffman\nOh! The Places Math Can Take You, Lakeside's Mathematical Journe\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_1210","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006-01-16/2006-12-21"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1210"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 RECEIVED MAR -6 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 26, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Bryan Day Larry Berkley Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. In addition, Jennifer Newborn Thomas, ex officio teacher representative from Carver Magnet Elementary School, and Robert Elledge, student ex officio from Hall High School, were also present. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Dr. Daugherty welcomed the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with the citations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Brooks announced that the installation of the software and equipment for NovusAgenda was complete and noted that this was the first active electronic board meeting. Training for board members was provided at the January agenda meeting\nemployees created January agenda items and submitted them electronically as part of their training. The Board was shown how to use the electronic voting keypad which provides the ability to record votes electronically. Heather Holland, the Nevus representative, Sharon Dowdy, the District's technology consultant, and Pam Neal, information services specialist, were present to provide technical assistance as needed. Dr. Brooks asked for a moment of silence in honor of Jane Mendel. Ms. Mendel passed away last week and a memorial service was held over the weekend to celebrate her life. She was a founding member of the Women's Emergency Committee, which was instrumental in reopening Little Rock High schools after the desegregation crisis of 1957. She devoted her life to improving public education and was a founding member of Volunteers in Public Schools. The Superintendent asked Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs to step forward\nhe recently received the Four Pillars Award in Education from 100 Black Men of Greater Little Rock. The Four Pillars include Youth Mentoring, Health and Wellness, Education, and Economic Development. Later in the meeting, during the Personnel section of the agenda, Dr. Brooks recommended Cindy Dees as the new Assistant Principal at Watson Elementary School. She was present at the meeting with members of her family, and Dr. Brooks asked them to stand and be introduced to the Board. A check in the amount of $19,000 was presented to Katherine Wright Knight for use in assisting teachers who have requested financial assistance in order to complete the National Board Certification process. This check represented the balance remaining from the District's commitment of $94,300 during the 2004-05 school year. The ex officio representatives to the Board for the month of January, Jennifer Newborn Thomas, teacher at Carver Magnet Elementary School, and Robert Elledge, student at Hall High School, were given certificates of appreciation for their service to the Board. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 3 B. Partners in Education Debbie Milam presented several new school and business partnerships for the Board's review and approval. C. Dodd Elementary School - represented by Faith McLaughlin and Martha Lowe, in partnership with Stagecoach Grocery and Deli and with Transamerica Worksite Marketing Otter Creek Elementary School - represented by Janis Tucker and Jill Brooks in partnership with Home Bank of Arkansas Pulaski Heights Elementary - represented by Lillie Carter, in partnership with Carol Jenkins Realtor Terry Elementary- represented by Becky Ramsey, Eloise Booth and Teresa Gray in partnership with Arkansas Heart Hospital - represented by Mary Willis and Charlie Smith Washington Elementary School - represented by Gwen Ziegler in partnership with Pi Omecron Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity - represented by Fred Smith Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Wright Knight thanked Dr. Brooks and members of the Board for their support of the National Board Certification process. She promised that the funds provided by the LRSD would be put to good use in assisting as many teachers as possible. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Sue Strickland publicly announced her resignation from the Board effective January 30, 2006. She thanked the public and community who supported her by voting to elect her as their representative for the past ten years. She was proud to note that she had participated in selecting the past five LRSD superintendents or interim superintendents. She expressed support for Dr. Brooks and a firm belief in what he is trying to do for the children of Little Rock. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page4 Dr. Brooks thanked Ms. Strickland for her comments and for the support she provided during his first year in Little Rock. He noted that she had served as president of the Board during the successful millage election in May 2000 and that she worked tirelessly for the children of the Little Rock School District during her ten years on the Board. Ms. Strickland's family was present: her husband, Terrell Strickland\ndaughter, April Harrell\nand granddaughter, Abby Harrell. In addition, members of the Otter Creek Elementary School staff, Robin Johnson, Jill Brooks and Janis Tucker presented Mrs. Strickland with a bouquet of flowers and wished her a long and happy retirement. Sadie Mitchell made remarks on behalf of the district's administration and building principals\nLillie Carter, principal of Pulaski Heights Elementary School, and Mary Zies, music teacher from M. L. King Elementary School performed, You Are My Hero. Dr. Daugherty presented a hand blown glass bowl on behalf of the LRSD Board and administration. Each member of the board related their own fond and personal memories of Ms. Strickland's years on the Board and their time with her. Mr. Kurrus acknowledged the passing of Jane Mendel. She served as an inspiration to many people by going the extra mile to make sure that others did good work on behalf of children. Katherine Mitchell asked Dr. Brooks to provide research about why so many children are not achieving. She asked for specific information on what it would take to limit early childhood classes to fifteen students, staffed by a certified teacher and an aide, to ensure that students get the individual attention they deserve. B. Quarterly Legal Update Chris Heller was asked to provide a quarterly update and summary report of pending legal issues for the Board's information. He asked for the Board to help him develop a response for the Courts and the State Legislators when they eventually ask what the LRSD would envision in the way of restructuring the three school districts in Pulaski County. Mr. Heller suggested that our Board meet with the ADE consultant to communicate what will make sense for the kids in Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School Districts. These consultants will take many factors into consideration including the tax base, where the schools are located, and where the children live. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Heller's next quarterly update will be scheduled in April 2006, but he offered to meet with Board members as a group or individually anytime over the next few weeks and months. C. Arkansas Facilities Master Plan - Public Hearing Information provided in the Board's agenda explained the Arkansas legislative requirement to provide a public hearing prior to submitting the District's tenyear facilities master plan. Mr. Milhollen provided a brief overview of the legislation and requirements of the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program. Although required to submit a master plan to the state, it was noted that due to the calculations of the statewide facilities wealth index, the Little Rock School District would not receive any state funding for facilities maintenance or improvements. Mr. Milhollen made a brief PowerPoint presentation of the projects included on the inventory list required by the state's Phase I master plan, including a listing of projects and a spreadsheet of expenditures by election zone. Approximately $60.5 million was reported as required for operations, with the estimate for capital outlay approximately $41 .5 million. One required component of the submission included an inventory of expected infrastructure needs, and a projected estimate of maintenance and facilities costs for the next three years. The District is required to accept public comment and the public was invited to address the board or submit questions and concerns to the administration. Additional information will be provided to the Board as more specific requirements and financial information is determined. The BESTeam (Building Engineering Study Team) will be asked to provide an assessment of facilities usage and the COPS (Comprehensive Planning \u0026amp; Study) committee will work with the district's administration to make recommendations for the Board's consideration. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Mr. Kurrus moved to suspend the rules in order to reorder the agenda and allow action on the Arkansas Facilities Master Plan at this point in the agenda. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The vote will be reported under Section VI . A. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 6 D. Student Assignment Report Dr. Brooks reported that this was the first week of open enrollment for students who are new to our District or those who are interested in applying for a magnet school assignment. Dr. Watson was present but had no formal report. E. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen was present, but made no formal report. F. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's report was printed in the agenda. G. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects The monthly Construction Report was printed in the Board's agenda. There was no additional information presented. H. Technology Update There wasn't a printed technology report this month. However, it was noted that completion of the on-line electronic agenda was the culmination of almost a year of work by the superintendent's office staff and technology specialists. Mr. Berkley requested a technology update regarding the program used for parent access to student grades and attendance (Edline). V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 15, 2005, and from a special meeting held on December 8, 2005, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 7 VI. ADMINISTRATION A. Arkansas Facilities Master Plan As reported previously in this meeting, the Arkansas 85th General Assembly in 2005 adopted Act 1426 which established the Arkansas Public School Academic Facilities Program. Among the provisions of the program is a requirement for each school district in the state to submit to the Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation by February 1, 2006, a ten-year facilities master plan which would identify and project required facilities improvement projects over the next ten years. The administration presented the proposed master plan and recommended board approval prior to the February 1 submission deadline. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the submission\nMr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Second Reading: Policy IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements, with Regulations In December, 2005, the board gave first reading approval to recommended revisions to Policy IKF, General Education Graduation Requirements and accompanying regulations. The administration recommended second reading approval and implementation. Ms. Strickland moved to approve Policy IKF on second reading. Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. U.S. Department of Education Grant Submission - Teaching American History The administration requested approval to submit a Teaching American History grant application to implement enhanced professional development for LRSD American history teachers. The grant would provide up to $1 million to improve instruction and raise student achievement. Partners in this grant application include the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Department of History, National History Day, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, the Clinton Library, and the Central High National Historic Museum. Ms. Strickland moved to approve the grant submission. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-0-1, with Mr. Rose abstaining. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page8 VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel items were printed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Rose moved to approve the personnel actions as presented and Ms. Strickland seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Appointment of Assistant Principal - Watson Elementary School The administration recommended the appointment of Cindy Dees, to the position of Assistant Principal at Watson Elementary School. Ms. Dees' resume was provided for the Board's review. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the appointment. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Financial Report Mr. Milhollen presented the monthly review of the financial reports which were printed in the board's agenda. No action to approve the reports was taken. B. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. Ms. Strickland moved to accept the donations\nMr. Day seconded the motion. The student ex officio, Robert Elledge, read the donations as follows: SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Brady Elementary School $200.00 cash to purchase books for Kiwanis Club, c/o Mr. James Thomas kindergarten classes. Cash donations to assist students who were hurricane victims $250.00 Target Stores. North Little Rock $100.00 Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. James Woods $100.00 Don and April Rodgers, Jr. Carver Magnet Kroger coupons worth $100 to be Arti Vanzandt and Raytheon, Inc. distributed to needy families\n$300 worth of materials and school supplies\nand books for the library worth approximatelv $120.00 REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 9 SCHOOUDEPARTMENT Central High School Fair Park Early Childhood Center Romine lnterdistrict School Adult Education Center X. CLOSING REMARKS ITEM DONOR $1,000 cash to purchase books and for Betty Emery Miner, Corvallis Oregon student assistance $1,000 to special education department Win \u0026amp; Lisenne Rockefeller at Central High School $100 to Drama Department at Central Hugh Thomforde and Rebecca Kilmer Hioh School Theatrical lights for the cafetorium Curtis H. Stout, Inc. valued at $1,000. $400 worth of toys to provide Christmas Modern Free Grand Lodge stockings for students $100 to be used to purchase supplies St. Mark Baptist Church for school yearbooks $600 literacy grant to LRSD Adult Harold Zimmerman I Certain Teed Education program for purchase of Roofing Products textbooks and materials Dr. Brooks reminded board members that there would be a ribbon cutting ceremony at the Fair Park Early Childhood Center on Friday, January 27, at 10:00 a.m. He also noted that the second Parent Involvement Workshop would be held on Saturday, February 4, from 8:30 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. XI. EMPLOYEE HEARING The board convened an employee hearing at 7:55 p.m. The employee, Desi Purdy, requested that the hearing be open to the public. Attorney Ed Adcock represented Mr. Purdy. Attorney Khayyam Eddings was present to represent the board and administration. Mr. Purdy was employed as a driver in the LRSD Procurement Department. He was injured in a work related accident and was drug tested when he went to Baptist Medical Center for treatment. The LRSD was notified that the routine drug screening was positive for marijuana. Although Mr. Purdy's supervisor did not request the drug screening, the LRSD Safety \u0026amp; Security Department was notified of the results. Mr. Purdy acknowledged that he was sent by his supervisor for a second screening several days after the accident, and that he went voluntarily for the second test. This test also indicated a positive reading for marijuana. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Adcock restated the facts presented and suggested that it was not appropriate under district policy to terminate Mr. Purdy. His contention was that the first test was not based upon any reasonable cause and that there was no basis in fact to believe that Mr. Purdy was ever under the influence of intoxicating substances while at work. He argued that the results of the first test formed the basis for requesting the second test and that there was no evident reasonable cause for termination. Mr. Adcock argued that under these circumstances termination without reasonable cause would be considered an invasion privacy and a violation of the Constitution. Mr. Purdy adamantly testified that he did not use marijuana or other drugs and that the lab results showing a positive for THC was caused by exposure to \"sidestream smoke.\" He stated that he was exposed to this smoke by family members who lived in his home for several weeks. Mr. Purdy admitted awareness of the district's drug testing policy and agreed that he had signed an acknowledgement that he was aware of the drug testing policy as a condition of employment. He also admitted that he had not read the policy. Mr. Rose read the superintendent's letter of termination and made a motion to uphold the finding of fact that Mr. Purdy had tested positive for marijuana. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Rose made a second motion not to uphold the administration's recommendation for termination. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried 6-1, with Mr. Kurrus casting the no vote. The board discussed the status and conditions of Mr. Purdy's return to work and the legality of requiring random drug testing. Probationary employees, employees in the safety and security office and bus drivers are all subject to random testing. Mr. Adcock agreed to waive any constitutional issues and agreed to terms and conditions of Mr. Purdy's continued employment to drug test whenever requested by the District. Mr. Eddings strongly recommended placement in a position that would not have Mr. Purdy operating a district owned motor vehicle to protect the district's liability. He suggested that management exercise its right to assign the employee to an alternate position. The Board took no formal vote, but suggested that Dr. Brooks and the administration decide which course of action would be in the District's best interest. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 26, 2006 Page 11 XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose and seconded by Mr. Kurrus. APPROVED: {)_ ~ J Q k? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 16, 2006 RECEIVED MAR - 6 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, February 16, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Micheal Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Micheal Daugherty Larry Berkley Baker Kurrus Bryan Day Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. Six members of the board were present at roll call. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The board convened an executive session for the purpose of conducting interviews for the Zone 7 vacancy which was created by the resignation of Sue Strickland. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 16, 2006 Page 2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Executive Session Mr. Kurrus made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of conducting interviews for the vacant zone 7 position on the board . Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Three candidates were interviewed in 30-minute individual sessions: Mr. Tom Brock, Mr. August (Jitter) Krippendorf, and Ms. Dianne Curry. The board asked similar questions of each candidate and made their selection based on the answers to those questions. B. Selection of Zone 7 Board Member The board members returned from executive session at 7:25 p.m. and reported that no action was taken. Mr. Berkley made a motion to appoint Mr. Tom Brock to the vacant position on the LRSD Board. Mr. Day seconded the motion, and it carried 4-1-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting a \"no\" vote and Dr. Daugherty abstaining. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley and seconded by Mr. Rose. APPROVED: J. -a J-() b Bryarf Day, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 RECEIVED MAY O 4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 23, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. Prior to the call to order, Judge Mary McGowan administered the oath of office to Mr. Tom Brock, newly appointed representative from Zone 7. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Bryan Day Larry Berkley Tom Brock Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. In addition, Lisa Poteet, ex officio teacher representative from Chicot Elementary School was also present\nthe student ex officio did not attend. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS /WELCOMING COMMENTS Dr. Daugherty welcomed the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with the citations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations \u0026amp; Commendations Dr. Brooks recognized Krista Underwood, Director, and Judy Milam, Coordinator, of the Fair Park Early Childhood Center. An open house and ribbon cutting ceremony was recently held at Fair Park, and Dr. Brooks commended Ms. Underwood and Ms. Milam for their hard work in getting the center open and ready for students. Mary Kay McKinney, Director of UAMS Head Start and Early Head Start Programs, was introduced to the Board. Later in the meeting the Board was asked to approve a collaborative project between the LRSD and UAMS which would provide physical, dental, and mental health services for students enrolled in the LRSD early childhood program Four students from Central High School were selected for this year's Presidential Scholar awards: Don Ding, Zackary R. Eubanks, June Fang and Laura Soderberg. Dr. Brooks presented citations in recognition of their achievement. The ex officio teacher representative to the Board for the month of February, Lisa Poteet from Chicot Elementary School, was presented with a certificate of appreciation for her service to the Board. The student representative did not attend. B. Partners in Education Debbie Milam presented several new school and business partnerships for the Board's review and approval. Mr. Rose moved to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The new school / business partnerships are noted: Booker Arts Magnet, represented by Cheryl Carson and Joyce Willingham, in partnership with CiCi's Pizza Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center, represented by Mike Peterson and Ali Freeman, in partnership with United Parcel Service REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page3 C. Remarks from Citizens Lola Perritt, LRSD Elementary Science Specialist, spoke in favor of the pay for performance pilot project. Ms. Perritt reported that she was a former Milken Award recipient, Arkansas Teacher of the Year, and that she currently serves on the Governors Teacher Advisory Committee. She noted that the current pay for performance proposal would provide research that would be compiled by the University of Arkansas. She closed by stating, ''There is a need to modernize the way that we pay teachers. We are still paying teachers the way we paid teachers in the 18th century. . .. starting small with 50 people spread across the district would provide the data that we need to determine if this is a quality program.\" Sharon Faulkenberry, teacher at Stephens Elementary School, spoke in favor of the proposed merit pay proposal. Stephens has participated in the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) which provides monetary rewards for classroom teachers based on student achievement. She admitted that the money is nice, but that money isn't the most important part about the rewards program. The TAP model allows teachers to improve their teaching strategies and become better classroom mangers. In addition, new teachers are given an opportunity to receive additional compensation that would come only through longevity under the current pay system. Donna Morey reported that she had coached and taught at J. A. Fair High School for 23 years. She announced that eight LRSD students would be competing in the first national Special Olympic games this summer in Iowa, and she encouraged board members to attend the local Special Olympics track meet. Ms. Morey opposed the current pay for performance proposal because teachers who work with special needs students would not be eligible to participate\nshe expressed opinion that merit pay should be offered to all teachers in the district, not just a few. Ann Inman, kindergarten teacher at Romine Elementary, spoke in opposition to the merit pay proposal, stating that it was not a fair and equitable way to reward teachers. She stated that classroom teachers don't have control over the students they are assigned to teach and that students come to school with varying abilities and social circumstances that would make it impossible to validate results. She closed by saying that \"merit pay would lead to an atmosphere of competition.\" REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page4 Chonetta Case, media specialist at Romine, introduced herself as a National Board Certified teacher who receives a form of merit pay for certification based on National Board Standards. She encouraged the board to vote against the proposed merit pay plan, stating that it has no benefits that would draw successful teachers to the district and that it would have no significant impact on student achievement because it would only effect a handful of students. Phillip Wilson, teacher at Parkview, urged the board to abandon the proposed merit pay plan. He suggested that research based strategies to improve academic achievement are important, but that public schools are made up of human \"products.\" When public school experiments fail, there is no way to discard the product and start over. He suggested that incentives be offered to students and parents to ensure success. Kara Patton, a special education teacher at Parkview, spoke in favor of developing some form of merit pay that would reward highly qualified teachers. She noted that teachers with only five or ten years of experience are leaving the teaching profession and returning to the public sector for financial reasons. Keisha Fells, a third year teacher at Gibbs Elementary, expressed the possibility that the proposed teacher reward system might be an effective way to impact teaching and learning. She stated that a \"paradigm shift\" is worth the time and effort to see if the research proves effectiveness. Erin Wage, a kindergarten teacher at Meadowcliff, spoke in favor of the proposed merit pay plan. She referenced the Meadowcliff merit pay project where pre- and post-testing was a tool that teachers utilized to measure students needs. She also noted that the attendance bonus is a good reward, and that merit pay plans are a good way to hold teachers accountable for student learning. Jennifer Montey, literacy coach at Wakefield, spoke in favor of the proposal for a merit pay plan. She stated that she had taught for 14 years, but when working in the business world she was paid for success and rewarded for personal achievement. Within the proposed plan, a child's progress would be measured based on their own abilities and achievement, and that every child has the ability to show growth. She stated that merit pay is beneficial to all educators and that all teachers deserve to be paid for the hard work they do in the classroom. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page5 Will Dunn introduced himself as a third grade teacher at Baseline Elementary School. He stated that selecting 50 from a pool of over 1,200 teachers was not a fair way to proceed with merit pay. He asked how the LRSD would become the highest achieving urban school district if all teachers were not offered the same rewards. John Binyon, teacher at Parkview, expressed frustration with all aspects of the proposed pay for performance plan. He stated that he was not opposed to merit pay, and that he would support a school-based plan that would reward every employee in a school. He then challenged the CTA to develop a plan that would be better than the one proposed by the administration. Stacy Pitman spoke in favor of the proposed pay for student performance initiative. She has two children in the LRSD and has supported the LRSD on many projects over the years. She reported spending a lot of her time reading research studies on ways to improve student achievement. She was complimentary of Project SOAR\nwhich provides relevant information to parents and students on a consistent basis. She stated that pay for student performance is a way to change the current compensation system in order to improve academic achievement. It is and should be all about student achievement. Karen Stein addressed the board as a member of the faculty at Terry Elementary School. She stated her belief that the intent of the Walton Foundation proposal was well-intentioned, but she expressed concerns about the information that has been disseminated to date. She questioned the application process and eligibility requirements and asked why the information was not printed and distributed prior to the board's consideration. She questioned the validity of the research and warned that divisions might occur with hasty implementation. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter, Executive Director of the CT A, asked two questions: 1) Will the plan really show a correlation between student performance and teacher incentives? 2) How can a school that is considered to be a success end up on the school improvement list? He stated that no performance plan could be effective without teacher input from the onset and that no plan should be designed somewhere else and be expected to fit within the LRSD. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Ledbetter stated that other merit pay programs should be considered apart from the current proposal, stating that TAP includes teacher training, lesson plans, staff development, teacher input, and proven research. Student test scores alone are not enough to measure classroom success and support for the current pay for performance proposal should not be a show of loyalty to the administration or the CT A. He closed by saying that the vote should be about what is best for children and instruction. E. Joshua lntervenors Attorney John Walker requested placement on the agenda for the Joshua representatives\nhowever, they were not present. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Kurrus thanked the speakers, but stated that merit pay is not as big an issue as it is being made by the comments. He noted that some version of merit or incentive pay is going to be enacted in the future and state legislative mandates will take precedence no matter how the board votes on this particular proposal. He asked community and patrons to look at our schools and get the word out that our middle schools are exceptional. We shouldn't be losing so many students at the middle school level. Mr. Brock thanked the board members for selecting him to serve on the board. He reported visiting Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Dodd, Mabelvale Elementary, Mabelvale Middle, and Cloverdale Middle Schools during his first week in office. Mr. Rose reflected on remarks he made in March 2003 which resulted in a lot of mail from teachers and patrons. That week, the U.S. had invaded Iraq and Mr. Rose stated that he was ashamed of our country. \"We torture, we have secret prisons, and we lie to the world about why we go to war.\" He noted that there are a lot of issues more important that merit pay and he described an article that was in the newspaper earlier in the week regarding a UAMS / UALR dental health clinic. He suggested that collaborative effort could be used as a model to establish additional mental health services for the community. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page? Dr. Mitchell reported that she had enjoyed reading to children at Booker Arts Magnet School. The librarian had selected books written by African Americans in celebration of the contributions made by African Americans. She encouraged children and parents to visit the library, check out books, and study African American history. Dr. Mitchell also congratulated Judy Milam and Krista Underwood for the outstanding work done at Fair Park Early Childhood Education Center. She encouraged teachers to do the very best they can to meet the needs of the children. Dr. Mitchell suggested that the board include an evaluation of personnel in their next retreat to ensure that the schools have sufficient staff to meet the needs of the children. She stated that students come to school with problems that are not being met by a classroom teacher and instructional aide\nthey need assistance with mental health and physical problems that are not being met in the home. Mr. Berkley thanked the speakers who presented earlier in the meeting and stated that \"what is lacking in our country is a willingness to speak out on the topics in which we believe.\" Ms. Poteet, the teacher ex officio representative, read from several pages of research notes regarding performance and merit pay and high-stakes testing. She quoted from reports published by the Center for Public Education, the American Psychological Association, and the National Research Council. She offered to follow up by providing copies to board members, if requested. Dr. Daugherty closed the comments portion of the meeting by stating that merit and incentive pay are important issues, but that the board members will make their vote based on their own beliefs. He stated regret that some of the most dedicated and honest people on the Board have come under attack for voting their conscious and making decisions based on what they felt was the best course of action. He reminded the audience that the board members give their time and energy freely and should not be attacked in a vindictive way. Everyone has the students' best interest at heart. \"When you make disparaging comments about board members, make sure you have your facts straight.\" B. Student Assignment Report No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page 8 V. C. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen was present, but made no formal report. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects The monthly Construction Report was printed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Goodman responded to questions from the board regarding construction at Forest Heights Middle School, which is scheduled to begin spring 2006. Dr. Daugherty commended district staff for the improvements made to the building and grounds at Henderson Middle School. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's report was printed in the agenda. He responded to questions from the board regarding problems with individual school activity funds. F. Technology Update No report. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on January 26, and from a special meeting held on February 16, 2006, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. ADMINISTRATION A. Pay for Performance Pilot Project The administration presented a proposal for implementation of a pay for performance pilot project to be funded for one year by the Walton Family Foundation. In addition, an evaluation study would be commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation to be completed by the University of Arkansas. The pilot project would include 50 teachers, grades kindergarten through five, who apply to participate. Teachers who apply but are not selected for the first year of the pilot would be included in the control group. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page9 The superintendent recommended approval, Mr. Berkley moved for approval and Mr. Brock seconded the motion. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the proposal with questions regarding implementation. Dr. Mitchell expressed concerns regarding the amount of testing already required of students and suggested that under this particular proposal emphasis would be placed on teaching to the test. She suggested that having a certified teacher, an instructional aide in every pre-K classroom, and fewer than 15 students per class in primary grades would have a greater impact on student achievement. Mr. Rose also spoke in opposition to the motion, stating that although he would vote against the proposal, he agreed that some form of merit pay would be implemented within a few years. He stated that this particular plan leaves too many questions to be answered and that a more comprehensive vision for a merit pay plan was needed, one that was written specifically for the LRSD, designed by the board, parents, teachers, and students. Mr. Berkley spoke in favor of the motion, stating that accepting private dollars to implement programs focused on improving student achievement and providing incentives to teachers are the only way our district will move from the status quo. Mr. Day also spoke in favor of the motion, noting that 30 of the 50 states in the U. S. are considering pay for performance initiatives. This pilot would provide research data needed in order for our children to achieve success. Mr. Kurrus and Mr. Brock spoke to the benefits of the proposal stating that increasing compensation is a positive way to recognize teachers for a job well done. The proposed two-year pilot project would provide research to drive future decisions about teaching and learning and would be an opportunity to secure private funds to help us make those decisions. Dr. Daugherty called for the vote, stating that it should be left up to the affected teachers to make the decision whether to accept this particular plan. The motion carried 5-2, with Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Rose casting the no votes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page 10 VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Collaborative Project: LRSD / UAMS Early Childhood \u0026amp; Head Start Project The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Head Start program invited the LRSD to participate in a project which would provide services to four-yearold students in the LRSD pre-K programs. Students would receive physical, dental and mental health services through the services of four Family Enrichment Specialists. The funding for these services would be provided by UAMS Head Start and no district funding would be required. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the project as presented. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Mr. Kurrus abstaining. The board took a brief recess and returned at 8:10 p.m. B. Pre-K Student Progress Report Krista Underwood submitted a recommendation for adoption of a pre-K student progress report which would be piloted during the 2006-07 school year. The project would be funded by Arkansas Better Chance for School Success (ABCSS). Mr. Rose moved for approval, Mr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried 6-0-1 . (Dr. Mitchell was not present for the vote.) C. Elementary Mathematics Textbook Adoption The Elementary Mathematics Textbook Committee submitted their recommendations for adoption of textbooks for kindergarten through fifth grade classroom use. Suzi Davis, Director of K-12 Curriculum and members of the textbook committee were present. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the recommendation\nMr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Grant Proposal: Arkansas Reading First Grant Program The administration requested board approval for submission of a grant to the Arkansas Department of Education for federal Reading First funds. The grant would provide up to $5 million over a three-year period for improvements in the delivery of literacy instruction. Nine schools would continue Reading First projects\nthree additional schools would be included in the 2006-09 application and beginning in 2007-08, an additional six LRSD schools would become eligible for funding. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the submission as submitted. Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried 5-2 with Mr. Rose and Mr. Kurrus voting \"no.\" REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page 11 E. Policy Revision: First Reading Policy BBBE - Unexpired Term Fulfillment/ Vacancies The recent vacancy of the zone 7 position on the board called attention to a discrepancy in LRSD policy regarding filling vacant positions. The recommended revision eliminated reference to the Pulaski County Board of Education and replaced it with the Pulaski County Quorum Court. Language from Arkansas Law was also incorporated regarding temporary vacancies in the case of military commitments of board members. Mr. Rose moved to approve the revision on first reading. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. F. Quarterly Update The required quarterly report to the Courts was submitted to the Board for review and approval. The report was compiled by the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department staff, in conjunction with the district's attorneys and evaluation consultants. Upon board approval, the reports will be submitted to the Courts in compliance with the deadline date of March 1, 2006. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the reports as submitted. Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried 5-0-2, with Mr. Rose and Mr. Brock abstaining. G. External Evaluations The administration presented completed external evaluations from the 2004- 05 school year for the board's review and approval. Included were: Compass Learning, Reading Recovery, SMART/THRIVE, and Extended Year Education. Once approved by the board, district staff will begin meeting to develop recommended modifications to the programs and a timeline for implementing the changes. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the evaluations as submitted\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1, with Mr. Rose abstaining. Bryan Day left the meeting at 8:25 p.m. VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel items were printed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the personnel actions as presented, Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page 12 IX. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. Mr. Rose moved to accept the donations\nMr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Rose read the donations as follows: SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Central High School $250 cash to the guidance office to Sharon Moore, Paula Aultz and Peggy purchase frames, posters and pennants Jones $750 cash for repair of a musical Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Sam Baxter instrument for the LRCH Orchestra \u0026amp; Jazz Band $1,000 cash to offset expenses for Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. James Shuffield, Jr. students attending Harvard Debate Tournament $1,500 cash to offset expenses for Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Frank Block, Jr. students attending Harvard Debate Tournament $300 cash to the LRCH Debate Club Miriam Hundley $1,000 cash to the LRCH Debate Club Mr. Randal F. Hundley Dodd Elementary School Uniforms, clothing and school supplies Transamerica Worksite Marketing for students, valued at $2,000\nbooks for students at Christmas, valued at $800\ntelescooes valued at $800. Felder Alternative Learning $1,000 to be deposited into the school's Dr. Cheryl Felder Stuart and Mr. R. Academy activity fund for student clothing and Littrelle Felder incentives Forest Heights Middle $100 cash to the FHMS Explorer Team Ms. Margaret Clark School incentive party $100 cash for improvements to the Dr. T. Tyler Thompson school courtvard Geyer Springs Elementary $300 cash to provide incentives for Wal-Mart I Baseline students achieving Accelerated Reader aoals Woodruff Elementary $8,000 cash to the Great Expectations/ Great Expectations of Arkansas I A+ Program at Woodruff Arkansas A+ Schools Network REGULAR BOARD MEETING February 23, 2006 Page 13 B. Financial Report Mr. Milhollen presented the monthly review of the financial reports which were printed in the board's agenda. He responded to questions from the board regarding the payout of perfect attendance bonuses. No action to approve the reports was taken. X. STUDENT HEARING Dr. Linda Watson presented a recommendation for student Brandon Pope to be assigned to Felder Academy for the remainder of the 2005-06 school year and for a full school year, 2006-07. Brandon was found in possession of a handgun on the campus of J. A. Fair High School. No administrative placement hearing was held because Brandon has been in the Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Center since the incident occurred. If Brandon is released from the detention center, the Felder placement will be imposed. Once he returns to school, the staff will implement an accelerated learning plan so that Brandon is able to maintain appropriate academic progress. Dr. Daugherty passed the gavel to Mr. Kurrus. He moved to uphold the administration's recommendation for placement at Felder. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose and seconded by Mr. Brock. Bryan )ay, Seiretary RECEIVED MAR -5 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN!t4n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" March 3, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on January 26th and February 16, 2006. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, Charlotte Marks Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 MAY O 4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITORJNG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 16, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Brock Bryan Day ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5: 15 p.m. Four members of the Board were present at roll call\nKatherine Mitchell arrived at 5:20 p.m. Mr. Brock and Mr. Day were absent. II. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS The meeting was called for the purpose of conducting employee hearings. A. Employee Hearing - Angela Munns Angela Munns was represented by Attorney John Walker\nAttorney Chris Heller was present as the district's legal counsel. Ms. Munns was formerly assigned as principal of Cloverdale Middle School\nshe is currently assigned as an elementary school assistant principal. The board was provided copies of documentation specifying two points as reasons for removing Ms. Munns from the position of principal: SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 Page 2 1) that she failed to effectively manage school issues and personnel as described in conferences with and correspondence from her supervisor throughout the school year, and 2) that she did not demonstrate proficiency in the oral and written use of Standard English. Dr. Marian Lacey, former assistant superintendent of secondary schools, was previously Ms. Munns' direct supervisor. She was present at the hearing to provide information for the board's consideration and to respond to questions from the attorneys. Mr. Walker stated his position that Ms. Munns was a principal in good standing prior to the arrival of Superintendent Brooks. He expressed belief that the reassignment of Ms. Munns was part of a larger design to document performance of specified principals for the purpose of removing them from their assigned schools. Mr. Walker also questioned Dr. Lacey about an assistant principal assigned to Cloverdale who had some degree of supervisory responsibility over his wife who was a Cloverdale teacher. Board members asked that the questioning be kept in correlation with facts relevant to Ms. Munns. Mr. Heller questioned Dr. Lacey regarding her supervision of Ms. Munns. She spent a great deal of time before the board reviewing the exhibits provided by the administration and Mr. Heller, including performance evaluation summaries. The board took a 10-minute recess at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Walker questioned Dr. Brooks regarding his reasons and motives for visiting school campuses unannounced. Dr. Brooks stated his belief that it was important for him to visit schools routinely and that it was the superintendent's responsibility to maintain oversight of school climate, building leadership, and maintenance of the school facilities and campuses. Mr. James Washington was called as a witness by Mr. Walker and was questioned regarding a meeting in southwest Little Rock with members of the Hispanic community. Mr. Washington stated to the board that Dr. Brooks had announced that he would remove the principal of Cloverdale in a public meeting. Ms. Munns responded to questions regarding her employment in the LRSD, stating that she had been employed for 28 years, with 15 years as an administrator. Prior to being assigned to the principalship at Cloverdale Middle School, she served as an assistant principal at Southwest Middle School and at Central High School. Mr. Walker questioned her regarding Dr. Brooks' \"drop-by\" visits to Cloverdale\nshe reported that he often visited the campus without notifying her that he was there. She stated that she had not received fair consideration and treatment and that Dr. Brooks had not supported her administration at Cloverdale. She stated that she had always received satisfactory performance evaluations prior to Dr. Brooks' arrival in the LRSD. She also reported that her current assignment was as an elementary assistant principal assigned to Wakefield Elementary School was an effective demotion and she asked the board to consider reinstating her to a principalship, SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Munns indicated that she had not applied for any vacancies since receiving notice of non-renewal as a principal, and that she had been offered a position as assistant principal prior to the administrative appointment to Wakefield. She admitted that she had been maintained on the teachers' salary scheduled over the summer months, and that she had received back pay to compensate her for the difference between teacher pay and the salary for her present position. Mr. Walker called Sadie Mitchell as a witness and questioned her about the transfers of Mr. Bennett, assistant principal at Cloverdale Middle School, and his wife, Tamela Bennett. He contended that five southwest Little Rock schools were targeted by Superintendent Brooks and that the removal of Angela Munns and others had been \"orchestrated\" by Dr. Brooks. He emphasized that the performance evaluations for Ms. Munns had been \"satisfactory\" and that her overall performance as a building administrator could have been considered above average or \"B+.\" He stated that Ms. Munns and others had been documented for the sole purpose of being terminated. Mr. Walker stated that Ms. Munns had not received a \"soft-landing\" in the reassignment, and that she should have remained on the middle school principal salary schedule. The board recessed to deliberate at 8:37 p.m. and returned at 8:54 p.m. to report that no action had been taken while in executive session. Mr. Kurrus made a motion to support the administrations finding that Ms. Munns failed to effectively manage school issues and personnel as described in conferences with and correspondence from her supervisor throughout the school year. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 4-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. Mr. Kurrus offered a second motion to reject the administration's second finding that Ms. Munns did not demonstrate proficiency in the oral and written use of Standard English\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. Mr. Kurrus moved to uphold the superintendent's recommendation to remove Ms. Munns from the position of principal of Cloverdale Middle School, but to afford the \"soft landing\" rate of pay for the current school year. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Dr. Mitchell offered an amendment to the motion to offer Ms. Munns a high school assistant principalship when one becomes available. The motion for amendment died for lack of a second. The previously stated motion carried 4-1, with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. Mr. Hartz noted that Ms. Munns' 2004-05 salary was $91,043\nmaking the approximate \"soft landing\" adjustment $18,722 for the current school year. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 Page4 B. Employee Hearing - James Washington James Washington, formerly held the position of ombudsman, and requested this hearing as a result of this position being eliminated. He was represented by Attorney John Walker\nthe district was represented by Chris Heller. Mr. Heller opened the hearing by reminding the board that the position of ombudsman was eliminated as part of the district's reorganization. He noted that the non-renewal was not intended as a negative reflection on Mr. Washington's job performance, but was an administrative decision based on an overall assessment of the district's administrative structure. Mr. Walker addressed Mr. Washington's previous employment history with the LRSD, reminding the board that he was previously a successful middle school principal and a high school assistant principal. He stated belief that the position of ombudsman was a part of the district's desegregation agreement and that eliminating that position was not a good faith decision and not in the best interest of the students. He asked that Mr. Washington retain an administrative position, preferably as an assistant principal. Mr. Heller called Beverly Williams, former director of Human Resources, as a witness. She was asked to summarize the purpose and intent of the district's administrative reorganization. She explained the formation of the internal transition team, which included Sadie Mitchell, Olivine Roberts, Mark Milhollen, Karen DeJarnette, and Suellen Vann. She summarized the charge of the committee - - to look at organizational structures of other districts across the country, and to streamline the LRSD by eliminating as many administrative positions as possible. The overall intent and mission of the reorganization was to increase student achievement by providing additional resources and by making the district more efficient by redirecting available resources to the schools. Ms. Williams explained the criteria for the administrative review was to determine if the job functions could be absorbed by other existing personnel. They determined that some positions had become obsolete over time and it was the finding of the transition team that with site-based management the functions of the ombudsman should be absorbed by the building principals. By eliminating this position, principals would be the first line of resolution for the types of problems resolved by the ombudsman. She noted that personnel files were not considered within the transition team, only the efficiency of positions and how the district could be best aligned with efficient \"line of authority.\" Mr. Walker discussed the original intent of creating the position of ombudsman -- to serve as a liaison between the school and home. He noted that the role of the ombudsman was to serve as a representative and an advocate for students and parents when there were issues with the principal or other school-based administrators. That advocacy now falls to the associate or deputy superintendent if resolution cannot be reached at the building level. Mr. Walker questioned the reasons for placing Mr. Washington as dean of the Alternative Learning Center at Garland. He asked the board to consider why Mr. Washington was not assigned as a principal or assistant principal. He noted that Mr. Washington did receive the \"soft-landing\" for the current year, but reminded the board that the salary would revert to the teacher salary schedule after the current school year. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 Page5 Dr. Sadie Mitchell was called as a witness and also was asked to review the responsibilities of the transition team. She stated that Mr. Washington's previous performance as a principal was satisfactory, but did not know if he had been considered for placement as a principal as part of the reorganization. She stated that reappointing or reassigning staff was not part of the role or function of the transition team. Mr. Washington was called to respond to questions regarding his personnel history. He stated that he started in the LRSD in 1987 as a student assignment officer\nhe was then assigned as an assistant principal at Hall High before being placed as principal of Henderson in 1994. He stated that Mr. Babbs had offered him the position of ombudsman and had made a promise that there would be no financial impact if the position was eliminated. Mr. Washington asked the board to consider placing him in a position that would allow him to retain his previous level of pay. He explained that in his current position as dean at the Garland ALC he reports to a coordinator\nthe coordinator reports to a director. He stated that the current position is an effective demotion, two levels below a director, and resulting in an approximate $25,000 salary reduction. Mr. Washington reported that he and Dr. Brooks had met with representatives of the Hispanic community. He felt that Dr. Brooks had made a promise to him that if he was able to serve as a liaison with this community that he would \"take care\" of him. He stated belief that Dr. Brooks had misled him. Mr. Washington admitted that he had not read the 1998 revised desegregation and education plan and was unaware that it was only a three-year commitment. He stated that Mr. Babbs and former superintendent Les Carnine had both promised that he would be maintained on the middle school principal salary schedule as the ombudsman, and he would be kept on the principals' salary schedule if he were ever reassigned. Dr. Daugherty reminded the board that he had argued in favor of the ombudsman position and had opposed the elimination of the position. He stated support, saying that the ombudsman offered a service to the district. However, he agreed that the board had voted to support the elimination as part of the overall reorganization. Mr. Heller addressed Mr. Walker and reminded the board that the district was released from court supervision and that there was no court-ordered obligation to maintain the position of ombudsman. Mr. Walker argued that there was a commitment within the desegregation plan that employees would not be diminished by actions of the board, either by termination or demotion. He stated that employees have a right to expect fair treatment and that to be fair, Mr. Washington should have been assigned to a position comparable to his previous assignment. The board retired for deliberations at 10:39 p.m. and returned at 10:50 p.m., reporting that no action was taken. Mr. Berkley made a motion to uphold the administration's finding of fact that the position was eliminated by the reorganization. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Berkley made a second motion to uphold the recommendation of the superintendent to non-renew Mr. Washington's the contract under the previous terms and conditions for the 2005-06 school year. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 4-1 , with Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" vote. C. Employee Hearing - Jodie Carter The board convened a hearing for Jodie Carter at 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Heller opened by reminding the board that the circumstances of this hearing should be considered as similar to those presented in the previous hearing for Mr. Washington. The position previously held by Mr. Carter was eliminated as part of the reorganization of the district. Beverly Williams was called again to speak specifically to one difference in the circumstances in Mr. Carter's case: the reorganization consultants assisted the transition team regarding titles within the organizational structure. Within the alternative programs, directors or principals are now called coordinators. Mr. Carter's contract was renewed under a reclassified title of coordinator, which resulted in a differential in salary of approximately $150 annually. Mr. Walker argued that the title change should not have been made in that there was no difference in Mr. Carter's job duties or responsibilities. He called Dr. Sadie Mitchell to respond to questions. She agreed with the information provided by Ms. Williams and noted that the consultants had provided recommendations to realign salary schedules with job titles. She agreed that the basic responsibilities of the alternative education coordinators remained the same as those of directors or principals, but that there were some differences in the responsibilities and work load of a high school principal. The intent of the change was to make the line of reporting authority more effective and efficient. Mr. Walker reminded the board that Mr. Carter's current appearance was unrelated to a pending litigation against the district. Mr. Carter had been reassigned to the ALC in 2004 when he was removed from the position of principal at McClellan High School. The current assignment, as coordinator of the ALC, places him reporting to the Director of Career and Technical Education and Alternative Programs. Mr. Carter stated personal belief that the position change was intended as a demotion and that he had discussed his future with Superintendent Brooks. He stated that Dr. Brooks did not indicate to him that he had a future within the LRSD. He also stated that his position at the ALC carried more responsibility than a high school principal. He noted that alternative education students are placed within the alternative programs because of multiple issues, including disciplinary sanctions, histories of truancy with court monitored attendance requirements, and other home and school problems. Dr. Daugherty agreed that administrators in the alternative learning programs required more effort and that the pay should remain equitable with the other high school principals. Mr. Berkley suggested that an external review of alternative education positions and responsibilities should be conducted with an eye to overhauling the entire alternative education program in the future. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING March 16, 2006 Page? In closing, Mr. Carter addressed the board, stating his contention that he had not received the assistance needed to best serve the ALC students. He requested additional therapeutic services, a full time school nurse, and counseling services. He stated that he had been under intense pressure to make changes at the ALC and that he originally had approximately 90 students per year\nthat number had grown to nearly 600 per year when consideration was given to those who were there for a transitional period only. The board adjourned for deliberations at 11 :30 p.m. and returned at 11 :45 p.m. to report that no action had been taken. Mr. Berkley made a motion to find in support of the fact that the position was eliminated as part of the overall district reorganization. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley made a second motion to uphold the recommendation of the superintendent\nMr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried 3-2 with Dr. Daugherty and Dr. Mitchell casting the \"no\" votes. Ill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11 :46 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose and seconded by Mr. Kurrus. APPROVED: 4 :J. 7-Q 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING MAY O 4 2006 March 23, 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly sctieaur~a meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Tom Brock Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryan Day ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call, Mr. Day was absent. In addition, teacher ex officio, Cherry Norman from Cloverdale / Watson Elementary School, and student ex officio, Graham Campbell from Parkview High School, were also present. 11. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Dr. Daugherty welcomed the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with citations and commendations. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations \u0026amp; Commendations Dr. Brooks introduced Meredith Mitchell, a senior at Central High School. Meredith was recently named one of Arkansas' top two youth volunteers for 2006 by The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. Meredith will receive $1,000, an engraved silver medallion, and an all-expenses-paid trip to Washington, DC, in May. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page 2 Rocio Hlass and members of the Amigos Program were presented with certificates of appreciation for their efforts to improve and support the academic skills of students who speak English as a second language. The program, coordinated through the Arkansas Department of Volunteerism, has 52 mentor tutors working with LRSD students. Mark Shelton, District Manager from Wal-Mart, presented a check in the amount of $15,000 to be used to support programs and services in the LRSD. Mr. Shelton introduced the store managers from three Wal-Mart stores in Little Rock. Members of the Parkview Magnet High School Patriots men's basketball team were recognized by the Superintendent for their recent victory in the State 5-A high school basketball championship. Coach Al Flanigan and Assistant Coach Nathan Clayburn were also present. Dr. Linda Brown, Parkview's principal, made brief remarks thanking Coach Flanigan for his commitment to the team. She noted that this was Parkview's third state championship during his tenure. Dr. Brooks introduced members of the Parkview debate team who recently won the statewide Debate Mock Trial championship. These students will travel to Oklahoma City to represent Arkansas in the national Mock Trial championships: Ashton Gilstrap Jacob Kauffman, Opal Kelly, Chance McDermott, Karthik Soora, Sarah Walker and Josh Young. Their coach, Patricia Treadway, was also recognized. Felicia Hobbs, principal of Gibbs Magnet School, was given a superintendent's citation in recognition of Gibbs' recent selection as a Magnet Schools of America School of Distinction. Ms. Hobbs will travel to the annual Magnet Schools of America conference in Omaha, Nebraska in April. Ms. Hobbs introduced members of the Gibbs faculty, Vicki Gonterman and Teresa Richardson\nGibbs students, Blair Johnston and Aneesa Purifoy, Broker, Mattie Ruth Tipton\nand PT A President, Leah Greenfield. J. A. Fair students recently placed second in the UALR College of Information Science and Systems Engineering Institute for Practical Robotics competition. The Fair Botbal team competed against ten other robotics teams from across the state. As part of the competition, they were required to build and program two robots and complete documentation for posting at the team's website. The team placed 2nd in the Seeding Round, 2nd in Double-Elimination and won Judges' Choice for Best Defensive Robot. Dr. Brooks presented certificates of recognition to the team sponsors: Dennis Jones, Nancy Klais and Martha Nahlen. Team members also received certificates\nJustin Cross, Cornelius Davis, David Donald, Joe French, Rick Holthoff, Antonio Howard, Bradley Klais, Andrew Seel, Stacia Smith, Francisco Solano and Terricka Thomas. The teacher and student ex-officio representatives for the month of March were presented with superintendent's citations: Cherry Norman, who teaches now at Watson but was representing teachers from Cloverdale Elementary School, and Graham Campbell, student from Parkview Magnet High School. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page 3 B. Central High School - 50th Anniversary Representatives from the Central High School 50th Anniversary Celebration Commission were present to report on their progress before the LRSD Board. Central's principal, Nancy Rousseau, and co-chairman, Virgil Miller, made a brief PowerPoint presentation, and introduced other members of the committee who were present: Annie Abrams, Cynthia East, and U. S. Parks Superintendent Mike Madel/. Committee meetings are held on the first Wednesday of every month, 3:30 p.m., at the City of Little Rock Neighborhood Resource Center. The celebration is scheduled on September 25, 2007, with related activities during the week preceding the anniversary date. More information is available at www.centralhigh50th .org and www.arkansasglobecoming.com. C. Partners in Education Prior to recognizing the new partnerships, Debbie Milam introduced Cynthia East and Mary Robertson who provided information to the Board and audience regarding the annual VIPS Evening for the Stars. This year's event will be held on April 25th at 5:30 p.m. at the State Fairgrounds. The new partnerships were introduced and are listed below. Dr. Mitchell moved to accept the partnerships\nMr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, represented by Freddie Fields \u0026amp; Angee Butcher, in partnership with the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service-Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, represented by Bridgette Youngblood Metropolitan Career and Technical Center, represented by Mike Peterson, in partnership with the Arkansas State Police, represented by Sergeant Alex Finger and Corporal Alvernon Rogers Washington Magnet Elementary School, represented by Katherine Snyder, in partnership with the Arkansas Forestry Commission, represented by Jim Grant Romine lnterdistrict Elementary School, represented by Lillie Scull, in partnership with the Arkansas Association of University Women, represented by Barbara Yarnell, Diana Glaze, and Mary Robertson D. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Brenda Wilson introduced herself as a twenty-year veteran teacher. She expressed concern about the proposed pay for performance plan and wondered how such a plan would impact teaching and learning in individual classrooms. She stated that there were many good teachers in the LRSD and many would be left out if the proposed plan were implemented. She stated that it was \"filled with gaps - - with so much money going to so few teachers when so many contribute to a student's education.\" She closed by saying that a teacher's success should not be compensated by numbers on a page. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page4 E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Katherine Wright Knight expressed concerns regarding the relationship between the Classroom Teachers Association and the LRSD Board. Noting that there had been many up's and down's over the past forty years, she stated that there had always been a \"collective focus on providing the best education for the children of Little Rock.\" She continued by saying that the union is being confronted by openly hostile administrators and board members and that there is evidence that the upcoming negotiations will be difficult and distasteful. She stated belief that the current contract will be allowed to expire in order to force out the CT A. She pledged her intent to do everything possible to prevent this from happening, and stated that only through cooperative efforts will the LRSD become a \"national lighthouse.\" IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Rose responded to comments made by Katherine Wright Knight. He expressed extreme disappointment in the union and distaste for information provided to teachers directing them to disregard directives and instructions from the administration. He provided examples of union hand-outs regarding filing grievances related to after hours training sessions and posting of grades to Edline. The flyer stated the union's position that teachers could not be penalized for failure to comply with the administration's request to post grades to Edline and included a notation that the issue would be a part of future contract negotiations. Mr. Rose continued by asking why a teacher who is absent or who otherwise fails to vote on the pay for performance project should be counted as a \"no\" vote. He challenged comments made by Ms. Knight and acknowledged that she had cast dispersions upon the board and administration by stating that the current administration would \"leave a mess.\" Previous accusations of racism against the board were reason enough for board members and the administration to have unpleasant feelings toward the current union leadership. Dr. Daugherty called for a break at 6:54 p.m. Mr. Rose completed his statements to the board and the audience by saying that the time for portraying \"the union as doing something good for teachers is over. Their time is rapidly drawing to an end.\" Mr. Kurrus thanked Mr. Rose for his passionate comments and responded to statements made by Katherine Knight by assuring her that neither the board nor the administration is trying to destroy the union. He stated that there was no concerted effort to do anything other than help kids, and that the teachers union would have to change the way it operates in order to do anything positive for this district or for the children. He noted that what was most needed was a collaborative relationship. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Kurrus briefly noted that the legislature would begin a special session within the next few weeks and may consider a bill that would regulate school superintendents' contracts. He stated opposition to this measure or any other legislation that would remove authority of local school boards. Mr. Kurrus congratulated the Forest Heights Middle School MathCounts team for placing 2nd in recent competition. He noted that the LISA Academy team placed first, and he congratulated LISA students for their success. However, he criticized LISA administrators for deception in their application for a charter school and the state for approving the charter. He noted that LISA students are those who are easy to educate and who would do well no matter where they went to school. The school's original application requested a charter based on location in central Little Rock and appeal to lower socio-economic students. The school eventually landed in west Little Rock without provisions for transporting the students from lower income families. Mr. Berkley agreed with Mr. Kurrus' comments on the LISA Academy, stating that their fraud was not a mistake, but was intentional in order to gain approval from the state for their charter. He also directed a response to comments from the CT A, saying that the board has the ultimate responsibility for making decisions and that those decisions would be based on the desires of the parents and the community. He noted that he is most influenced by the people in the schools who work their hearts out to make things better for kids. He and people in the community see the union as a problem when it prevents the board and the administration from dealing effectively with ineffective teachers. \"When the CTA is the reason why we can't deal with ineffective teachers - that is a problem.\" Dr. Mitchell congratulated students who were recognized earlier in the meeting. She expressed respect for the administration and Dr. Brooks, noting that when she disagrees with the superintendent or other board members they are able to \"disagree in a peaceful way.\" She also expressed respect for the people who work for the district, especially teachers, because she knows what is involved in being a classroom teacher. She expressed great concern about student achievement and a need to focus more on children's problems and not so much on the problems of adults. She pledged to repeat at every meeting her belief that the achievement issue could best be addressed by reducing primary level class size to 18 with a certified teacher and a teachers' assistant in every class. She expressed specific concerns about Chicot Elementary School, in its' fourth year of school improvement, and asked for more specific information on what we are going to do there to improve student achievement. Graham Campbell, the student ex officio, questioned the issue mentioned by Mr. Rose regarding teachers' reluctance to enter grades on Ed line. Speaking for his fellow students, Graham expressed support for Edline, stating that it is of great benefit to be able to self-monitor grades and progress. The system also provides parents an opportunity to see how their students are doing in school on a daily basis. He said that it didn't seem unreasonable to ask teachers to update grades twice a week and that some teachers have resisted going through the simple process of learning how to input data to Ed line. He closed by saying, \"If there weren't penalties some teachers wouldn't take the time to post the grades.\" Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page6 Mr. Brock reported that he was continuing to visit schools and had recently visited Bale Elementary where he witnessed volunteers in the halls, mentoring and tutoring students. He encouraged volunteerism in our schools, especially retirees and those who have time to spend giving students a boost. Mr. Brock also reported that he had read the teachers' contract and was \"appalled at some of the conditions\" contained in that document. He asked the CT A to remember that we are here for the benefit of students, not the teachers union. He asked union representatives to \"tone down the passions\" and remember that we are all here because of the students. Cherry Norman, teacher ex officio representative, stated that she was not planning to vote in favor of the pay for performance I merit pay issue because she is not a classroom teacher, but a media specialist who also works every day with students. She expressed support for Dr. Mitchell's comments regarding limiting class size at the primary grades, noting that classrooms in southwest Little Rock have grown over the past two years due to school closings and student reassignments. Dr. Daugherty thanked his fellow board members for their comments and for their passion. He expressed admiration for Mr. Rose, and asked the listeners to realize that board members are also parents \u0026amp; community members\n\"from a parent's viewpoint, we only want what is best for our children and all children.\" He announced that the April agenda meeting would be held at McClellan High School\nafter the agenda meeting an hour or so would be allowed for public comment. 8. Student Assignment Report No report. C. Budget Update No report. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects The monthly construction update was provided as an attachment to the board's agenda. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's report was printed in the board agenda. No additional information was requested. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page 7 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on February 23, 2006, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the minutes as presented, Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Technology Plan, 2006-2009 The Arkansas Department of Education requires all school districts to revise their Technology Plan every three years. The LRSD Technology Committee met from October 2005 through January 2006 to develop the plan presented for the board's review and adoption. The plan will be in effect for the 2006 through 2009 school years. Lucy Neal was present and introduced members of the committee. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the plan as presented. Mr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Revision of EDCA-R /Regulation: Authorized Use of Computer Networks The revision of regulation EDCA-R was included in the development of the districtwide technology plan, and was included in the recommendation for approval of that plan. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the regulation as presented, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0-1, with Mr. Rose abstaining. C. Policy Revision -Second Reading: Policy BBBE - Unexpired Term Fulfillment/ Vacancies District policy for filling board vacancies was out of line with state law in that the Pulaski County Board of Education is no longer a governing entity in the State of Arkansas. The administration recommended a revision that would bring us into compliance, which was approved on first reading at the February board meeting. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the revised BBBE on second reading. Mr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Arkansas Better Chance for School Success Grant Proposal (ABCSS) Early Childhood Department staff presented a grant proposal which requested $4.5 million from the Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education. The district's match of 40% is allocated from general operating funds for Pre-K programs across the district. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the submission\nMr. Kurrus seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page 8 E. ADE - Grant Submission: Mathematics and Science Partnership Program The board was asked to approve an application to the Arkansas Department of Education for $175,000 over a three year period to fund mathematics and science professional development programs. Dr. Olivine Roberts was present to respond to questions. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the application for submission\nMr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. F. U.S. Dept. of Education - Grant Submission: Advanced Placement Incentive Program The Advanced Placement Incentive Program would provide $2.25 million over three years to increase participation in Advanced Placement English, mathematics and science courses at the secondary schools. Funding would also be allocated to support the International Baccalaureate program planned for implementation at Forest Heights Middle School and Hall High School for the 2006-2007 school year. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve submission of the AP grant proposal. Mr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. G. U.S. Dept. of Education - Improving Literacy Through School Libraries The U. S. Department of Education offered an opportunity to apply for a $300,000 grant to improve school library services and resources. Seven schools were selected to participate in the program based on their needs for additional library materials and technology resources. If funded, the libraries at Central, Dunbar, King, Franklin, Rockefeller, Stephens and Washington would update their materials and technology in the media centers and provide professional development for media specialists. Mr. Brock moved to approve the application as submitted. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VII. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel changes were printed in the board's agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the changes as submitted\nMr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. School Calendar 2006-2007 The proposed 2006-2007 school year calendars for regular and extended year schools were provided for review and board approval. A committee of teachers, parents, principals and administrators developed the calendar and presented their recommendations for consideration. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the calendars as presented\nMr. Brock seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page9 VIII. Baker Kurrus exited the meeting at 7:45 p.m. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Annual Audit Report Under Arkansas statute, school boards are required to approve an annual financial audit prior to submission to the state. Mr. Don Smith, CPA from Thomas \u0026amp; Thomas, was present to respond to questions. Mark Milhollen briefly review the highlights of the audit report and requested the board's approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the audit report as submitted. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. B. Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-Up) Resolution Approval is required by the Internal Revenue Service to authorize employees who have elected to be non-contributory to change their status on July 1 of each year, and to have additional contributions made through payroll deduction. The administration requested board approval of the required resolution in order to remain in compliance with IRS regulations. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the resolution presented\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion. It carried 4 - 0 - 1, with Mr. Rose abstaining. C. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. The donations are listed in the following chart. The student ex officio read the items listed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Rose made a motion to accept the donated items, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Brady Elementary $44.00 cash to assist students ETA PHI BETA Sorority, Inc. displaced due to hurricanes Gamma Nu Chapter Central High School Pamphlets entitled Ms. Marcene Block \"After a Death\", valued at $200.00, to assist students who are dealing with grief Chicot Elementary $500.00 check to help finance a Children International new KaBoom! playground for students $2,000.00 check to help finance Chicot PTA a new KaBoom! playground $500.00 check to help finance a First United Methodist Church new KaBoom! playground $450.00 check to finance a field J.A. Riggs Tractor Company trip to the Arkansas Arts Center Board Meeting March 23, 2006 Page 10 SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Little Rock School District Three (3) checks totaling Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. $15,000.00 to be used at the discretion of the District D. Financial Reports Mr. Milhollen presented the monthly financial reports\nno formal action was taken. XI. CLOSING REMARKS: XII. A. Announcements \u0026amp; Reminders Dr. Brooks announced that schools would be closed on Friday, March 24, and the week of March 2yth - 31 st for spring break. In addition, he noted that the pay for student performance pilot project vote would be held in the board room all day on Friday, March 24th - ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. on a motion by Dr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Brock. APPROVED: 1 J7 Oft, r-= R. Micheal Daugherty, Presiden B~g~~rera~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 27, 2006 RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TORJNG The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 27, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Tom Brock Bryan Day Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. In addition, ex officio representatives to the board were also present: Jennifer Dilday, teacher from Dodd Elementary School, and Ellen Doramus, student from Central High School. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Dr. Daugherty welcomed the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with citations and commendations. Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations \u0026amp; Commendations Dr. Brooks began by introducing the 2006 Stephens Award recipients. Mary Jacobs, teacher at J. A. Fair High School\nAmanda Linn, teacher at Parkview Magnet High School\nand Gail McKinnon, teacher at Hall High School. The student scholarship recipients were: Peter Liu and Laura Soderberg, both from Central High School. Laura was also recognized for being selected as a 2006 U.S. Presidential Scholar. Mitchell Perry, instructor at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center, introduced students who were medalists in the 2006 Arkansas VICA SkillsUSA competition in Hot Springs. The students present were: Doug Pitts, gold medal in diesel technology\nJonathan Modal, silver medal in diesel technology\nJames Blanchard and Dustin Stewart, bronze medals in collision / auto body repair\nJeremy Barnes, Arkansas' state pin design winner\nChristopher Young, gold medalist, graphic communications\nand Alexis Oliver, 3rd place in prepared speech. In addition, it was noted that Director Carol Green was presented with a lifetime commitment award from Arkansas SkillsUSA / VICA at the conference. Athletic Director Johnny Johnson introduced Brian Cox from the Arkansas Children's' Hospital sports medicine clinic and Tom Cantwell from Ortho Arkansas. These volunteers provided LRSD middle and high school students with annual sports physicals and provided assistance to our students at the state 5A tournament games. In addition, recognition was given to Beth McKindrick, director of sports medicine at ACH, for her contributions to LRSD athletic events. Dorothy Doolittle, math coach at Brady Elementary School, was named the 2005-06 Arkansas Elementary School Teacher of the Year by the Oklahoma-Arkansas Mathematical Association of America. Dr. Brooks asked her to stand as he read the plaque presented in recognition of this honor. Dr. Brooks asked Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Secondary Education, to stand. Mr. Babbs recently received the 2006 Living Legacy Award at the recent Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Dinner. The superintendent recognized the Mann Magnet Middle School Environmental and Spatial Technology (EAST) Lab team and their faculty facilitators, Rick Washam and Robin Miller-Bookhout. This team recently attended the 2006 EAST Partnership Conference in Hot Springs where they won the Founder's Award, designating Mann's EAST team as \"the \"best of the best in the nation.\" The participating students received a superintendent's citation: Hamza Arshad, Rachel Best, Mari-Anne Caldwell, Catherine Fox, Michael Handy, Katie Holcomb, Jake Kimmerly, Janey Partin and Orlando Roberts. The final superintendent's citations were presented to ex-officio representatives for the month of April: Jennifer Dilday, teacher from David 0. Dodd Elementary School, and Ellen Doramus, student from Central High School. Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page3 B. Partners in Education Debbie Milam introduced new school/ business partnership as listed. Mr. Berkley moved to accept the partnership\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Martin L. King, Jr. Elementary School, represented by Diane Rynders, in partnership with the Arkansas Federal Credit Union represented by Tammy Christian In addition to introducing the partnership, Ms. Milam asked Diane Vibhaker, representing the ViPS Board, to present a mock check representing $10,458,888.00 in volunteer hours. C. Celebrate School Libraries Presentation District media specialists made a video presentation to the Board in recognition of School Library Media Month and National Library Week. Those presenting included Mary Gillespie from Pulaski Heights Elementary School and Betty Hansberry Harrison from Hall High School. D. Remarks from Citizens Carol Wilson addressed the board regarding the district's cell phone policy. Her daughter's phone was confiscated by the school principal after the phone was found during the school day in her backpack. The student served a three-day in school suspension. Paul Pighee, Southwest Middle School parent and community volunteer, stated opposition to proposed changes at Southwest. He criticized the faculty at Southwest and expressed concern regarding the disparity in student test results. He expressed support for the building principal, and asked the board to allow the principal to remove poor teachers when they weren't meeting the needs of the students. He noted that the school campus looks better than it has in 20 years and that the community would not support reconfiguration of SWMS to an alternative learning center. E. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Grainger Ledbetter ceded time allowed for the teachers union to one of the district's psychological examiners, Kim Hart, who spoke on behalf of school all school psychology specialists. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Mr. Berkley congratulated the ViPs board and staff on the annual volunteer celebration this week and thanked all volunteers for the time they give to our schools and students. Mr. Kurrus reported that he had attended a PT A meeting at Forest Heights Middle School\nhe thanked Judge Vic Fleming for presenting information at that meeting on alcohol and drug abuse prevention. Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Kurrus thanked members of the McClellan community who spoke at the recent meeting there. He acknowledged the students who asked for \"a pat on the back every once in a while.\" Mr. Kurrus noted that it had become routine to place blame on the schools when problems arise in the community. He reminded the audience that when community problems end up in the schools, school administrators and teachers do all they can to address these problems, but that the schools can't be expected to cure the problems. It takes a combined effort between the community and the schools to make any significant improvements. Mr. Brock thanked volunteers for what they do for our students and schools. He also commented on the meeting with McClellan community members, and noted that the board was there to listen, not to take any action. He echoed Mr. Kurrus remarks regarding the perception of fault with the schools. He asked that the city do their part to find a solution. Mr. Rose reported that he had missed the community meeting at McClellan, and noted that it was the first meeting he had missed since being elected to serve on the board. He stated a personal commitment to do everything possible to make McClellan a great school\nhowever he agreed with other board remarks that the LRSD doesn't have the ability to make a great community. \"It isn't our responsibility to clean up that community\nthe city also has to do their part.\" Mr. Rose also noted that he would be having surgery in May and that he would probably miss a few board meetings. Dr. Mitchell reported that she had attended the National School Boards Association meeting in Chicago in early April. She stated interest in the workshops, and excitement about the motivational speakers who presented, including Colin Powell and Jane Goodall. She reminded Dr. Brooks that Dr. Anne Bryant had taken a stand on small class size at the primary grades, and again encouraged the district to move in that direction to improve early student success. Dr. Mitchell thanked the people who work in our schools and recognized the hard work that the faculty and support staffs do to ensure student success. Teacher ex-officio Jennifer Dilday appealed to the board on behalf of instructional aides who have not yet succeeded in passing the Praxis exam. There are many aides who have a CDA license and 120 hours of classroom instruction, but will be dismissed because they cannot pass the geometry section of the Praxis. B. Student Assignment Report No report. C. Budget Update Mr. Milhollen addressed the board regarding questions on state foundation funding for next school year. The per-student allocation will increase from $5,400 to $5,528. A portion will go to reimburse districts for increased obligations to teacher retirement Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page 5 benefits, the remainder will be used to provide employee salary increases, fund school programs and cover increased energy costs. Negotiations with the CT A have resulted in an agreement to provide an additional 1.6% to the base salary of all employees. A formal proposal will be provided for the board's approval in May. If approved by the board, the increase would be posted on the June 15 payroll checks, retroactive to July 1 for the current school year. Mr. Kurrus stated emphatically that he would not vote for any extensions to the teacher contract. He stated emphatically that he expects the contract for next school year to be negotiated and finalized on time and without any extensions. D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects The monthly construction update was provided as an attachment to the board's agenda. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker's report was printed in the board agenda. He was questioned about the plans for providing computers to students who do not currently have computers at home. Mr. Becker has worked with the technology, procurement and financial services staff to develop a plan, a process, and regulations for this effort. Additional information will be provided to the board next month. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 23, 2006, and from a special meeting held on March 16, 2006, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Rose moved to approve the minutes as presented, Mr. Day seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. BOARD POLICY AND REGULATIONS REVIEW A. Posting of Grades and Attendance to Web-Based Reporting Program A regulation was developed that would provide direction to teachers and building principals for reporting student grades and attendance to EdLine. Mr. Hattabaugh provided a brief overview and responded to questions from the board. The board members suggested postponing enforcement of the regulation until the start of the next school year. Administrators agreed to monitor the use of EdLine for the remainder of this year, and then to negotiate compliance within the contract for the 2006-07 school year. Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page6 VII. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES A. Secondary Mathematics Textbook Adoption The Secondary Mathematics Textbook adoption committee presented their recommendation for texts to be used in all secondary mathematics courses beginning with the 2006-2007 school year. Copies of the selected texts were displayed in the board room for review. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the committee's recommendations\nMr. Day seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES A. Computer Science Education Textbook Adoption The Computer Science Textbook Committee reviewed available materials to support the computer science curriculum in the LRSD. This committee provided their recommendations for the board's review\nmembers of the committee were listed in the agenda and the administration recommended approval. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the committee's recommendations\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Textbook Adoptions for Career Communications Courses A textbook for use in a Career Communications course at Parkview next school year was also recommended by a committee who reviewed the curriculum and selected an appropriate textbook for student instruction. This course is a requirement of the Arkansas Department of Education Workforce Education program. The administration asked the board to approve the recommendation. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the committee's selection. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. HUMAN RESOURCES A. Personnel Changes Routine personnel changes were printed in the board's agenda. In addition, items listed as follows were also approved: B. Appointment of High School Summer School Principal Mr. Jerome Farmer, currently the Football Coach and PE teacher at Mann Magnet Middle School was recommended to serve as principal of the high school summer school program. The 2006 high school summer school will be held at Hall High School for students in grades 9 through 11 . Twelfth grade students who only need .5 or 1 credit to graduate will attend the Metropolitan ACC program. Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page 7 C. Appointment of Middle School Summer School Principal Ms. Connie Green, currently an Assistant Principal at Mabelvale Middle School, was recommended for appointment to the position of middle school summer school principal. Summer school for students in 6th through 8th grades will be held at Pulaski Heights Middle School. On all personnel items presented, Mr. Berkley moved to approve the administration's recommendations\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Approval of the 2005-06 Negotiated Agreement for School Psychologists A negotiated agreement between the district and the school psychology specialists was presented for the board's review and approval. Director of Human Resources, David Hartz, responded to questions from the board and recognized that with this late submission for board approval, both parties had agreed to allow the agreement to continue through the end of the 2006-2007 school year. Any language changes that are adopted within the other negotiated contracts would be incorporated within the agreement. Board members commented at length regarding the sixty-page agreement and suggested holding off on approval until July 1, 2006. Mr. Kurrus stated that an agreement of \"minutia\" was not an effective way to do business with employees\nhe asked for this and future contracts to be built on trust and on what is in the best interest of the students in the LRSD. Mr. Ledbetter was allowed to address the board and stated that the board's policies encourage collective bargaining and that the agreement was negotiated in good faith by all parties. Mr. Brock suggested that the district review the policies that regulate these negotiations and make appropriate change where needed. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the agreement as submitted. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 6-1, with Mr. Kurrus casting the \"no\" vote. X. FINANCE \u0026amp; SUPPORT SERVICES A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve the acceptance of recent donations to schools and departments within the District. The donations are listed in the following chart. Ellen Deramus, student ex officio, read the items listed in the Board's agenda. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to accept the donated items, Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Regular Board Meeting April 27. 2006 Page 8 SCHOOUDEPARTMENT Chicot Elementary School Cloverdale Magnet Middle School Fulbright Elementary School Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center Parkview Magnet High School B. Financial Reports ITEM KaBoom! Playground Unit, valued at $35,000 Large wicker baskets, mirrors and lamps, valued at $150.00, to be used as gifts for parents on Edline Training Night $75.00 cash for interpreter for Edline Training Night Drinks for students and staff, valued at $150.00, for Edline Training Night Games, coloring books, yoyos and pencils, valued at $25.00, for student use on Edline Training Night 30 cases of water, valued at $360.00, for students and staff on Edline Training night Large #10 cans of chili, valued at $25.00, for Edline Training Night and Teacher Appreciation luncheon Loan and set up of tables and chairs, valued at $1,171.00, for use in student achievement testinQ $2,000 cash to be used to purchase a Smartboard for the computer lab $500 cash to the kindergarten class to be added to donation to Heifer Project International State Police Car, 2000 Chevrolet, valued at $11,000 to the Law Enforcement proQram. Sprinkler heads and controller, valued at $1,158.37, for use in irrigating and seeding the drill field DONOR KaBoom Foundation Linda Thomas, Kerry Waller, David Jeffers of Forbing Garage Sales / Silverwood Products, Inc. Dr. William Rutledge / Forest Park Medical Donnie Pointer of Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper Bottling Company Dr. Ronda Henry-Tillman, Associate Professor of Surgery, UAMS / ACRC Cancer Control Outreach Center Mr. Chuck Finney of Central Arkansas Water Clem and Jean Arnold David Withem of Southwest Party Time Rental, Inc. Fulbright PTA Wal-Mart Store #5244 Arkansas State Police The Keeling Company Mr. Milhollen presented the monthly financial reports\nno formal action was taken. Regular Board Meeting April 27, 2006 Page 9 XI. ADJOURNMENT Prior to the motion to adjourn, Mr. Brock announced that he had visited 48 schools and 46 school cafeterias. He thanked the people who work in our buildings and stated that he was impressed by his observations. There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 7:51 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Mr. Brock. APPROVED: S -,\n25 0 b LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 11, 2006 RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting in conjunction with the regularly scheduled agenda meeting on Thursday, May 11 , 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Bryan Day Larry Berkley Tom Brock Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. All members of the board were present at roll call. In addition, the ex-officio teacher representative for the month of May was also present: Kathleen Runder, teacher at Fair Park Early Childhood Center. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting included: A. Legal Update - Attorney Chris Heller B. Appointment of Summer School Coordinator for the 2006 Summer School Session C. Salary Recommendation / Reopened Negotiations for 2005-06 D. Southwest Middle School Conversion E. Report: Internships - David Hartz Special Board Meeting May 11 , 2006 Page2 Ill. ACTION AGENDA A. Legal Update - Attorney Chris Heller Chris Heller prepared a written summary report for distribution to the board. He responded to questions regarding the State Desegregation Litigation Subcommittee and expectations for the LRSD from the Gordon Report. B. Appointment of Summer School Coordinator for the 2006 Summer School Session Patricia Boykin was selected by an interview team to serve as the district's summer school coordinator. Ms. Boykin is an assistant principal at Mann Magnet School and she was present for introduction to the Board. Dr. Brooks recommended the appointment, and Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Salary Recommendation / Reopened Negotiations for 2005-06 The 2006 special legislative session provided additional foundation funding to districts across the state, increasing the per-pupil allocation from $5,400 to $5,528. A portion of this money would be allocated to pay for the district's share of increased teacher retirement benefits\nhowever, the administration presented a proposal to add 1.6% to the base of the current year teacher salary schedule. Other employee groups would also receive this additional salary increase, and the adjustment would be included on the June 15 payroll. Mr. Milhollen was present and responded to questions from the board. Mr. Kurrus moved to approve the administration's recommendation\nDr. Mitchell seconded the motion. It carried unanimously. D. Southwest Middle School Conversion The administration presented a proposal to redefine the district's alternative education programs and reconfigure the use of the Southwest Middle School campus. Hugh Hattabaugh, deputy superintendent, presented a report and provided statistics and comparative information regarding the current enrollment at Southwest and other LRSD middle schools. If approved, the district would begin the process of notifying parents and students of their school assignment for the 2006-2007 school year, reassigning teachers, and appointing the new administrative team for the alternative campus. Board members discussed the impact of closing the school and questioned the administration's intent to do so without taking into consideration Board Policy FB, which requires a year to plan the closure and discuss the proposal with the community. Dr. Brooks and Mr. Hattabaugh assured the board and audience that this was not intended as a \"closing,\" but instead as a reconfiguration or re-use of the facility for a different educational purpose. Special Board Meeting May 11, 2006 Page 3 The reconfiguration of Fair Park Elementary School into a Fair Park Early Childhood Center was used as a recent example of a successful transition for educational re-use. Mr. Berkley noted that Southwest Middle School had experienced an enrollment decrease over several years that could partially be attributed to the school's NCLB academic school improvement status. There is a perception that a quality education cannot be afforded at Southwest Middle School. Mr. Hattabaugh responded to questions regarding the number of students who might be assigned to Southwest from the Apperson and Garland ALC sites. He also assured the Board that students who had pending legal cases or who had been involved in serious criminal incidents would continue to be assigned to Felder Academy. Fewer students would be assigned to classes at Southwest, and they would receive additional support services to meet their educational, social, and emotional issues. Dr. Daugherty read Policy FBC regarding school closings. He then called on members of \\he audience who asked to address the Board. Sherry Keaton, teacher at Southwest, voiced opposition to the conversion to an alternative learning center. She stated that Southwest as been \"on the bottom\" for years, and that they had worked hard this year to turn things around. She also expressed concern about placing an alternative center next door to an elementary school and suggested there were safety issues that should be considered. A second speaker (no name given) identified herself as a Southwest Middle School parent and community member. She expressed support for Southwest and stated that she had worked with UALR Children International to establish a partnership between the middle school and the university. She suggested that additional partnerships between the school and the community could be established to make positive change in the middle school environment. C. H. Clark, Southwest PT A president, asked the Board to postpone action until additional communication with the community and Southwest parents could take place. Dr. Mitchell moved to follow board policy and postpone voting on the issue of converting Southwest Middle School to an alternative learning center. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kurrus offered a motion to postpone action until the May 25th board meeting to allow the Board sufficient time to review the information and listen to the community's concerns. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Berkley assured the audience that the Board expects this to be a quality and effective learning environment for students whose needs aren't being met in the regular school environment. Special Board Meeting May 11, 2006 Page4 Mr. Ledbetter responded \"no\" to a question from Mr. Rose regarding the twoweek delay and whether any resistance from the union would result from a late decision on the issue. The motion carried unanimously. E. Report: Internships - David Hartz The Board asked David Hartz, director of Human Resources, to investigate the possibility of utilizing graduate students in social work and psychology as interns in our schools. These students could help us address the needs of some of our more challenging students. Mr. Hartz provided a brief oral report and indicated that he had contacted UALR and UCA regarding an agreement for their students to intern in our schools. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose and seconded by Mr. Berkley . APPROVED: 5 'd s -0 ~ ~/-,v~,/\u0026lt;_ Robert M. Daugherty, Presit B!~ti~ra~ RECEIVED MAY u 4 2006 '.\n4n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MON/TORJNG May 3, 2006 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear ODM Staff: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on February 23, 2006, March 16 and 23, 2006. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, ~'u~ Charlotte Marks Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000 fax: 501-447-1001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 25, 2006 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 25, 2006, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Robert M. Daugherty presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert M. Daugherty Baker Kurrus Bryan Day Larry Berkley Tom Brock Katherine Mitchell Tony Rose MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Roy G. Brooks, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dr. Daugherty called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. In addition, ex officio representatives to the board were also present: Kathleen Runder, teacher from Fair Park Early Childhood Center, and Terricka Thomas, student from J. A. Fair High School. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS / WELCOMING COMMENTS Dr. Daugherty welcomed the audience and asked Dr. Brooks to proceed with citations and commendations. Regular Board Meeting May 25, 2006 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations \u0026amp; Commendations Dr. Brooks introduced Michelle Jackson, mathematics teacher at Hall High School, who recently received the 2005 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Ms. Jackson received a $10,000 grant from the National Science Foundation and an all-expenses-paid trip to Washington, D.C. Lenora Murray, math teacher at Central High School, introduced students Don Ding, Miles McCullough and Jack Chen. These students recently participated in the American Mathematics Competition\nJack ranked first in the state on the geometry competition\nDon was the highest performing student overall and ranked first in the state for the fourth year. In addition, Central High School was recognized for having the top performing students in the state for the fourth year in a row. Rob Evatt from Siemens Building Technologies and Barbary Keith from the College Board made a presentation to Central student, Don Ding, and Annice Steadman, Central High science teacher. Siemens and the College Board honor one teacher and one student from each state for exceptional achievement in science and math. A full page ad ran in USA Today in recognition of this award\nDon received a $2,000 scholarship. Dr. Brooks presented a certificate of recognition to Vicki Gonterman, International Studies Specialist at Gibbs Magnet Elementary School. Ms. Gonterman recently received the Elgin Heinz Outstanding Humanitarian Teacher Award from the United States-Japan Foundation. One teacher is selected each year for this recognition\n$5,000 was awarded to the international studies program at Gibbs by this foundation. Laura Gould, student at McDermott Elementary School, was recognized for being the Division I winner of the Arkansas School Food Service Association's 2006-2007 Nutrition Education Poster Contest. Laura received a $50 award\nMcDermott's art teacher received $100 for classroom art supplies. The Superintendent recognized Carver Magnet Elementary School teacher, Joy Burt, for her selection as the Baseline Road Wal-Mart Teacher of the Year. She received flowers, a framed certificate, a $100 gift card and a check for $1,000 to use for school materials. Susan Purvis, Gibbs Magnet Elementary art teacher, was named Arkansas Art Educator of the Year by Arkansas Art Educators for the second year in a row. Dr. Brooks congratulated Ms. Purvis and awarded a Superintendent's citation in recognition of her achievement. Regular Board Meeting May 25, 2006 Page 3 Dr. Brooks announced the upcoming Superintendent's Customer Service Awards. Beginning next school year, recognition will be given to employees who go a step beyond to provide exceptional customer service to students, parents, teachers, principals and others. Nominations will be accepted from every school and department across the district. The first Superintendent's Customer Service Award was given to Calvin Miller, Head Custodian at Henderson Magnet Middle School. Dr. Brooks reported that on a recent visit to Henderson, he noticed a remarkable improvement in the cleanliness of the building and school campus. Mr. Burton attributed the improvement to Mr. Miller and his overall hard work, diligence and attention to detail. Two employees were recognized for providing exceptional leadership to their departments and exceptional customer service to the students in our schools. Wayne Adams, Director of Maintenance and Operations, and Lilly Bouie, Director of Child Nutrition, were awarded Superintendent's Customer Service Citations. A group of Child Nutrition employees were present, and were asked to stand and be recognized. Later in the meeting the board adopted a resolution in recognition of Child Nutrition Employees and their contributions to the success of our students. Faye Zhao, a graduating Central High School senior, was recently selected as a Presidential Scholar. Two students from each state receive this honor each year and it was noted that seven Presidential Scholars since 1991 have been Central High School students. Students from the Central High Debate T earn recently competed at the statewide Tournament of Champions. More than 50 teams competed and Central's team took top honors. In the Novice category, Central's winners were: Robert Shuffield and Patrick Lee, 1st place\nAaron Moore and Jacob McCarty, 2nd place\nand Josh Harpool and Afshar Sanati, 3rd place. In the Varsity category, Central's winners were: Charlie Cunningham and Pierce Hunter, 1st place\nand Joe Anda and Nathan Bashaw, 2nd place. Coach Kathleen Holladay wasn't able to attend, but she was commended for her dedication to the Central High Debate teams. Stewart Fullerton, Randi Robertson and Libby Cathey, students at Mann Magnet Middle School, participated in the state History Day competition in April and won second place for their documentary \"Tempest in a Teapot.\" They will participate in the national History Day competition in June at the University of Maryland. Dr. Brooks presented certificates of achievement to these students and wished them the best of luck at the national competition. Spencer Lucker and Marianne Ligon were recognized for their selection by the Coca-Cola Bottling Company Scholars Foundation. Spencer, a senior at Central High School, was selected as a Regional Scholar in the 2006 Coca-Cola Scholars Program and will receive a $2,500 scholarship award, renewable annually. Ms. Ligon received the Joseph B. Whitehead Foundation \"Educator of Distinction\" award based upon Spencer's nomination. Regular Board Meeting May 25, 2006 Page4 Instructor Sergeant 1st Class Dishoungh White, 39th Brigade Senior Chaplain NCO, presented the Cloverdale Middle School Junior ROTC cadets. These students are provided leadership training, community service opportunities, academic and social skills support and field trips by the ROTC. Dr. Brooks was recently presented with a full uniform, which he wore to the meeting. The Duke University Talent Identification Program assesses ih grade students by administration of the ACT or SAT college entrance exams. Dr. Brooks announced that thirty-four students from the LRSD qualified for state-level recognition, indicating that their scores were in the top 25 percent of the Talent Search pool. Additionally, one student qualified for Grand-level or national recognition, meaning that his score was in the top two percent. The students were given a superintendent's citation in recognition of their achievement. They were: Dunbar Magnet Middle School: Lora Adams, Megan Barker, Kathleen Connery, Cory Cooper, Elizabeth Dodd, Emily Harrison, Jordan Kaiser, Sarah Kline, Rebecca Meredith, Lucy Richardson, Thomas Spradley, Taylor Stevens, Evan Wordlaw, David Ye and Elton Zhou (David Ye, scored in the top two percent and was recognized at the Grand Ceremony at Duke University) Forest Heights Middle School: Michael Anda, Hubert Lee and Sheridan McKissick. Henderson Magnet Middle School: Angela Buckley, Jacquelyn Fuerte Stone and Brandon Harris Mann Magnet Middle School: Wesley Ball, William Hupp, John Kimmerly, Christine Stuckey and Malia Zhan Pulaski Heights Middle School: Indigo Anderson-Moore, Sarah Beckwith, Sarah Parker, Miriam Pearsall, Jonathon Raney, Mary Simpson, Molly Whitehorn and Christopher Yeatman LRSD science students recently competed in two statewide science fairs, the Arkansas Science and Engineering Fair and the Arkansas Junior Academy of Science. First-place winners from these events were recognized by the superintendent: Arkansas Science and Engineering Fair: Central High School: \"Best School in State\" award and \"Best 5-A School\" award \"Best in State\" Team Award: Central High Students, David Steward, Russel Viegas and Foster Holcomb This team also won 1st place in Team Projects and 1st place as Team Finalists. They received an all-expenses-paid trip to the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in Indianapolis \"Best in State\" Award: Pamela Palmer, Hall High School. Pamela also was named an International Science and Engineering Fair Finalist for the Central Region Computer Science, 1st place: Cyrus Bahrassa , Central Mathematics, 1st place: Anne Ye, Central Microbiology, 1st place: Craig La\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_779","title":"Report: Preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education","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":["2006-01-13"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education"],"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/779"],"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\nNotice of filing with United States District Court\nCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED /^/i. /7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGAHOfl 55OSTOR1HG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Courts Order of December 17,2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501Z376-2011 ZsZ Christopher HellerCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006,1 have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CMZECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com siones@jli.com johnwalkeratty @ aol .com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 ZsZ Christopher Heller 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 45 RECEIVED OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Yey or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13,2006 RHCE/veq James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jame$c@gseis.ucla.eduCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 45 Section II. Executive Summary This section will be completed after receiving feedback on this draft report. following are tentative summary findings presently contained in Sections III through VI. Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics. year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in m scores over the base year as well ! schools over a five the same time period. percentage changes as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over Conclusion III.2. Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools ,, owit iraiuudis, cxienoeo Year schools verv modestly outp^ormed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tS and simificanf V _________\n_______r . ________ . inviavy icsi and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demoi'phics and tK^n schools generally fell short of predicted scores, particularly fo mathematics Ski And 90(5^\nshow significantly more progress between discinlfoa^ r f Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, in l^th^h suspensions, and African American student proficiency both rra hematics and literacy. Two mdicators of attendance i :.uwcd no magnitude of these changes sc^ols and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools i rates showed no for EY indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. is a significant Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point XTd'^n'^ emes^^si\n^o R V ? comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests ^mt to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators to small performance advantages for comes to the same conclusion. Academic ___C ___ , , --------IV Uiv doijic WIlUlU: perform^e may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some........... may reflea \u0026gt;1 whidt slrtdems choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. attending Intersessions can be made. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for Page II. ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 3 of 45 Conclusion VI.l. The parent, student, and teacher 1... . HC pareni, siuoent, and teacher surveys accumulated over three vears p ovide an derail appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular advantages or on condftions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 , , '^^lages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students r^rt higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for le^mg, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences fevormg EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results ^e wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there \"................. are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and ^thematics achievement fevoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Page H.2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 4 of 45 Section III. Educational Effectiveness of EY Schools - Basic Test Scores Question: What do Arkansas standards test measures suggest about the effectiveness of EY scwolsZ Methods: The Benchmark tests. For this question, we focus on the annual Grade 4 Benchmark tests in literacy and mathematics as our main indicator of elementary school effectiveness. Our interest in this Grade 4 test stems from two factors - first its qualities as a standards-based test and second its consistent use in prior years allowing estimates of achievement change over time. The Benchmark tests are based on academic performance standards developed by the state of Arkansas. Unlike standardized * wj Miv oimc VI zYiR.dii:\u0026gt;db. uniiKe standaraizeu norm- referen^ tests, such as the ITBS or SAT9 which rank student performance according to national percentlies, the Benchmark tests are scored to rate student performance against a set of state-level proficiency standards and thus to provide objective measures of student learning. a year to year for , , Arkansas Benchmark test classifies students as advanced, proficient, basic or b^w basic in both literacy and mathematics according to criteria established for each perfom^ce level. If standards are consistent from year to year, as they are designed to be, the Benchmark fest can detect changes in levels of achievement from Iroth individual students and for school grade levels and entire schools. K c puwci ui these standards-based tests to appraise student and school effectiveness that places them at the center of state school accountability programs nationwide. Its the power of State and national goals for learners are expressed formally as the percentage of C rvrTnrrrunf nt ___a 1_____i . s . _____ _ . . students performing at the proficient level or higher. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act requires states to set annual performance targets that imply growth of student proficiency rates over time - with a goal of 100 percent of students performing at the proficient level by 2014. We----- - , . . , , - . *^56 the percentage of students performing at the proficient or higher level as the key criterion in our assessment of test scores. Our comparative frameworks. Assessing school performance is customarily assisted by comparisons. One comparison frame is current performance versus past performance - i.e. has the school improved over time? Another comparison is how well a^hool is doing m comparison to other schools. Appraising either absolute perfom^ce levels or performance trends across schools demands identifying like- situated schools as a basis for comparison. This is because schools do not operate from ^^1 .starting points - nor do they necessarily work with equally prepared children Schools across a state r----* serve differing economic, racial, and cultural populations. Schools . - -----pvpuiaijuiji^. ov servmg more formally educated and higher income families tend to show relatively higher student achievement populations. measures across the board than schools serving poor Page III. 1Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 5 of 45 A task for our evaluation team was to select an appropriate group of schools to (xmpare with the five Extended Year schools of central interest to this study. Because of the overriding importance of the education of Afincan American children driving this evaluation, we used the percentage of African American student attendance as the principal criterion for comparison group construction. The five EY schools are higihghted in Table III.l on the following page. Table III. 1 arrays schools according to Atncan Amencan school attendance and also indicates a measure of student family economic disadvantage - the percent of students qualifying for fi-ee and reduced price lunches. For comparison (or control) schools, we selected a group of schools that suitably bracketed the five EY schools on the basis of Afiican American attendance. These are alw shown in Table III. 1. The average AA attendance for the EY schools is 87.8 percent. The average AA attendance for the control schools is 84.9 percent.' The percentages of are economically disadvantaged students are 87.8 (EY) and 90.0 (control) respectively. Among demo^aphic predictors of student achievement, SES or student family nicoriizontono J 1_________..1. _ disadvantage is considered by far the most important, apart from non- or limited English spring status. (This latter factor is important in some states and urban areas that have fogh populations of immigrant families, especially Hispanics. This is not a systematic factor in the Little Rock schools.) The analyses. In this Section III analyses. we assess school performance with two separate K \\ analysis presents the percentages of students scoring proficient or better in literacy and mathematics respectively. Contrasts are drawn among an early two vpar TV\u0026gt;nz^H _X___ . _______ -___ 1 ' ---------------------- CUJ vol 1 y IWV year period (2001 and 2002), a later two year period (2003 and 2004), and finally for the most recent year, the 2005 proficiency test scores.^ These statistics are reported for EY schools, all control schools, and all LRSD elementary schools combined. B. The second analysis reports an assessment of2005 school performance - EY event is described , , _ , ' * ------------- MVi IVlIJiailVC CI ^c^^nmodates a change in standards implemented by LSRD for the 2005 Benchmark tests. This standards adjustment and the resulting procedures outlined as the analysis is presented. These percentages are the simple averages of the school-level percentages listed. Taking school population is about 90.2 percent African American Control ^noois are aoout os percent African Amencan. Fot this and a subsequent set of analyses, we aggregated indicators from 01 and 02, and of performance (in other words, measures not suoject t VII Ul UjC Udld. again from 03 measures not subject to the s going Page in.2Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 6 of 45 TABLE III.l Little Rock School School District Extended Year (EY) and Comparison Schools, Selected Characteristics SCHOOL EY Percent AA Percent Disadv. c c c c Rightsell Franklin Watson Mitchell Stephens Woodruff Wilson Geyer Sprs. Bale Baseline iMablevale *** *** c Western His. c Wakefield c Brady c Meadowclf. I Cloverdale *** Romine Washington 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 95.0% 91.0% 89.0% 88.0% 82.0% 81.0% 80.0% 79.0% 78.0% 78.0% 78.0% 77.0% 76.0% 76.0% 87.0% 95.0% 94.0% 93.0% 92.0% 87.0% 94.0% 80.0% 89.0% 88.0% 88.0% I 74.0% 92.0% 82.0% 85.0% 90.0% I 77.0% 81.0% c c c c c [indicates Extended Year Schools c Indicates Comparison or Control Schools Percent AA Percent Disadv, Percent African American Enrollment Percent Qualified Free and Red. Price LunchCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 7 of 45 TABLE m.2 PERCENT OF AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS PROFICIENT BY SUBJECT, GROUP, AND SELECTED TIME PERIODS ALL EY SCHOOLS 2000-2002 2002-2004 2005 LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 15.7% 12.8% 40.0% 35.5% 21.5% 22.1% ALL COMPARISON SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 23.0% 15.6% 46.0% 31.6% 26.3% 23.8% All ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LITERACY MATH PCT. PROF. PCT. PROF. 37.5% 30.4% 59.5% 47.0% 39.5% 35.5%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 8 of 45 A. How have EY vs. Comparison Schools performed over time? Table 111.2 (immediately following Table III.l) displays student proficiency statistics for EY and Control schools over five testing years. As described in footnote 2, the early data represent school years 2000 and 2001 combined, the later data combine school years 2003 and 2004, and the final statistics are for the latest foil school year 2004-2005. Three patterns stand out in this table. One is that the proficiency percentages on the Grade 4 Benchmark tests are considerably higher for the schools overall than for either the EY or Comparison schools. This is expected, since the EY schools, and thus the comparison schools, were chosen because they represented schools with very high levels of economic disadvantage and high African American attendance. The second pattern is that schools in all three groups moved in a generally lockstep fashion over time. There were sizeable increases in student proficiency between the earliest biennium and the second - more than doubling for the EY and Comparison schools with about 50 percent gains statewide. This of course heralded good news for many Little Rock schools over this four-year period. The third pattern is a significant downturn of proficiency rates in the 2005 school year for all three groups. There is an imposed reason for this downturn, the resetting of fest performance standards, which precipitates our second score analysis just below. Extended Year vs. Comparison School performance. As far as appraising the fortunes of EY versus Comparison schools. Table III.2 shows comparable results for the two groups of schools over time, with an edge favoring the Extended Year schools. This edge comes in the larger advances between the 2000-02 biennium and 2005 for the EY schools. EY literacy scores are 37 percent higher in 2005 than 2002. EY math sccrcc arc 73 percent higher over the same time period. The comparable indices for the Comparison schools are 14 percent growth in literacy and 53 percent in mathematics. scores are Interpretive note: differences are smaller than they seem. It is important to place these score changes in perspective. For example, the 37 percent increase in literacy scores for EY schools reported above does not signify a 37 percent increase in overall student performance. It represents movement from 15.7 percent of students proficient in the early biennium to 21.5 percent of students proficient in 2005. This is an absolute gain of 5.8 percentage points. The comparison school gain is 3.6 percentage points over the same time period. Conclusion III.l. The Extended Year schools outperformed the Comparison schools with respect to percentages of students proficient in literacy and mathematics over a five year time span leading up to spring 2005, an advantage measured in percentage changes in scores over the base year as well as in absolute percentage proficient point gains over the same time period. Page IU.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 9 of 45 B. Comparing EY versus Control school performance given the 2005 change in the Arkansas Benchmark test score standards. Standards shift. The scores in Table III.2 derived finm a playing field that was the same for both EY and Comparison schools. So head to head comparisons between the two groups of schools are meaningful and were discussed above. However, the dramatic downturn of scores for 2005 for all schools, including the EY and comparison schools, was in part, and probably in large part, due to the fact that the Arkansas Department of Education revised the scoring standards for the 2005 Benchmark tests. Periodic standards resetting is common to state standards testing systems. Arkansas made their standards of performance stricter for the 2005 test The result of this standards shift was that, for example, some ample range of 2005 student test scores that would have warranted proficient ratings in 2004 and earlier test years was now classified as basic. Similar downshifts occurred across the spectrum Therefore it is difficult to interpret the absolute levels of the 2005 scores in the context of the earlier scores. Without some sort of a translation guide that we have not seen, we cannot determine that a given student scoring in, say, the basic range might in fact be performing at the same level as the prior year - a year in which the student was classified as proficient. In short, we dont fully know what to make of the lower percentages of students rated as proficient on the Benchmark tests in 2005 other than to say that the game changed and the tougher standards took their toll. Appraising test scores when standards change. All state testing systems face needs to change standards from time to time typically on the order of every five or six years. The meaning of proficient and other levels of performance needs occasional review in the context of state educational, economic, and cultural circumstances. Federal education policy directives or climate can also propel standards reviews and adjustments. One way that state systems have managed to maintain continuity between testing years where scores shift dramatically because of standards changes is to create a predictive model for the new scores. This model uses underlying numerical scores available for all Benchmark tests statistics called a scale scores for each student which can be averaged for each school. Scale scores are typically used to derive student proficiency level statistics and are designed to provide comparability of tests from year to year. The model incorporates factors that would reasonably predict average school scale scores from year to year. The most important factors predicting school test scores are the schools test scores from prior years. In addition, controlling for student family economic status renders predictions across schools more fair. A common linear regression procedure then links the predictive factors and scores across all schools mathematically. What results is an equation that uses a school's previous average student Page UI,4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 10 of 45 test scale score in a subject such as literacy along with its economic status to predict its current average scale score in the same subject. A simple model or equation for predicting test scores can be created from the information described. Then when actual data for each school are placed into the equation, a predicted test score is generated for each school. In our case, if we know a schools 2003 average literacy score, its 2004 average literacy score, and its economic disadvantage index, a unique 2005 score can be predicted. The equations we derived for literacy and math score prediction are shown at the bottom of Table III.B. 1 and Table 11I.B.2. respectively on the following two pages. States wanting to create sound indicators of whether or not schools are making annual progress build such models and derive predicted school scores. Then each schools actual score is compared to its predicted score. To the extent that a schools actual score exceeds its predicted score, the school is considered to have made progress through the current year. Schools whose actual test scores fall short of their predicted scores are considered to have fallen back and to not have made progress. The individual school statistic describing the difference between its predicted and its actual score is formally called a residual. Positive residual numbers indicate progress. Negative residual numbers indicate slippage - i.e. the actual scores fell short of predicted scores. Larger numbers or more negative numbers indicate larger degrees of progress or slippage respectively. Table IIl.B.l on the following page shows the results of our residual analyses of school level 2005 Benchmark literacy tests scores. Here is what is involved in the presentation: All LRSD elementary schools are listed. The literacy residual score is listed for each school. Pulaski for example scored 2.35 points lower than its predicted score. Dodd scored 11.44 points higher than its predicted score. Deviations from predicted scores of more than about 3.4 points (or about two standard errors) would be considered statistically significant and meaningful. A residual score is listed for each school - the five EY schools, the 12 EY comparison schools, and the other schools. How do EY schools fare in Uteracy? Three of the Extended Year schools have positive literacy score residuals, two of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that for at least two of these schools, these schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). One EY school shows a significant negative residual. The average literacy residual score for EY schools is a positive 2.8. How do Control Schools fare in literacy? Four of the twelve comparison schools show small positive literacy score residuals - none considered statistically significant. Among the remaining eight schools, six have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -3.72. Page III.5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 11 of 45 Table III.B.l Literacy Benchmark Residual Scores, Model School PULASKI WILUAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Pred.Lit.Score = Literacy Resid -2.35 -5.88 -4.31 -1.98 2.04 6.01 7.9 -5.86 11.44 -5.62 Control Residuals EY Residuals -4.22 9.48 1.17 2.53 Averages -5.12 2.53 -4.19 -6.6 -8.53 -5.18 -15.32 0.46 -1.18 2.92 0.23 -4.69 -3.7225 2.07 15.31 4.27 -7.2 -0.41 2.808 100.1 + (-24.1)SES04 + (.185)UT03 + (.385)UT04 R-Square Mean Scale Score St.Dev. SEM Minimum Maximum SES4 = % free and reduced price lunch LIT03 = 2003 sch. Lit. scale score LIT04 = 2003 school math scale score 0.66 198.28 9.54 1.71 198.29 218.66Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 12 of 45 Table III.B.2 Hathematics Benchmark Residual Scores, Model School PULASKI WILLIAMS TERRY BOOKER FULBRIGT OTTER McDERMT CARVER DODD ROCKFLER WAKFIELD WASHING MABEL BASELINE WESTERN KING FAIRPARK FRANKLIN ROMINE WOODRUFF RIHTSELL GEYER BALE MITCHELL CLOVER MEADOW CHICOT WILSON BRADY STEPHENS WATSON Math Resid 2.3 -24.46 31.88 -25.37 -8.18 4.03 40.6 8.16 33.2 -3.02 -21.04 2.12 4.27 21.37 Averages Control Residuals -31.22 -10.7 -32.64 -31.3 -41 2.13 -25.96 34.54 9.27 15.38 -20.6 9.1 -10.3 EY Residuals 44.09 48.8 23.27 -37.07 -20.14 11.8 Regression: Predicted 2005 Ma Sd.Score = 59.1-(11.85*SES)+.293*MathSS03+.492MathSS04 R-Square Mean Maximum Minimum St. Dev Std.Error 0.47 197.6 276.2 126.9 37.64 6.76 SES4 = % free and reduced price lunch MA03 = 2003 school math scale score MA04 = 2004 school math scale scoreCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 13 of 45 Without sifting this information with too fine a comb, the data suggest that the Extended Year schools modestly outperformed their conqjarison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. How do EY schools fare in mathematics? Table III.B.2 presents the results of our residual analyses of Benchmark mathematics test scores. A glaring difference between these data and the literacy residual scores is that the numbers are much larger - large positive and large negative numbers show up frequently. The reason for this is that there is a much wider range of scores in mathematics than in literacy, with larger variation throughout the distribution. (The minimum and maximum predicted scale scores, along with standard deviations, are shown at the bottom of each table.) In plain terms, math performance varies much more widely across Little Rock elementary schools than does literacy performance. As shown in the mathematics residual table, three of the EY schools have positive mathematics score residuals, all of which are statistically significant. The basic meaning of this is that these three schools did better than average based on their performance in the two prior years (and controlling for SES). Two EY schools show significant negative residuals. The average mathematics residual score for EY schools is a positive 11.8. How do Control Schools fare in mathematics? Five of the twelve comparison schools show positive mathematics score residuals - all considered statistically significant. All of the remaining seven control schools have significant negative literacy score residuals. The average residual for the EY comparison schools is negative, -10.3. These data suggest that the Extended Year schools significantly outperformed their comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy tests when test performance in 2003 and 2004 as well as economic status are taken into account. General caveat. It is important to remember that outperforming in the residual analyses does not necessarily mean that schools attained higher 2005 Benchmark test scores than others. It that means that schools did better than predicted based on past performance and student family economic status. Conclusion 111.2 Based on analyses of test score residuals, Extended Year schools very modestly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test and significantly outperformed comparison schools on the 2005 Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test. This result means that EY schools generally performed higher than would be expected from past performance and student demographics and that comparison schools generally fell short of predicted scores. Page III.6Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 14 of 45 Note - the Benchmark Test score trends for African American students between 2000 and 2004 are explored in Section IV. Page 111.7Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 15 of 45 Section IV. Effectiveness of Extended Year versus Comparison Schools LRSD Portfolio of Data In the fall of2005, the Little Rock School District published a draft report titled Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District. This is a rich document that presents statistics related to most of the issues conunonly tracked for schools. The report contains detailed displays of data each school, for each grade level, and for each of five school years, 2001 to 2005. Topics range across issues of attendance, student behavior, student mobility, and student achievement. For many topics, separate tables are presented for African American students. This last feature was attractive to our team, given our mission and the subjects of the litigation. This Portfolio of Data is a valuable resource for anyone wanting to do analyses of individual schools or groups of schools as well as wanting to conduct comparative analyses - across years or across schools. As we read the document, we identified seven mini-studies that the data would support. Each afforded opportunities to compare Exterrded Year schools with our Comparison schools - and to set these against data for all district elementary schools combined. We chose to explore all topics in the Portfolio of Data that would cormnonly be regarded as indicators of the performance or effectiveness of an elementary school. This was the resulting inventory: a. b. c. d. Student mobility. Student attendance. African American student attendance. Student disciplinary referrals. e. Short-term student suspensions. f. African American student performance on Benchmark math tests. g. African American student performance on Benchmark literacy tests. Approach to the analyses. We used the same methods to pursue all seven analyses as follows: We assessed students in grades 3,4, and 5 together. This selection reflected our interest in assessing students who potentially had enrolled for multiple years in the same school in order to benefit from whatever the school had to offer. And combining the grade levels supports indicators of whole school performance. We sought indications of performance-change over the past five years, from the earliest year to the latest year that data were reported. The EY school programs were launched during this time period and their effects stood to show up as changes in the Portfolios indicators, early to present. Page rV. 1Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page16of45 Our assessment of progress or change in each of the seven areas was based on average performance in the two most recent years (2003-04 and 2004-05) with the average performance in the first two years reported (2000-01 and 2001-02). This involved averaging the scores for each two year time period. When looking for trends in multi-year school data, change based on two year starting and ending points is less influenced by fluctuations in the statistics from one year to the next, which can mask patterns of change. We report growth as percentage changes in indicators for each of the seven areas. This choice reflects out interest in comparing these areas of performance in a common metric. Table IV. 1 on the following page shows the results of all seven analyses, and for each of the three groups of schools - all EY schools, Comparison schools, and all district elementary schools. Results. Positive advantages, i.e. higher percentage growth in measures, show for Extended Year schools than for control schools in all seven areas. In two areas, all student attendance and African American student attendance, the reported changes for all three groups are negligible and differences between school groups even smaller. In each of the five remaining areas, EY schools show quite favorably when contrasted with Comparison schools. We discuss each, starting from the leftmost column of Table IV. 1. Student mobility. EY schools showed a decline in student mobility of about 19 percent over the five years. This means that their students tended to stay longer in the same school as the years progressed. Comparison school student mobility remained unchanged over the five years, and the mobility of students across all elementary schools combined decreased by about 11 percent. Student disciplinary referrals. As shown in the fourth column of Table IV. 1, student disciplinary referrals in Extended Year schools declined by about 14 percent between 2000 and 2005. In contrast, student disciplinary referrals increased by 85 percent in Comparison schools and by 44 percent in all schools combined. Sborf-term suspensions. Change patterns in student suspensions paralleled change patterns in disciplinary referrals for the three groups of schools. Extended Year schools experienced a nearly 25 percent decline in short-term suspensions, while suspensions grew in Comparison schools by two-thirds and in all schools by about 34 percent between 2000 and 2005. African American student math proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark mathematics test rose considerably in Extended Year schools Page IV.2Tble rv.l Percentage Change In Selected Indicators from 2001 to 2005, Extended Year Schools, Hatched Cempariaon Schools, and All Elementary Schools Student Mobility Average Student Attendance Days African American Student Attendance Student Disciplinary Referrals Short-term Suspensions Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Math Tests Share of African American Students Proficient, Benchmark Literacy Tests EY Schools Comparison Schs. Atl Elem Schools Notes: Growth (o decline) in percentage terms 49.10% 0.13% -11.36% Sig.Diff. 1.63% 1.96% 13.86% I -24.38% I 178.43% I 154.76% EY Schools 1.59% 1.31% 84.98% 66.67% 102.46% 98.02% Comparison Schs. 2.26% 2.01% 43.54% 34.14% 54.61% No Significant differences Significant differences 58.67% All Elem Schools (Significant difference refers to Extended Year Schools vs. Comparison Schools.) 1. Data Source: LSRD: Portfolio of Data for the Little Rock School District, 2005 2. Benchmark Test proficiency comparisons are 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (averaged to establish a a baseline) versus 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 (averaged to establish outcome years). 3. The remaining five comparisons compare 2004 and 2005 data to 2000 and 2001 data. 4. Combining two early and two late years respectively for pre- and post- measures provides more stable estimates than single school years, for which values tend to fluctuate due to random influences. O 0) cn CD 4^ do N3 a O O 00 a\u0026gt; 5 O o o c 3 CD Ca3 CO CD 00 Q ex O O O CD T 0) (Q CD O cnCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 18 of 45 between 2000 and 2004' - by 178 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also increase - but by lower margins: 102 percent and 55 percent respectively. African American student literacy proficiency. The percentage of Extended Year school African American students rated as proficient on the Grade 4 Benchmark literacy test also rose considerably between 2000 and 2004 - by 155 percent. The percentages of African American students scoring at proficient levels in Comparison schools and in all schools also grew - again by less than the growth attained for the EY schools: 98 percent and 59 percent respectively. Summing up The statistics presented in Table IV. 1 comparing patterns of change across seven performance indicators uniformly favor Extended Year schools over Comparison schools, in five areas substantially so. While it may ultimately prove difficult to link each of these indicators to conditions brought to the schools by virtue of participation in the Extended Year program, the uniformity of the trends reported suggests that some thing or things in common have been productively at work in the Extended Year schools. Conclusion IV.l. Extended year schools show significantly more progress between 2000 and 2005 than Comparison schools in five important indicators: student mobility, disciplinary referrals, short-term suspensions, and African American student proficiency in both mathematics and literacy. Two indicators of attendance rates showed no meaningful change for either group of schools. The magnitude of these changes for EY schools and their consistent outpacing of changes in Comparison schools is a significant indication of positive developments in Extended Year schools. The Portfolio of Data presents Benchmark test proficiency statistics for only four schools years - up through 2003-2004. The changes rqxtrted here are for the time span 2000 through 2004. We noted earlier that Benchmark proficiency scores declined systematically between 2004 and 2005, and declined for all schools because of standards resetting. This change for 2005 is not accommodated in this analysis. Page rv.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 19 of 45 Section V. Assessing Extended Year School Intersessions A core component of the Extended Year school is the Intersession (IS). These are one or two week special study units that serve to extend the school year by as much as four weeks into late June each year. The intersession programs vary a great deal mainly offering special interest topics. They are not designed as academic remediation opportunities. Many regular school teachers take the opportunity to diversify their teaching and to earn extra compensation for conducting Intersession classes. About sixty percent of enrolled students in the Extended Year schools as of spring 2005 had participated in between 1 and 3 Intersessions. As shown in Table V.2 below, about 65 percent of all students in the Extended Year schools and 59 percent of African American students were IS participants. Because the number of non African American students in EY schools amounts account for only about 10 percent of students, these different participation rates imply that the approximately 60 non-African American students participate in Intersessions at very high rates. In this section of our report, we display two ways of assessing the academic importance of intersession attaidance. We must begin with the caution that because the Intersessions themselves are generally not devoted specific to mathematics or literacy skills, we would not expect strong influences on test scores due to the nature of Intersession instruction. Yet all Intersessions involve the use of the English language in a variety of ways. And they most probably incorporate language that is more aligned with school reading, writing, and spoken word than with out-of-school language. Moreover, Intersessions cause students to remain in school and school-like environments of the school year that what students experiences in regular calendar schools. over more Intersessions also keep children in something of an in-school frame of mind for longer school year than what children experience in non Extended Year schools. a Our inquiry results are consistent with an Intersession program with the qualities described above. As we soon present. Intersession attendance within EY schools is associated with small but meaningful academic advantages. Intersessions and proficiency scores basic comparisons. Table V.l on the following page presents an overview of Intersession participation and the differences in student performance between Intersession attendees (lAs) and non-attendees (NAs). The following are the most important perspectives shown on these issues: Of the 589 grade 3, 4, and 5 EY school students, 342 had attended one or more Intersesskms and 244 had not. The student SES (economic disadvantage) percentages differ by only one point for the two groups. Page V. ICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 20 of 45 Table V.l All EY Schools, Intercession Participants vs. Non-participants, by selected groups and performance outcomes, Grades 3, 4, and 5\nN=589 LR District All 5 Extended year (EY) schools: Attended Intercession Did Not Attend I.S. N students (Grades 3-5) 5630 342 244 Percent Econ. Disadvantaged 64.0% 82.0% 83.0% % Proficient Literacy 39.5% 26.0% 19.7% % Proficient Math 35.5% 25.1% 22.2% Race/Ethnic Distr: African American White Hispanic Asian, Pacific Is 68.5% 22.3% 4.1% 5.0% 92.7% 4.1% 2.0% 1.2% 88.0% 4.0% 4.4% 3.6% N of students N of sessions 244 90 121 132 0 0 1 2 3 4 pageCase 4:82-cv-00866-\\/VRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 21 of 45 Proficiency scores, using for our purposes the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level in the 2005 Benchmark tests, are higher for lAs than for NAs. In literacy, the advantage for IS attendees is 26 percent proficient versus just under 20 percent proficient for non-attendees. The difference in mathematics is smaller - about 25 percent proficient versus 22 percent. While these differences and distinctions are small, they are consistent with some sort of language effect of Intersession attendance involved with language in various ways but not generally involved with mathematics instruction or math-related experiences. Table V.l also shows the racial/ethnic breakdown of both the lA and NA groups - the attending group was nearly 93 percent Afiican American, while the non-attending group was a smaller 88 percent Afiican American. Also shown in Table V.l are the number of Intersessions taken by children in the attendee group - 132 had taken 3 sessions, 121 had taken 2 sessions, and 90 attendees had taken 1 Intersession among the 2005 students in EY schools. Table V.2 shows contrasts between Intersession attendees and NAs in finer detail than Table V.l, while also showing statistics specifically for African American students as well some baseline comparisons statistics for all LRSD students. In general, similar academic performance advantages for Intersession attendees show for both Afi-ican American and for all students. This makes sense given that about 90 percent of the EY school students are African American. Raw test scores (number of items correct on the 2005 literacy and math Benchmark tests) are shown along with test scale scores and the patterns in these scores parallel those reported for student proficiency. The message in the test comparisons, no matter which scores are used, is the small performance advantage shown for Intersession attendees over non-attendees. While the difference is very small and statistically insignificant, the advantages accruing to Intersession attendance appear to be a little smaller for Afiican American students than for all students combined. After the next analysis which gets at the same questions in a different way, we comment further on the small differences between lAs and NAs shown in Table V.2 data. Correlations of Intersession attendance with achievement indicators. Another way to explore the implications of Intersession attendance is a straightforward look at correlations between attendance (versus non-attendance) on the one hand and available performance indicators on the other hand. This analysis asks the question, does Intersession attendance associate with (or correlate with) higher individual literacy math scores? For this analysis we assigned a 1 to each student who had attended one or or nrore Intersessions and a 0 to non-attendees. We then incorporated more differentiated scales of literacy and mathematics than just proficiency versus non-proficiency. We used literacy and mathematics performance levels scaled 1 through 4 to capture the below basic to advanced range in student performance. We also explored literacy and math test raw scores (numbers of items correct) as alternative indicators of performance. Since the basic Page V.2Tble V.2 Student performance In EY schools by participation In Intercessions\nAll students and All African American Students, Grades 3, 4, and 5. 2005 For nf^renco! All Little Rock Student^^n^ 3-5 All students In Extended Year Schools (NarSSS): Attended Intercession Did Not Attend l.S. N S664 343 249 Percent attending or not: 64.5% 35.5% Percent econ DIsadv. 65.8 82.0% 80.3% % Proficient Literacy 59.5 26.0% 19.7% % Proficient Math 55. S 25.1% 22.2% Average Raw score, 2005 Literacy (sd) 56.5 18.1 50.7 19.2 45.8 20 Average Raw score, 2005 Math (sd) 56 16.6 33 17.7 29.7 17.2 Grade 4 Ave scale score Literacy (sd) 205 52.6 189.1 38.4 188.3 0.28 Grade 4 Ave seels score Math (sd) 207.8 95.5 190.8 108 183.9 108.6 (sd) Indicates standard deviation All African American Students In Extended Year Schools (N=539) Attended Intercession Did Not Attend l.S. 318 219 59.2% 40.8% 84.3% 81.3% 24.6% 23.3% 50 18.1 30.7 16.1 189.7 33.1 180.2 100.3 19.1% 21.0% 45.5 19.8 29.2 16.7 187.8 27.6 179.24. 108.2 page O 0) (Ji (D 4:^ do NO 6 O O 00 05 O) -1 O O O c 3 CD W LD LD 00 CD Q. O w o o 05 T3 0) co to N) l\\5 O UICase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 23 of 45 concerns surrounding academic achievement are focused on standards and the requirements of No Child Left Behind, the performance level indicators should be considered more important than the raw score indicators. Table V.3 on the following page displays a standard correlation matrix showing relationships among five different variables, including literacy and mathematics performance indicators as well as Intersession attendance. The boxes contain data describing correlations between the scores in each row (labeled on the left side of the matrix), and the scores displayed respectively across the tops of the columns. (The top number in each cell shows the correlation coefficient (Pearsons r), the center number is a standard indicator of statistical significance - any number less than .050 implies a significant correlation, and the bottom number is the number of students involved in the analysis. Note: the asterisks attaching to the correlation coefficients also conform to standard statistical reporting. Correlation coefficients with one asterisk are significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Two asterisks indicate a 99 percent confidence level. Ninety-five percent and higher confidence levels signify that the correlations show real positive relationships between the two scores as opposed to chance or spurious associations.) Correlations show as the number 1 in a diagonal row of boxes result when an indicator is correlated with itself- perfect correlation. As another example of reading from this matrix, literacy performance levels correlate very highly with literacy raw scores\nthe correlation coefficient is .895 and this correlation is significant at the 99 percent confidence level. The main display of interest in the Table V.3 matrix is the bottom row. Reading across, this shows correlations between Intersession attendance and four respective performance indicators: literacy performance level, literacy raw scores, math performance levels and math raw scores. All of these performance indicators derive from the 2005 Benchmark standards tests. Intersession attendance would have occurred largely in spring 2004 and spring 2003. A few sessions would go back as far as spring 2002 for these students. What is shown is fairly straightforward. Intersession attendance correlates positively and significantly with both literacy indicators, and with the mathematics test raw scores. The correlation between Intersession attendance and mathematics performance level warrants about a 0.91 confidence level approaching statistical significance. While there are positive correlations between Intersession attendance and the literacy and mathematics performance indicators, the correlations are small - all are in the 0.10 range. These small correlations are entirely consistent with the contrasts in proficiency levels between Intersession attendees and non-attendees reported in the previous analysis and shown in Table V.l. Page V.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 24 of 45 TABLE V.3 INTERSESSION CORRELATIONS WITH PERFORMANCE ALL GRADE 3,4 and 5 EY STUDENTS, 2005 QmbtioDs UnTLEV LTHflEV I^arson Cone btion Sig. (2-ta)kd) K LTTRAW .895* MAPBtfLV .686* MATHRAW .733* intersessicxt yes no .101* UTMW Pearson Cone btion Sig. (2-tailed} N f^arson Corre btion Sig. (2-taibd) N MATHRAW Pearson Cone btion Sig. P-uiled) N 589 .895* .000 589 ,686* .000 589 .733* .000 589 .000 .000 .000 .032 589 595 .679* .000 589 .756* .000 595 589 589 454 .679* .756* .124* .000 589 589 .932* .000 589 .000 595 .932* .000 589 595 .008 460 .080 .089 454 .093* .046 460 inlerscssion yes no T^arson Corre btion Sig. (2-taibd) N .101* .124* .032 .008 .080 .089 j093* .046 454 460 454 460 460 NWPHUTV 1 I I 1 1 \"* Cbrretaiion is signiTcant al the 0.01 level (2- tailed), *. Oxrelation is signiBcant al the 0.05 levd (2- (aikd). LITPFLEV LITRAW MAPERFLV MATHRAW Literacy performance level Literacy raw Score (N items correct) Mathematics performance level Mathematics raw score (N items correct) Intersession Yes/NO Contrasts students who have taken one or more EY intersessions with those who have not participated.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 25 of 45 Interpretative note. The performance advantages shown in Table V. 1 and Table V.2 are statistically significant, but the differences are small. The differences are real, but there is no certain way of answering an important underlying question. This is whether the differences result from intersession attendance, or whether they simply reflect differences between students who choose to attend Intersessions and those who do not. In typical appraisals of this sort of quandary, the larger are the differences the greater is the importance of the question. So this is not a crucial question facing this evaluation. There is some reason to not be too concerned about the genesis of performance differences shown in this section for Intersession attendees. Under either circumstance, we would be inclined to recommend that students attend Intersessions. As one possibility, the experience would provide a boost to achievement. As another possibility, students who choose to attend Intersessions give themselves an opportunity to associate and work with students who, on average, are doing somewhat better in school. This alternative possibility might also bring advantages to Intersession attendees. Conclusion V.l. Two different analyses point to small performance advantages for students who attend Extended Year school Intersessions in comparison to students who do not attend. Direct comparisons of the percentages of students proficient on the 2005 Benchmark tests point to this conclusion. And our analysis of correlations between Intersession attendance and academic indicators comes to the same conclusion. Academic performance may be boosted by Intersession attendance\nalternatively or in some combined way, the observed differences may reflect just which students choose to attend Intersessions and which students do not. Under either circumstance, a sound argument for attending Intersessions can be made. Page V.4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 26 of 45 Section VI. Surveys of Parents, Students, and Teachers Specialized Parent Interviews This section reports the results of three years of surveys of Extended Year school parents, students, and teachers. We also conducted a set of in-depth telephone interviews with EY school parents who had parent experience in both EY and regular calendar schools. Some of the children of interviewed parents had transferred schools, some parents had students in both types of schools, and some parents had experienced the conversion of their school from a regular calendar to Extended Year. In all of these instances, parents were in a position to point out differences between the two sorts of school experiences. Survey methods. LRSD research and evaluation staff began surveys of EY school parents, students, and teachers in 2002-2003. The questions in these surveys focused on academic achievement issues as well as on qualities of the EY experience. For this evaluation, we replicated verbatim the multiple-choice questions past year surveys. This provided continuity and opportunities to assess changes in responses over time. The multiple choice questions from these surveys can be seen in Tables VLl.C, VI.2.G, and 17.3.0 below where we present consolidated tallies of three years of parent, student, and teacher surveys respectively. Each of these tables shows all of the survey questions along with distributions of responses. We also invited parents, students, and teachers to respond in writing to open questions related to differences between EY school and regular calendar school experiences. These open-response questions focused on achievement issues and offered opportunities for respondents to suggest ways to improve EY schools. These open questions were composed with consultation from the LRSD PRE staff who in turn consulted with individual EY school personnel as these questions were written. These questions were concerned mainly with differences between Extended Year schools and traditional calendar schools. The surveys were finalized in late summer of 2005. The surveys were administered to students in grades 3,4, and 5 by LRSD PRE staff who coordinated administration efforts in the five EY schools. Schools sent parent surveys home and collected completed surveys. And EY school teachers completed our surveys directly. For the three-year period, we amassed 525 individual parent surveys, 636 student surveys, and 157 teacher surveys. The teacher survey response rate was close to 100 percent. Parent and student survey returns rates were about 30 percent overall. Page VI. 1Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 27 of 45 Presenting interview data for this draft report. The following 26 pages display a great many statistics and much information generated from our parent student and teacher surveys. We also append to this report 30 pages of survey data showing results for EY schools individually. Here is a guide to what is included, in order: From Parent Surveys Table VI.l.F Table VI.2.F.2 Table VI. l.G Parent written response table Parent comparisons of schools Consolidated parent survey data for eight multiple choice questions 1 page 2 pages 3 pages From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Table VI.2.G Student written response table. Consolidated student survey data for 11 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3.F Table V1.3.G Teacher written response table Consolidated teacher survey data for 12 multiple choice questions 1 page 3 pages From Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and response distributions for 8 questions 12 pages Appendix: Individual school results from parent, student and teacher surveys 30 pages Our final report will go further in its analyses of our survey and interview results than we do in the coming pages. For this Draft Report, we focus on the core issue of student achievement and the differences that the Extended Year calendar may bring to students. We draw on observations and assessments from each table. All contrasts reported are between Extended Year and regular calendar year schools. Page VI.2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 28 of 45 Working notes on survey and interview tables From Parent Surveys Table VI.l.F Parent written response table 1 pages About two-thirds of parents report that EY schools are better when it comes to student academic success. The largest cluster of reasons for this is that shorter breaks cause students to forget less and that staying in school longer helps keep student minds fresh. Parent suggestions for improvement of the EY program are spread across several ideas, although more than half claim there is no need for improvement. Suggestions include more educational opportunities (e.g. as opposed to recreational or hobby-focused Intersessions), more tutoring, better parent information, and better childcare to boost after school and intersession opportunities. Table VI.2.F.2 Parent survey quotes 2 pages This table contains the raw quotes that support the analysis of parent survey comments presented in the previous table. Table VI.l.F Table VI.LG Consolidated parent survey data 3 pages This table displays distributions of parent answers to multiple-choice questions on the parent survey. Tlu-ee years of parent survey data are consolidated for this presentation. The most important observations regarding student achievement from this table include: Just over half of all parents cite higher achievement in EY schools and over 60 percent would prefer that their children continue in EY schools. A large majority of parents believe that children are more interested in school when in EY schools. Half of the parents favor the expansion of the EY model to other schools. From Student Surveys Table VI.2.F Student written response table. 1 page The student quotes reveal mixed feelings on the part of students about whether or not students do better academically in EY schools. Positive answers center on having Page V1.3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 29 of 45 more time in school and having a greater variety of school experiences. Negative answers are spread out, but concentrate somewhat on the fact that some EY students have siblings in regular schools and that the clash of calendars can be disruptive. Table VI.2.G Consolidated student survey data 3 pages Students report more interest in school in EY schools (84 percent) and that the EY school teachers are more patient and helpful (89 percent). These two questions gained more consensus than other questions across all surveys. Most (79 percent) feel that they have more time to secure extra help when its needed. About 56 percent of students claim that they leant more in the EY structure than in regular schools. Students do not favor shorter vacation periods, however. From Teacher Surveys Table VI.3. F Teacher written response table i page As with parents and student, teachers offered comments indicating that students achieve at higher levels in EY schools than in regular calendar schools. The teachers who feel this way report three main reasons: students forget less with shorter TTXivr ivvi uno waj icpvii uucc iiidiii rcdbunb. siuaeiiis lorget summers, the whole schedule produces less stress and less burnout that regular calendars, and it is easier for students to catch up in EY schools if they get behind. Among teachers feeling that EY schools do not present academic advantages, many report that there is essentially no difference between the two types of calendars when it comes to academic achievement\nothers cite attendance problems at Intersessions in the EY schools as holding back what could be higher student performance. Teacher suggestions for improving EY schools include adding professional development opportunities for EY school teachers, extending all schools to the EY model to bring benefits to all and to make school calendars consistent for all children. A prominent suggestion for improvement was adjusting the calendar to have a shorter break in February and a longer break before Intersessions in May. Table VI.3.G Consolidated teacher survey data 3 pages Teachers are less positive than parents or students about the relative academic benefits of Extended Year schooling. Just over one-third of teachers feel that EY schools boost academic achievement. They tend to agree that EY schools bring a wider variety of educational experiences to their students and two thirds believe that students benefit from the Intersessions. A majority believes that EY schools offer more academic continuity. Page VI.4Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 30 of 45 About half of teachers find EY schools less stressful A large majority of teachers report that they benefit from opportunities to earn stipends for optional Intersession employment. Rounding up the surveys There are many questions worth exploring in the survey data we collected. The constituents involved, especially parents and teachers, will probably take interest in the results. Discussions of the surveys may lead to further insights and suggestions for Extended year schools and we will seek feedback before submitting the final report. But we venture one survey-based conclusion at this point regarding our most important subject, student achievement. Conclusion VI.l. The parent, student, and teacher surveys accumulated over three years provide an overall appraisal of comparative achievement conditions in EY versus regular calendar schools. The result is that when reporting academic advantages or on conditions that might contribute to academic advantages, about 60-65 percent of parents and students report higher achievement in EY schools. Teachers report better conditions for learning, but fewer, only about 35 percent, report actual academic achievement differences favoring EY schools when asked this question directly. These survey results are wholly consistent with our data based achievement assessments presented in sections III, IV, and V. The general characterization gained in these analyses was that there are small but statistically significant differences in literacy and mathematics achievement favoring EY students. This applies both for 2005 Benchmark tests and also as we tracked performance trends over the past five years. What the parents, students, and teachers reported supports this result. Parent Interviews Detailed displays of quotes and responses. 12 pages The final entry in Section VI of this report is our report of our parent interviews. The responses to parent interviews will be set against insights reported by parents. students, and teachers from surveys for the final report. The parent interviews, having been conducted in fall of 2005 also serve a contemporary check on conditions in EY schools from the parents perspectives. Page VI.5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 31 of 45 Appendix School level survey data 30 pages Detailed reports of all survey data by school are shown in the appendix to this report. These data were the building blocks for the consolidated interview data we have focused on for this draft report. These individual school charts may inspire feedback from constituents at specific schools as we proceed to our final report. Page VI .6TABLE VI.l.F Parent Discussion Questions 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because: Keeps students' minds fresh/they forget less during breaks More time for educatlon/less distractions Keeps them focused on school They learn more My student likes it Gives students who are behind more time to catch up Student gets more vacation time #thls answer 26 21 21 17 3 7 6 total who answered 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 %this answer 19% 15% 15% 12% 2% 5% 4% No, Because: Student is left out from summer activltes and family vacations Student gets burned out Kids in the family are on different schedules Childcare problems for working parent 14 66 11 138 138 138 138 10% 4% 4% 8% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? More educational activities and field trips More tutoring Childcare for working parents during after school and intersessions More favorable teacher/student ratio Keep parents more informed Good as Is/No Improvements needed 14 17 15 3 12 26 87 87 87 87 87 87 16% 20% 17% 3% 14% 30% page O fl) cn (fl 4s. do ho cS \u0026lt; o o 00 (35 (35 -I 73 O o n c3 CD CO co co 00 31 ((D2 . O wM O O 05 QT)3 (tQo CO ho O UI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI.1.F.2 Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 33 of 45 Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Because it provides a continuous learning environment and a safe place to be. I feel that Year Round Education has kept my childrens minds active and they retain more of what they learn. Educators spend more time teaching rather than re-teaching skills that have been displaced due to long gaps within the summer. I feel that the short breaks within the school year give the parents, teachers, and -------------- J UX ^14 LOy kVUVllVi aj IKJ students much needed time away from school activities, such as homework, etc., and when school resumes everyone comes back replenished. I dont like YRE because the program takes away summer vacation from the children and their family. I think they have more time to know the concept of study in the YRE school. Its not the length of time at school, its the quality and caring of the teachers and assistants. The staff are more attentive with students. Intersessions give students the opportunity to do extra educational activities during school hours. I think the year round school molds kids into loving school and I think it will help a lot of children in the long run because I think the longer you work at something the more things you can accomplish. Year round schools interfere with our family vacations in the summer. We cannot plan our family activities now as we did before because we knew the months the kids were out of school. Students should have their summer available to stay away from regular academic studies for fun and refreshment. My kids are fed up with the year round program and are starting to dislike school. The YRE school has not been beneficial to my child due to the fact that she was never included in the intersessions. She is not performing to the best of her abilities and could have used the extra help. I am very disappointed in the YRE. We were never notified of the intersession in time to sign up. Its good because the student doesnt have a long period between breaks. This allows the student to remember previous information. My daughter aint learning nothing anyway. Her teacher is just giving her grades to pass her to the next grade. My daughter is a first grader and she cant read she dont know small words like was, come, is, words like that. There is no difference. The students spend the same amount of time in school, just different time spans.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI.1.F.2 Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page34of45 Question 2: How Can we improve Year Round Education Schools? Making their summer vacation a little longer and start their summer with regular school. By making intersession available for every child who wishes to attend. I think they need to have tutors. Like hire students from high school. They help the little ones and they can have some cash. Have more meetings and have the parents come in and see what the parents are doing in class. Make conferences with the teachers and parents. Keep the parents excited about the program and let them know how important it is that parents are visible so our children can develop in a more positive academic manner. I think they need more teachers and less students in the classrooms because some students struggle more than others and need more attention. They need to have teachers who just work with struggling students, so it wont effect the students who are where they need to be. Teachers need more time with kids and really teach them what they know. Ive come across a lot of teachers who are not happy doing what they do and its just sad because I get scared that it will make school a bad experience for my daughter. I think they should stop being so mean and let the children talk at lunch and on the playground. Revamp the curriculum to coincide with testing. Make sure VOUr Student.s are wnrHno nn thpir your students working on their educational level. Some students are more advanced than others. They need to be taught on that level any other will stifle what they are learning and they become bored.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 35 of 45 TABLE VI.l.G CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED. My children show a greater interest in their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 395 55 75 525 525 525 525 75% 10% 14% 100% My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 306 153 64 523 523 523 523 59% 29% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 313 115 102 530 530 530 530 59% 22% 19% 100% N = My children have achieved at a higher level than in their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 282 120 130 532 532 532 532 0 53% 23% 24% #DIV/0! Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 405 75 43 523 523 523 523 77% 14% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N = Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 383 92 65 540 540 540 540 71% 17% 12% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 36 of 45 CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED CONT'D This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 278 118 145 541 541 541 541 51% 22% 27% 100% I want my children to continue in this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total Percent 337 111 89 537 537 537 537 63% 21% 17% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total 100 430 530 0 0 429 29 53 511 Number of children in a YRE school 8 16 24 235 183 97 21 536 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 2 3 4+ total 147 168 124 37 23 499Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 37 of 45 CONSOLIDATED PARENT COMPARISONS, EY VS. REGULAR SCHOOL SCHED CONT'D Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar Elementary Middle school senior high 124 81 58 Grade level of children K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 15 148 153 119 120 143 698Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR TABLE VI. I F Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 38 of 45 YRE Schools: Collected Student Quotes Question 1: Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students 0110000/19 f _ _ I __ .O succeed? Why do you feel this way? Year round school help us learn for a long time because we go longer. My year round school is better because we got a computer lab. Yes. 1feel this way because 1 like being out of school. No. I think that because when I cousin is out I be still going to school. No. J feel very good at the regular school and I study more every day there. Yes. It helps your education and we gel caught up more on fourth grade work. 1 say yes because you can learn more. Also you can get ~c~c .Nsc Yes. Because you are starling to talk in English and get friends you will know better. No. the reason why is because we 're always out and we 're hardly learning. Yes. 1 think il does because you can learn more things about school and learn to do different more education. Also get better at things. kinds of work. Yes. Why I pick yes because J like doing work. No. I feel this way because all the other schools are out and we are still in. I like all yearround because you be out for a month. And plus you get to spend time with your family you get to stay up and night until you feel sleepy. Yes. I feel this wav because vnu stnv tn feel way you stay in school you learn No. Mv brother is out of school whUo 7 rtrtt itt My yvhile J am in school. more. No. My other school was more advanced and if we have short period vacations I forget stuff and lose discipline. Yes. Because we can go for recess one in the morning in second recess you can gel pizza and candy. Kes. Because you gel a lot of education in your life. Question 2: How can we improve Year Round Education? lEe need new teachers to help us learn new stuff. We could improve with a new playground. We have to improve by building a new school. They should have a new playground and new restrooms. New playground. Urgent. Go on more field trips. And new restroom. They can let us stay in until June I because then 1 can get out with my I think they are fine and the year round schools can stay like they are. ney need to improve because my friends they are telling me school information that I have not cousins. heard about they are smarter than me. By gelling teachers to help us understand our work. They got to make new playground. JVe can improve them by letting someone help you. I will make a list: Nice teachers some are mean. Kill these bugs, put a new lock on the school lit is looking like a dump. More intercessions. You can start by telling everyone in this school about it and start having calendars about year rnunfl U/n on., _1____ . round. We can even send a letter home about it. It will make it belter if they change it like regular schools. By not having short vacations and having belter classrooms, better technology, and better lunches. By letting us play, be out of uniform, and do fun things. Gel a bigger TV. pageCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 39 of 45 TABLE VI.2.G STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED I have been more interested in my education this year. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 524 50 62 636 N= 636 636 636 0 Percent 84% 3% 13% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 243 346 53 642 N= 642 642 642 0 Percent 39% 49% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 370 150 108 628 N= 628 628 628 0 Percent 56% 10% 34% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 329 242 76 647 N= 647 647 647 0 Percent 50% 38% 12% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 525 59 60 644 N= 644 644 644 0 Percent 89% 4% 7% 100%Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 40 of 45 STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONT'D I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 493 85 75 653 N= 653 653 653 0 Percent 79% 10% 11% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 474 99 78 651 N= 651 651 651 0 Percent 84% 8% 8% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 408 124 119 651 N= 651 651 651 0 Percent 71% 13% 16% 100% My parents like the extended-year program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total 368 138 140 646 N= 646 646 646 0 Percent 60% 15% 26% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 286 275 73 634 634 634 634 0 53% 24% 24% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 41 of 45 STUDENT SURVEYS CONSOLIDATED CONTD Intersession has helped me be a better student. Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 357 100 120 577 577 577 577 0 62% 20% 18% 100% Gender Male Female Total 291 353 644 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 562 20 54 636 Grade Level 3rd 4th 5th Total 236 234 232 504 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 7 6 10 9 4 3 47TABLE VI.B.F Teacher discussion questions. 2005 l.Do you think Year Round Education is better than regular school for helping students succeed? Why do you feel this way? Yes, Because\nN total Percent Less time reteaching/kids don't forget as much over break More extracurricular activites and enrichment Easier for kids who are behind to catch up Less stressful/less burnout for kids and teachers Like the extra time In school Kids need structure during the summer this answer: responses: this answer\n22 49 12 21 50 50 50 50 50 50 44% 8% 18% 24% 4% 2% No, Because: Both are the same--schedule does not matter Students' attendance Is low at YREs/Students leave in the summer Childcare is difficult for parents during breaks Too many breaks create MORE need to re-teach More burnout for teachers and students 11 11 377 39 39 39 39 39 28% 28% 8% 18% 18% 2. How can we improve Year Round Education Schools? Better schedule/Shorter February break longer May break Open Intercession to all students Schedule Trainings and In-Service days for YRE teachers Teachers need more Input on the curriculum and calendar Extend YRE to all schools/make all schools the same Change testing dates 15 5 17 9 12 5 63 63 63 63 63 63 24% 8% 27% 14% 19% 8% page O fl) Ch CD 4^ do cS O O 00 o \u0026lt;L O O CD c3 (D Z3 W CD CD 00 CD CL O W CD CD CT) T3 Q\u0026gt; CQ CD -Cx O cn Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 43 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated My students show a greater interest in their educational program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 66 45 50 161 161 161 161 Percent 41% 28% 31% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 104 19 29 152 152 152 152 Percent 68% 13% 19% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 99 37 20 156 156 156 156 Percent 63% 24% 13% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 56 52 52 160 160 160 160 Percent 35% 33% 33% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 24 87 47 158 158 158 158 Percent 15% 55% 30% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 44 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district on an optional basis. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N= 82 50 25 157 157 157 157 Percent 52% 32% 16% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 77 54 26 157 157 157 157 Percent 49% 34% 17% 100% My students benefit from their intersession(s). Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 102 21 33 156 156 156 156 Percent 65% 13% . 21% 100% N = The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 87 39 32 158 158 158 158 Percent 55% 25% 20% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85 55 19 159 159 159 159 Percent 53% 35% 12% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 45 of 45 TABLE VI.3.G Teacher Surveys Consolidated CONT'D The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number Agree Disagree No Opinion total N = 69 57 27 153 153 153 153 Percent 45% 37% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Agree Disagree No Opinion total Number 129 16 14 159 N= 159 159 159 Percent 81% 10% 9% 100% Male Female Total 15 132 147 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 67 72 2 141Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 received F/ s DESEGBEgSStoIIITORIIIG Little Rock, Arkansas Family Interviews Year-round - vs - 9-month SchoolsCase 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 36 LnTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS Question 1: What was the reason your child(ren) changed from 9-month to EY calendar? Description Percestage of Responses The school changed horn 9-month to EY. 69% My child transferred horn a 9-month school to an EY school. 25% Multiple children. Both reasons apply. 6% Free Responses: \"We were already in the area.\" (18 responses) \"We moved into the district.\" (4 responses) \"I don't know why the school changed. 1 guess they were just trying something new.\" They've been going for so long, I don't even remember when things changed or why.\" The school changed and we were not happy about it at all. \"I don't really know why the school changed.\" Cloverdale is a much better school than where they were going. The one we were at was pretty awful.\" \"I had one school that one his home school, but my other one was here, so I got him transferred because it's easier for me for dropping them off.\" \"I'm in the neighborhood. I just adopted them, and Plasco Heights didn't have enough room for them.\" They were having problems at Forest Park, and I decided to put them in a black school. There was a larger black student population at Woodruff.\" \"It was in the neighborhood, and I liked the school\" \"We moved closer to this school, so I moved my younger son here, but I still have another child at our old school. /?4SOWS FOR CHANCme TO YEAR-ROUHD SCHOOL DCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 3 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 2: What are the main differences you see between EY and 9-month schools? Desoipfion Percentage o( Responses Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus 58.9% Childcare a problem with EY 11.1% Don't know or no difference 16.87% No difference 5.6% Better learning with EY\nEY better 30.9% Less learning loss in EY 8.3% Intersession noted as difference 8.3% Free Responses: Schedule difference, neither plus nor minus \"They go longer than the tegular school and the summer is much shorter. \"Well, actually the only difference I've noticed is that they seem to be out more than everyone else.\" \"They have more vacations. That's about it' \"The difference is that it seemed like they were out a little more often.\" What I noticed is that they are out more than the public school is.\" \"Naturally they go a little longer and they start earlier.\" \"I actually liked it a lol It seems like the kids are in school a lot longer. I know it just seems that way, but I liked it\" \"Well, obviously they don't have the long summer break.\" Childcare a problem with EY \"The only differences I noticed were that they dont get as long a vacation during the summer, and it's also tough to find a babysitter for the days when they are out The days that she was out was difficult\" (free responses continued on next page) DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SCHOOLS 2Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 4 of 36 UTTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"What are the main differences,\" continued from previous page. Childcare a problem with EY \"They have less time out, and they have an extra week called Intercession where they do special things. The only thing that is really different is that if you have a middle school kid, it really throws off the balance in the family when they are out for two weeks and you don't have anybody to watch them.\" \"The year round school is so different I don't like it Period. It's important to have their summer open so that you can take family trips Also, the year round school is really hard for working parents. With the 9-month calendar it is easier to restnjcture the family schedule. \"It makes it very difficult for us to do family vacations do trips or plan anything together because our oldest was in high school and they weren't on a year-round calendar.\" \"Academically, I'm a big fan of that school anyway. At the time I wasn't crazy about it because I was working and it was hard to find childcare. Don't know or no difference \"I really can't say.\" \"I dont really know.\" \"All the work seems to be about the same. Maybe a little more of it since they are in school more. I don't really know.\" No difference \"No. I didnt notice anything.\" \"Well, it seems to be doing the same thing. He does his homework\nhe studies. I havent noticed any differences.\" Better learning with EY\nEY better \"The kids learned more. My sixth grader is in the seventh grade now and they are on a regular calendar, and it's the first time he's ever gotten an F in his whole life. He was always on the honor roll before. \"Yes. It seems like they get farther ahead. He seems like he has really learned a lot. \"I love that school My kids loved it I wish they could still go there. I just liked everything about it They learned better, the Resource classes were good, and they really liked the Inter-sessions They whole school was really, really good. l really liked Stephens They were more attentive to the students They learned more. \"It seems, well, it's a little a little different This school has a little more strict rules, which is good. And they go year-round.\" \"In the year-round school I think they were learning more.\" \"The teachers seemed to be more concerned about them there.\" \"It was easier for them to catch up on everything.\" \"I really like it and I think they do, too. They seem like they learn better.\" \"Well, I really think it's good. My kids are really doing better now than before. The teachers really seem to help them a lot more. Less learning loss in EY \"I've seen some good things and some bad things. I don't think the year-round school is such a bad thing. There are some good things to it. I've noticed they don't seem to forget as much because they aren't out for as long a time.\" \"They seem like they remember a little bit more I think.\" Intersession noted as difference \"The only really different is the Intersession part and being in school a little bit longer\" \"They've got all the inter-sessions and all that I like the school and I think they do, too.\" DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EY AND 9-MONTH SC HOCHS 3Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 5 of 36 LIULE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOtS Question 3: Lets focus particularly on how different schools help kids learn. What do you see as the main differences in student learning in EY vs. 9-month schools? Description Percentage of Responses Do not see a difference 13.9% EY generally better/more learning 80.6% Less learning loss 30.6% Intersession 2.8% Free Responses: bo not see a difference \"No. I don't really think there is a difference.\" \"I dont really know if there is a difference, f mean, he afways seems to do okay.\" \"My kids are extremely smart, so its hard to tell if there's a difference. They always made the honor roll and they still do. \"No, there is no difference in the way that my kids learn. The school work is the same, and they are getting it done.\" \"I didn't see no great improvement in my kids grades being in a year-round school versus a regular school.\" EY generally better/more learning \"Wefl, actually its the school that they are attending. I had better results over at Mabelville Elementary, and its a year-round. But actually, with the year round, of my kids is in gifted and talented, and I think they are educated a little more in the year round.\" \"Actually, she got more into her studies in the year round than I feel like she would have done in the 9-month.\" \"Yes, I think they are constantly learning, so it keeps all the infotmabon fresh.\" \"Yes. They are more advanced.\" \"Actually, I think it is difficult because its year-round, but I do think its a good idea.\" \"I really dont have a good answer. I have a pretty sharp son. I dont know if its because hes smart or if its because of the school.\" \"It seems like they do more work, but 1 dont really know. Maybe it just seems that way since they are in school more.\" \"My son did learn well when he was there, but hes at Washington now and he's doing okay there, too.\" (free responses continued on next page) STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES 4Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WR\\/V-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 6 of 36 LirriE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. EY generally better/more learning T think they leam a little bit more. \"Well. 1 think it helps the kids that they ate there mote. I think they get a lot mote advanced. That has been the case with Cameron. 'I think they are doing just the same. I do think there are more programs for the kids. Like the Resource program and that \"Everything about it \"1 think they are better at getting down on the kids if they don't do their work. \"In the regular school, they got more off days then days in school. In the all-around school they were just teaching them more. Yes I just personally think it has a lot to do with the teachers. I think they are mote motivated to help that child. \"They have more time to do the work because they are going all the time. \"The teachers are really good. I mean if they don't do their work, the teachers get after them. I think that makes a big difference. Less learning loss \"I guess they learned more because they went year-round. They weren't out for a long summer break when they might lose or forget what they had learned.\" \"They seem to remember more.\" \"They don't have a chance to forget as much, I think.\" \"They just seem to remember more. Not having that long summer break, I think, makes it much better.\" \"I don't think there's really much difference. They don't forget as much, 1 guess.\" \"It seems like they know more, the remember more having the shorter breaks. \"It helps them not forget as much. Instead of having that long summer break, they don't have as much of a chance to forget as much.\" \"Well, I think it teaches them a little more. What I mean by that is that they still have the learning going on, and they don't loose it as quick.\" \"I think the main difference is just that they are in school more. They don't have a chance to forget as much and they leam more.\" Intersession \"I think its the Inter-sessions that are good. \"1 guess when they are doing the Intersession. That's different\" \"The Intersession program helps them pick up where they left off. It helps them catch up and not forget things. My three did really well with it STUDENT LEARNING DIFFERENCES 5Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 7 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONrH SCHOOLS Question 4: Are there things about the EY calendar that help kids learn better? Desoipiion Percentage of Responses Kids are in school more. 7% Shorter breaks/vacations. 14% Kids forget less academic content. 29% Shorter gaps in teaching. 3% Kids remember better how to behave in school. 3% Inter-sessions help kids learn more. 12% Teachers 12% No difference noted 20% Free Responses: \"I really don't see a difference. If you had said a magnet school. I might have been able to elaborate a little more. They don't forget as much.\" I can't say, but they should explain the take home lessons more to the students so that we can help more but that may be on her. Let's not lay the blame on the school. We'll split it\" \"No, academically, my kids are smart enough that they will achieve. There is nothing about the year-round school that is better. I don't like it' That's a tough question. What can I say? All 1 know is that he is a good boy and has good grades so far.\" They are just in more, so they don't forget as much and they have more time to learn new information.\" \"I do think that only being out for five weeks in the summer helps them get back into the swing of things faster. The kids learn a lot more for the next grade. \"I know when I was in elementary school I would come back to school half way clueless after the summer. \"I don't think so. I don't think they really do anything differently. Il's the longer time that makes the difference. \"Summer is not so long, so he seems to remember things better.\" (free responses continued on next page) O' SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENCSS 6Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 8 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS \"Student learning differences,\" continued from previous page. \"She doesn't seem to forget as much \" \"He doesn't seem to forget as much. He seems to have a short attention span sometimes, so I think it tends to help kids like him.\" \"They seem like they remember better. The intersession program. We really liked that \"I don't know why. It seems like the teachers pay a little bit more attention to them. \"The inter-sessions are good. They are learning all the time, so they just don't have chance to forget \"The shorter breaks are better. 1 like the fact that there are more short breaks rather than one long break. Special programs like the inter-sessions and resource classes are really good. Well, the kids are in school more, and I think that helps. The shorter breaks. 1 liked the inter-sessions.\" \"The teachers, I guess. They just stay on the kids more. \"The shorter break, I think, makes the biggest difference for my kids. \"The teachers just have more time to leach them more. \"The teachers are really good. \"They are in school more, it seems. 1 think its actually about the same number of days, but it seems like they are in more. I like it much better.\" \"They just remember more.\" \"I think the teachers are much better here. They listen, and they really work with the kids. \"They don't forget everything over summer. It's easier on them, in my opinion. fy SCHOOL LEARNING EFFECTIVENESS 8Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 9 of 36 LrmE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOLS Question 5: In comparing EY to 9-month schools, do you think that children feel differently about school or about themselves in one type versus another? Description Percentage of Responses Yes, a lot 25% Yes, a little. 12% No. 63% Free Responses (note\nonly parents who answered yes are recorded.): \"I think she enjoyed going, but when the other kids were ouE she hated going, and it shorted our vacation time, too.\" \"They don't like it when other families get to go on vacations in the summer and we cannot. We don't like it at all. Penod. The only difference that I noticed is that they were upset because they had to stay longer - everyone else being on break and them being in school.\" \"From my house, in a one mile radius, I can hit three elementary schools with a stone. On my street atone, there are kids that go to all three. So for my boys, it's a real problem when they are on break because no one else is. They are all atone. That sucks.\" \"He likes to be out when the other children are out\" \"When they switched over, the girls were in a lower grade and they enjoyed this more because there are bigger breaks spread out over the year.\" \"At first it bothered her when she had friends that were on summer vacation and she wasn't. But now, I think she likes have more breaks during the year.\" \"This is his last year, and now rt seems to bother him that other kids are out and he isn't But he likes school.\" \"My second grader does not even like school any more, and that is not good at all. She did really well in year-round school, and now she is in a regular calendar and she rsn't doing well at all.\" \"They complain a little about yexr know, that other kids are out and they aren't.\" \"They do complain. 'Why do we have to go so longZ They don't like that too much.\" \"My oldest loves school, and when they are out of school she doesn't really like it She's an A student she is\" \"I'll tell you, they didn't particularly like it but rt worked well for me.\" \"My baby has been in it the whole time, ever since they started, so he doesn't know anything different' \"He does complain when my other is out lor summer, but I think he really, in general, Irkes it a lot\" STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 8Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page10of36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MONTH SCHOOIS Question 6 (note: only asked of parents who answered yes\" to question 5.): Does your child/children talk about the fact that they are in an EY school? If yes, what kinds of things do they say? Free Responses\n\"No, not that I can say.\" \"They complain about it all the time! \"No. Hes a quiet kid.\" \"Yes A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections and they really liked that\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandma's house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out.\" Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are out.\" \"Alt the time. They didnt like the year-round school at first but they are adjusting.' \"Not really. I guess it's just fine.\" \"I think they like it They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldn't stay.\" When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others ate out But like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" \"No, not that I can say.\" They complain about it all the timer \"No. He's a quiet kid.\" \"Yes A couple of my kids in the past year got to go to some of the things they have during Intersections, and they really liked that\" \"He didn't like it because he had to sit inside grandmas house all day. In the end, I think they ought to put all elementary schools in or take them all out\" 'Yes. \"Why am I still in school and they are ouL\" \"All the time. They didnt like the year-round school at first, but they are adjusting.\" \"Not really. I guess its just fine.\" \"I think they like it They seemed to like school more when they were at Mabelville.\" \"Yes. They wanted to stay. They asked why they couldnt stay.\" \"When there are other kids out in the summer, they complain about that\" \"You know, I have eight kids, and most of them go to regular schools, so my two that are in year-round, you know, they complain when the others are out But like now, they are out for two weeks and the others are jealous.\" STUDENT FEEUNQS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL 9Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 11 of 36 UTTIE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- S-MONIH SCHOOLS Question 7: Does your child/children receive any specialized education services (gifted programs, ESL classes, remedial classes)? DesaipiiM Pertartage of Responses Gifted and talented 16.2% Music 2.7% Resource classes 2.7% No. 78.4% STUDENT EEEUNCS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTU SCHOOL 10Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 12 of 36 LITTLE ROCK INTERVIEWS, 2005 YEAR-ROUND -VS- 9-MON1H SCHOOLS Question 8: Does your family utilize before or afterschool childcare programs? Description Percentage of Responses Yes. 10.8% No. 892% STUDENT FEELINGS ABOUT EY VERSUS 9-MONTH SCHOOL nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 13 of 36 Section VIL Conclusions and Implications This section is not included in the draft evaluation report. Section II of this draft contains an outline of preliminary conclusions from the analyses shown in sections III through VI. These conclusions as revised will be elaborated in Section II of the final report and discussed in Section VII of the final report.Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 14 of 36 APPENDICESCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page15of36 TABLE VI. 1.A Cloverdale Parent Survey Results My children show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 95 23 30 148 148 148 148 64% 16% 20% 100% My children like having a number of short vacation periods. Number IFF Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 49 18 148 148 148 148 55% 33% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my children. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 63 50 38 151 151 151 151 42% 33% 25% 100% My children have achieved at a higher level than In their previous 9-month school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 58 53 41 152 152 152 152 38% 35% 27% 100% Our personal family life activities such as church, scouts, clubs, etc, have not been affected. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 105 30 11 146 146 146 146 72% 21% 8% 100% My children have attended one or more intersessions this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 87 40 28 155 155 155 155 56% 26% 18% 100% This program should be expanded to other schools in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 69 45 42 156 156 156 156 44% 29% 27% 100% I want my children to continue In this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 80 44 30 154 154 154 154 52% 29% 19% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 16 of 36 Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Number of children In a YRE school 1 2 3 4+ total 32 119 151 113 5 25 143 70 50 24 6 150 Number of children enrolled in regular schools before they were enrolled in a YRE school. 0 1 2 3 4+ total 29 52 39 11 8 139 Children attending school on a regular May-August calendar Elementary Middle schoo senior high 40 21 18 Gracie level of children K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 35 51 35 28 36 13 198Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 17 of 36 TABLE VI.2.A Cloverdale Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 85 8 2 95 95 95 95 89% 8% 2% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 47 48 4 99 99 99 99 47% 48% 4% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 22 21 98 98 98 98 56% 22% 21% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 33 9 97 97 97 97 57% 34% 9% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 83 11 4 98 98 98 98 85% 11% 4% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed it. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 84 5 10 99 99 99 99 85% 5% 10% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 82 10 7 99 99 99 99 83% 10% 7% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 66 18 15 99 99 99 99 67% 18% 15% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 18 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 51 33 16 100 too too 100 51% 33% 16% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 41 47 9 97 97 97 97 42% 48% 9% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 65 12 11 88 86 88 88 74% 14% 13% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4 th Sth Total 46 49 95 72 4 20 96 27 31 27 85 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 17 2 20 27 17 8 5 96Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 19 of 36 TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my educalion this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 5 34 34 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 28 3 4 35 35 35 35 80% 9% 11% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help vrhen I've needed it. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 27 5 2 34 34 34 34 79% 15% 6% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 9 2 34 34 34 34 68% 26% 6% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 18 12 3 33 33 33 33 55% 36% 9% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 20 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 3 7 33 33 33 33 70% 9% 21% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 1 34 34 34 34 65% 32% 3% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 23 6 2 31 31 31 31 74% 19% 6% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black While Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th_________ 5lh_________ Total 12 23 35 26 4 4 34 15 20 0 35 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 11 4 1 10 6 1 0 33Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 21 of 36 TABLE VI.2.B Mabelvale Student Survey Results I have been more Interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 4 5 34 34| 34 34 74% 12% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 13 3 33 33 33 33 52% 39% 9% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 25 9 1 35 35 35 35 71% 26% 3% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to ail Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 19 11 5 35 35 35 35 54% 31% 14% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 28 3 4 35 35 35 35 80% 9% 11% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when Ive needed h. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 27 5 2 34 34 34 34 79% 15% 6% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 23 9 2 34 34 34 34 68% 26% 6% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 18 12 3 33 33 33 33 55% 36% 9% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 22 of 36 I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 1 34 34 34 34 65% 32% 3% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 23 6 2 31 31 31 31 74% 19% 6% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th_________ 5th_________ Total 12 23 35 26 4 4 34 15 20 0 35 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 11 4 1 10Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 23 of 36 TABLE VI.2.D Stephens Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 127 11 13 151 151 151 151 84% 7% 9% 100% i like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 55 84 12 151 151 151 151 Percent 36% 56% 8% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9.month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 36 22 139 139 139 139 58% 26% 16% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 79 58 12 149 149 149 149 53% 39% 8% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 125 11 14 150 150 150 150 83% 7% 9% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed It. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 107 22 23 152 152 152 152 70% 147o 15% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 113 19 21 153 153 153 153 74% 12% 14% 100% I have liked the Intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 91 27 35 153 153 153 153 59% 18% 23% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01 /13/2006 Page 24 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 81 31 36 148 148 148 148 55% 21% 24% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 59 67 17 143 143 143 143 Percent 41% 47% 12% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 68 18 40 126 126 126 126 54% 14% 32% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th Sth Total 68 81 149 132 1 12 145 61 52 32 145 Last grade spent in regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 29 35 13 29 26 10 6 148Case 4\n82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 25 of 36 TABLE VI.2.E Woodruff Student Survey Results I have been more interested in my education this year. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 42 5 8 55 55 55 55 76% 9% 15% 100% I like having a shorter number of vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 37 6 57 57 57 57 25% 65% 11% 100% I think I have learned more on the extended year calendar than I did on the regular 9-month calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 34 16 10 60 60 60 60 57% 27% 17% 100% The Year Round Education program should be offered to all Little Rock School District Students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 24 24 13 61 61 61 61 39% 39% 21% 100% My teachers have been more patient and helpful. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 43 9 8 60 60 60 60 72% 15% 13% 100% I have had more time to learn and time to get extra help when I've needed It. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 46 10 4 60 60 60 60 77% 17% 7% 100% I look forward to coming to school. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 34 14 10 58 58 58 58 59% 24% 17% 100% I have liked the intersessions. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 40 10 9 59 59 59 59 68% 17% 15% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 26 of 36 My parents like the extended-year program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 36 14 11 61 61 61 61 59% 23% 18% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 26 29 7 62 62 62 62 42% 47% 11% 100% Intersession has helped me be a better student. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 36 14 7 57 57 57 57 63% 25% 12% 100% Gender Male Female Total Ethnicity Black White Other Total Grade Level 3rd 4th Sth Total 27 33 60 56 3 1 60 17 20 21 58 Last grade spent In regular school Never K 1 2 3 4 5 Total 11 23 6 8 6 5 1 60Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 27 of 36 TABLE VI.S.A Cloverdale Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater Interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 0 0 11 11 11 11 Percent 100% 0% 0% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 0 2 11 11 11 11 82% 0% 18% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have In their previous 9-monlh school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 3 5 11 11 11 11 27% 27% 45% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 1 4 11 11 11 11 55% 9% 36% 100% 6 I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 2 3 11 11 11 11 55% 18% 27% 100% My students benefit from their Intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree______ Disagree No Opinion total 8 0 2 10 10 10 10 80% 0% 20% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 28 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 1 1 11 11 11 11 82% 9% 9% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 4 1 11 11 11 11 55% 36% 9% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 8 1 2 11 11 11 11 73% 9% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 0 1 11 11 11 11 91% 0% 9% 100% Male Female Total 3 8 11 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 6 6 0 12Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 29 of 36 TABLE VI.3.B Mabelvale Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 6 8 24 24 24 24 42% 25% 33% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 18 1 5 24 24 24 24 75% 4% 21% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 7 6 24 24 24 24 46% 29% 25% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 4 8 25 25 25 25 52% 16% 32% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 4 9 10 23 23 23 23 17% 39% 43% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols in this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 7 3 24 24 24 24 58% 29% 13% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 5 4 22 22 22 22 59% 23% 18% 100% My students benefit from their intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 4 6 24 24 24 24 58% 17% 25% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01 /13/2006 Page 30 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity in academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 13 3 7 23 23 23 23 57% 13% 30% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 8 3 22 22 22 22 50% 36% 14% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 7 1 23 23 23 23 65% 30% 4% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 2 4 23 23 23 23 74% 9% 17% 100% Male Female Total 2 20 22 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 3 16 0 19Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 31 of 36 TABLE VI.3.C Mitchell Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater Interest in their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 8 6 17 17 17 17 18% 47% 35% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 3 6 14 14 14 14 36% 21% 43% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 5 1 16 16 16 16 63% 31% 6% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 1 10 6 17 17 17 17 6% 59% 35% 100% Parents are more involved in their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 0 12 5 17 17 17 17 0% 71% 29% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 10 2 17 17 17 17 29% 59% 12% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 11 2 16 16 16 16 19% 69% 13% 100% My students benefit from their Intersession(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 2 3 17 17 17 17 71% 12% 18% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 32 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity In academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 5 7 5 17 17 17 17 29% 41% 29% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 8 8 1 17 17 17 17 47% 47% 6% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 3 10 3 16 16 16 16 19% 63% 19% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 3 0 17 17 17 17 82% 18% 0% 100% Male Female Total 1 15 16 Ethnicity Black While Other Total 11 4 0 15Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 33 of 36 TABLE VI.S.D Stephens Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 13 6 35 35 35 35 Percent 46% 37% 17% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 8 4 34 34 34 34 65% 24% 12% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 12 6 34 34 34 34 Percent 47% 35% 18% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have in their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 16 8 35 35 35 35 31% 46% 23% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 2 26 7 35 35 35 35 6% 74% 20% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 14 13 8 35 35 35 35 40% 37% 23% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 15 4 35 35 35 35 Percent 46% 43% 11% 100% My students benefit from their Intersesslonfs). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 11 7 34 34 34 34 47% 32% 21% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 34 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provides continuity In academic instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 14 5 35 35 35 35 46% 40% 14% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 22 11 2 35 35 35 35 63% 31% 6% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 16 6 34 34 34 34 35% 47% 18% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Agree Disagree No Opinion total 24 8 4 36 36 36 36 Percent 67% 22% 11% 100% Male Female Total 1 32 33 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 14 18 0 32Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 35 of 36 TABLE VI.3.E Woodruff Teacher Survey Results My students show a greater interest In their educational program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 11 4 8 23 23 23 23 48% 17% 35% 100% My students like having a number of short vacation periods. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 2 4 22 22 22 22 73% 9% 18% 100% A wider variety of educational programs has been provided for my students. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 17 4 1 22 22 22 22 77% 18% 5% 100% My students have achieved at a higher level than they would have In their previous 9-month school calendar. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 9 5 8 22 22 22 22 41% 23% 36% 100% Parents are more Involved In their childrens' education on the Year Round Education schedule. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 6 11 5 22 22 22 22 27% 50% 23% 100% This program should be expanded to other scohols In this district on an optional basis. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 4 1 21 21 21 21 76% 19% 5% 100% I want my school to continue with this program. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 4 4 23 23 23 23 65% 17% 17% 100% My students benefit from their intersesslon(s). Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 16 1 5 22 22 22 22 73% 5% 23% 100%Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 36 of 36 The Year Round Education schedule provide* continuity In academic Instruction and more time on task. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 15 3 4 22 22 22 22 68% 14% 18% 100% The extended-year education schedule has been better for my attitude and stress reduction. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 12 6 5 23 23 23 23 52% 26% 22% 100% The absence of a long summer break reduces the need to reteach skills and rules. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 10 6 5 21 21 21 21 48% 29% 24% 100% Teachers benefit from the opportunity to earn stipends during optional intersession employment. Number N= Percent Agree Disagree No Opinion total 20 0 2 22 22 22 22 91% 0% 9% 100% Male Female Total 2 17 19 Ethnicity Black White Other Total 8 9 1 18\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_905","title":"Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2006/2007"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/905"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFF/OCfF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRANCICAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs Ref: DIS032 Date: 4/02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1843 50.3% 1189 32.5% 471 12.9% 158 4.3% 3661 722 515 257 107 1601 10 HOME SUSP. 1166 58.5% 565 28.3% 208 10.4% 54 2.7% 1993 566 288 134 37 1025 11 A s A C 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. I.C. 84 60.9% 38 27.5% 13 9.4% 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 4 30.8% 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 2 15.4% 13 4 2 5 2 13 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 89 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP 11 A s A C 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 1974 53.2% 1121 30.2% 441 11. 9% 173 4.7% 702 485 237 102 719 65.5% 281 25.6% 71 6.5% 26 2.4% 367 164 52 11 330 66.8% 110 22.3% 38 7.7% 16 3.2% 184 80 27 14 227 69.2% 67 20.4% 27 8.2% 7 2.1% 138 44 14 7 3 33.3% 0 .0% 3 33.3% 3 33.3% 3 0 3 3 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 3709 1526 1097 594 4 94 305 328 203 9 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 131 7.1 % 68- 5.7-% 30- 6. 4-% 15 9.5 % 48 20- 30- 20- 5- 75- 10 HOME SUSP. 447- 38.3-% 284- 50.3-% 137- 65.9-% 28- 51. 9-% 896- 199- 124- 82- 26- 431- 11 A s A C 290 725. 0 % 95 633.3 % 29 322.2 % 11 220.0 % 425 164 72 22 11 269 12 E. I.C. 143 170.2 % 29 76.3 % 14 107.7 % 4 133.3 % 190 78 18 3 4 103 17 EXPULSION 1- 25.0-% 2- 100.0-% 2- 40.0-% 1 50.0 % 4- 1- 2- 2- 1 4- North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Discipline Actions ~School Year 2006-2007 ~ District Level ~Elementary ~Middle Schools ~High Schools ~9 Year Comparison Ref: DIS032 Date: 4/02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1138 50.4% 747 33.1% 286 12.7% 87 3.9% 2258 414 298 143 55 910 10 HOME SUSP. 568 55.0% 315 30.5% 119 11. 5% 31 3.0% 1033 221 134 70 22 447 11 A s A C 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 .0% 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 1 50.0% 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 1171 54.0% 696 32.1% 215 9.9% 88 4.1% 2170 381 262 114 45 802 10 HOME SUSP 231 63.5% 94 25.8% 17 4.7% 22 6.0% 364 102 50 14 7 173 11 A s A C 238 71. 5% 75 22.5% 15 4.5% 5 1.5% 333 110 54 11 4 179 12 E. I.C. 0 O!l, 0 0 .0% 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 O!l, 0 1 50.0% 0 O!l, 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU =------============================================-===-======================== 09 S.A.C. 33 2.9 % 51- 6.8-% 71- 24.8-% 1 1.1 % 88- 33- 36- 29- 10- 108- 10 HOME SUSP. 337- 59.3-% 221- 70.2-% 102- 85.7-% 9- 29.0-% 669- 119- 84- 56- 15- 274- 11 A s A C 198 495.0 % 60 400.0 % 6 66.7 % 0 . 0 % 264 90 46 6 1 143 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 0 0 1 1- 0 Ref: DIS032 Date : 4 / 0 2 / 0 8 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------======================-==-======================= 09 S.A.C. 705 50.2% 442 31. 5% 185 13. 2% 71 5.1% 1403 308 217 114 52 691 10 HOME SUSP. 394 59.2% 192 28.9% 59 8.9% 20 3.0% 665 202 111 42 12 367 11 A s A C 0 0 g. 0 0 Og. 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 3 27.3% 2 18.2% 5 45.5% 1 9.1% 11 3 2 5 1 11 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------=-========== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------=----------====----===---=--==---================= 09 S.A.C. 803 52.2% 425 27.6% 226 14.7% 85 5.5% 1539 321 223 123 57 724 10 HOME SUSP 221 58.6% 130 34.5% 23 6.1% 3 .8% 377 102 66 18 3 189 11 A s A C 91 56.9% 35 21. 9% 23 14.4% 11 6.9% 160 73 26 16 10 125 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 0 g. 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 28.6% 0 0 g. 0 2 28.6% 3 42.9% 7 2 0 2 3 7 COMPARISON -----------------------=-========----------------=-----=-===-=================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=========================================================================== )9 S.A.C. 98 13.9 % 17- 3.8-% 41 22.2 % 14 19.7 % 136 13 6 9 5 33 LO HOME SUSP. 173- 43.9-% 62- 32.3-% 36- 61.0-% 17- 85.0-% 288- 100- 45- 24- 9- 178- Ll A s A C 91 9100.0 % 35 3500.0 % 23 2300.0 % 11 1100.0 % 160 73 26 16 10 125 L2 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 L7 EXPULSION 1- 33.3-% 2- 100.0-% 3- 60.0-% 2 200.0 % 4- 1- 2- 3- 2 4- Ref: DIS032 Date: 4/02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 A s A C 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARY K-5 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l- 0 0 204 69.2% 143 0 O!l- 0 0 84 60.9% 60 0 .0% 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT /TOT # STU 0 O!l- 0 0 58 19.7% 43 0 O!l- 0 0 38 27.5% 26 0 O!l- 0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l- 0 0 30 10.2% 22 0 O!l- 0 0 13 9.4% 11 0 O!l- 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 O!l- 0 0 3 1.0% 3 0 O!l- 0 0 3 2.2% 3 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 295 211 0 0 138 100 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------=---==-======-======================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP 266 75.1% 57 16.1% 30 8.5% 1 .3% 354 162 48 19 1 230 11 A s A C 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 12 E. I.C. 227 69.2% 67 20.4% 27 8.2% 7 2.1% 328 138 44 14 7 203 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---------===-=================================================================== COMPARISON -----------=----================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------=-===-==========-============================================= )9 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO HOME SUSP. 62 30.4 % 1- 1.7-% 0 .0 % 2- 66.7-% 59 19 5 3- 2- 19 ll A s A C 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 12 E. I.C. 143 170. 2 % 29 76.3 % 14 107.7 % 4 133. 3 % 190 78 18 3 4 103 L7 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 !l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 0 O!l- 0 8 5 2 1 0 8 11 A s A C 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 5 3 2 0 0 5 11 A s A C 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ============================================-==--------=-----=---=-============= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 0 \"6 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 40.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 3- 2- 0 1- 0 3- 11 A s A C 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date : 4 / 0 2 / 0 8 Time : 11 : S S : 3 6 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 S - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 !l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 11 78.6% 3 21. 4% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 14 8 3 0 0 11 11 A s A C 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 33 68.8% 13 27.1% 0 4.2% 0 .0% 48 17 10 2 0 29 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 80.0% 2 20.0% 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 10 7 2 0 0 9 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 43 81.1% 9 17.0% 1 1. 9% 0 O!l- 0 53 27 8 1 0 36 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----==================================-====-----------==-----------=-========== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3- 27.3-% 1- 33.3-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 4- 1- 1- 0 0 2- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 10 . 0 % 4- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % s 0 0 1- 0 7 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 031 Date: Time: School: 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 A s A C 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09- 0 0 7 77. 8% 4 0 0 9- 0 0 1 100.0% 1 0 09- 0 0 -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09- 0 0 1 11.1% 1 0 0 9- 0 0 0 09- 0 0 0 09- 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09- 0 0 1 11.1% 1 0 09- 0 0 0 09- 0 0 0 0 9- 0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 09- 0 0 0 09- 0 0 0 0 9- 0 0 0 0 9- 0 0 0 09- 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 9 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0 9- 0 0 0 9- 0 0 09- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 55.6% 3 33.3% 1 11.1% 0 09- 0 9 4 2 1 0 7 11 A s A C 0 09- 0 0 .0% 0 0 9- 0 0 0 9- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 28.6-% 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 21 91. 3% 1 4.3% 1 4.3% 0 O!l- 0 23 15 1 1 0 17 11 A s A C 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 5 83.3% 1 16.7% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 6 4 1 0 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 47 90.4% 2 3.8% 3 5.8% 0 O!l- 0 52 26 2 1 0 29 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 105 69.1% 31 20.4% 13 8.6% 3 2.0% 152 63 15 6 3 87 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l- 0 0 O!l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 26 123.8 % 1 100.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 29 11 1 0 0 12 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 100 . 0 % 30 . 0 % 13 .0 % 3 . 0 % 146 20 30 13 3 82 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 34 66.7% 16 31. 4% 1 2.0% 0 .0% 51 19 12 1 0 32 11 A s A C 0 Og. 0 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 Og. 0 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------======---==---========-=======================-=========================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 52 72. 2% 19 26.4% 1 1. 4% 0 .0% 72 30 16 1 0 47 11 A s A C 0 Og. 0 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ----============================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 18 52.9 % 3 18.8 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 21 11 4 0 0 15 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 Time: 11:55:36 School: 035 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ==============------------========-----=-==------------------------------------- 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 ==============------------========--------====---------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ======================================================-----------------=-==----- 09 S.A.C. 0 Og_ 0 0 09- 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 40 75.5% 11 20.8% 2 3.8% 0 0 g_ 0 53 29 9 1 0 39 11 A s A C 0 0 9- 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 Og_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 9- 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -=================================----------------------------------------=----- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --===========-=---=-==============---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 09- 0 0 Og_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 25 96. 2% 1 3.8% 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 26 15 1 0 0 16 11 A s A C 0 09- 0 0 Og_ 0 0 09- 0 0 09- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 Og_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 09- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 09- 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU --=======---======================-----=----==--=--=------------------====---=== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15- 37.5-% 10- 90.9-% 2- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 27- 14- 8- 1- 0 23- 11 A s A C 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0 g. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 35.3% 7 41. 2% 2 11. 8% 2 11. 8% 17 5 3 2 2 12 11 A s A C 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 100.0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 Og. 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 Og. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 71. 4% 1 7.1% 2 14.3% 1 7.1% 14 6 1 2 1 10 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -=============================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4 66.7 % 6- 85.7-% 0 . 0 % 1- 50.0-% 3- 1 2- 0 1- 2- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 0 0 0 1- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 051- 0 0 051- 0 0 0 51- 0 0 051- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 60.0% 1 4.0% 9 36.0% 0 051- 0 25 10 1 6 0 17 11 A s A C 0 051- 0 0 051- 0 0 051- 0 0 0 51- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 0 66.7% 0 051- 0 6 1 1 3 0 5 17 EXPULSION 0 051- 0 0 051- 0 0 .0% 0 051- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 051- 0 0 .0% 0 051- 0 0 051- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 75.0% 2 25.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 8 6 1 0 0 7 11 A s A C 0 051- 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 051- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 051- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 051- 0 0 051- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------========================================================================= J9 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9- 60.0-% 1 100.0 % 9- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 17- 4- 0 6- 0 10- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1- . 0 % 1- . 0 % 4- . 0 % 0 . 0 % 6- 1- 1- 4- 0 5- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02 /08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 76.9% 1 7.7% 2 15.4% 0 O!l, 0 13 7 1 2 0 10 11 A s A C 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 6 50.0% 2 16.7% 0 25.0% 0 8.3% 12 5 2 3 1 11 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 O!l, 0 0 .0% 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12 75.0% 3 18.8% 1 6.3% 0 O!l, 0 16 8 3 1 0 12 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 45 70.3% 15 23. 4% 3 4.7% 1 1. 6% 64 26 11 3 1 41 17 EXPULSION 0 O!l, 0 0 .0% 0 O!l, 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2 20.0 % 2 200.0 % 1- 50.0-% 0 . 0 % 3 1 2 1- 0 2 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 39 . 0 % 13 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 52 7 7 0 0 30 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 100.0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 9 8 0 0 0 8 11 A s A C 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 O!.l- 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!.l- 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 87.5% 0 .0% 1 12.5% 0 O!.l- 0 8 5 0 1 0 6 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l- 0 0 O!.l- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---==================================--===---=--=----------------=============== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 2- 22.2-% 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 3- 0 1 0 2- 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02/08 rime: 11: 55: 36 School: 04 6 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 15 62.5% 4 16.7% 5 20.8% 0 O!.l, 0 24 13 4 4 0 21 11 A s A C 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------========================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 O!.l, 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 56 72.7% 8 10.4% 13 16.9% 0 O!.l, 0 77 30 7 9 0 46 11 A s A C 0 O!.l, 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 O!.l, 0 0 O!.l, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------========-================================================================= COMPARISON -----=========================================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------========================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 41 273.3 % 4 100.0 % 8 160.0 % 0 . 0 % 53 17 3 5 0 25 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 04 4 J9 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 A s A C 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og, 0 0 23 63.9% 16 0 0 !le 0 0 33 55.9% 27 0 Og, 0 0 -----BF-----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 0 !le 0 0 11 30.6% 6 0 Og, 0 0 21 35.6% 12 0 0 !le 0 0 -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og, 0 0 2 5.6% 1 0 0 !le 0 0 0 5.1% 2 0 Og, 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 Og, 0 0 0 Og, 0 0 0 Og, 0 0 0 3.4% 2 0 Og, 0 0 0 0 36 23 0 0 59 43 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 0 0 !le 0 0 .0% 0 0 !le 0 0 0 !le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23 74.2% 5 16.1% 3 9.7% 0 0 !le 0 31 17 5 1 0 23 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 Og, 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 34 58.6% 12 20.7% 9 15.5% 3 5.2% 58 23 10 3 3 39 17 EXPULSION 0 Og, 0 0 0 !le 0 0 Og, 0 0 0 !le 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # F-EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= )9 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 . 0 % 6- 54.5-% 1 50.0 % 0 .0 % 5- 1 1- 0 0 0 L1 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 1 . 0 % 9- . 0 % 6 .0 % 1 . 0 % 1- 0 0 6 1 4- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ef: DIS032S )ate: 4 /02/08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 3chool: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROAD MIDDLE CHARTER SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 457 46.5% 414 42.2% 81 8.2% 30 3.1% 982 150 150 38 18 356 10 HOME SUSP. 242 53.2% 158 34.7% 45 9.9% 10 2.2% 455 89 66 24 7 186 11 A s A C 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 0 Se 0 0 0 Se 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 12 E. I.C. 0 0 Se 0 0 .0% 0 Ole 0 0 Ole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 0 Se 0 0 0 Se 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )9 S.A.C. 401 50.4% 294 37.0% 65 8.2% 35 4.4% 795 122 111 33 17 283 10 HOME SUSP. 105 59.0% 49 27.5% 14 7.9% 10 5.6% 178 50 29 12 5 96 11 A s A C 31 62.0% 18 36.0% 1 2.0% 0 .0% 50 18 12 1 0 31 12 E. I.C 0 0 Se 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 Se 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1 50.0% 0 0 Se 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= )9 S.A.C. 56- 12.3-% 120- 29.0-% 16- 19.8-% 5 16.7 % 187- 28- 39- 5- 1- 73- 10 HOME SUSP. 137- 56.6-% 109- 69.0-% 31- 68.9-% 0 .0 % 277- 39- 37- 12- 2- 90- 11 A s A C 30 3000.0 % 17 1700.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 48 17 11 1 0 29 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 1 0 1 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02 /08 rime : 11 : 5 5 : 3 6 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 146 42.3% 66 19.1% 109 31. 6% 24 7.0% 345 69 31 63 18 181 10 HOME SUSP. 68 47.6% 17 11. 9% 48 33.6% 10 7.0% 143 30 11 32 10 83 11 A s A C 0 0 g, 0 0 Og, 0 0 .0% 0 Og, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 g, 0 0 0 g, 0 0 Og, 0 1 Og, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g, 0 0 Og, 0 0 Og, 0 1 100.0% 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 343 51. 8% 156 23. 6% 116 17.5% 47 7.1% 662 93 49 56 23 221 10 HOME SUSP. 3 42.9% 3 42.9% 0 .0% 1 14.3% 7 3 3 0 1 7 11 A s A C 92 70.2% 26 19.8% 10 7.6% 3 2.3% 131 27 17 7 3 54 12 E.I.C 0 0 g, 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---=====================================-=====-----------------------------===== 09 S.A.C. 197 134.9 % 90 136. 4 % 7 6.4 % 23 95.8 % 317 24 18 7- 5 40 10 HOME SUSP. 65- 95.6-% 14- 82.4-% 48- 100.0-% 9- 90.0-% 136- 27- 8- 32- 9- 76- 11 A s A C 92 9200.0 % 26 2600.0 % 10 1000.0 % 3 300.0 % 131 27 17 7 3 54 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 0 0 0 1- 1- Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime: 11:55:36 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 0~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 8 61. 5% 0 0~ 0 4 30.8% 1 7.7% 13 6 0 2 1 9 11 A s A C 0 0~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3 75.0% 0 0~ 0 0 25.0% 0 0~ 0 4 3 0 1 0 4 17 EXPULSION 0 0~ 0 0 0~ 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 13 46.4% 9 32.1% 6 21. 4% 0 .0% 28 9 6 5 0 20 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 1 100.0% 0 0~ 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0~ 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # ~EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -============================================================-----============== 09 S.A.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5 62.5 % 9 900.0 % 2 50.0 % 1- 100.0-% 15 3 6 3 1- 11 11 A s A C 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 3- .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 1- 0 0 0 3- 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:36 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 310 55.5% 170 30.4% 59 10.6% 20 3.6% 559 136 79 32 13 260 10 HOME SUSP. 109 57.1% 68 35.6% 9 4.7% 5 2.6% 191 52 28 7 2 89 11 A s A C 0 Og_ 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 g_ 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 Og_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===============================================================~================ 09 S.A.C. 262 60.8% 138 32.0% 26 6.0% 5 1. 2% 431 118 71 22 4 215 10 HOME SUSP. 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 1 1 0 0 2 11 A s A C 72 80.9% 15 16.9% 2 2.2% 0 . 0% 89 36 11 1 0 48 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 Og_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_ 0 0 0 g_ 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NSF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # ~EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---============================================================================= 09 S.A.C. 48- 15.5-% 32- 18.8-% 33- 55.9-% 15- 75.0-% 128- 18- 8- 10- 9- 4 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 108- 99.1-% 67- 98.5-% 9- 100.0-% 5- 100.0-% 189- 51- 27- 7- 2- 87- 11 A s A C 72 7200.0 % 15 1500.0 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 89 36 11 1 0 48 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4 /02/08 Time : 11 : 5 5 : 3 5 School: 012 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 234 49.2% 118 24.8% 91 19.1% 33 6.9% 476 126 81 59 23 289 10 HOME SUSP. 67 60.4% 26 23.4% 15 13. 5% 3 2.7% 111 53 25 14 3 95 11 A s A C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 9c 0 0 0 9c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 0 9c 0 0 0 9c 0 1 0 9, 0 0 09, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 0 0 9c 0 4 1 2 1 0 4 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 299 58.4% 125 24.4% 61 11. 9% 27 5.3% 512 141 79 36 21 277 10 HOME SUSP. 25 69.4% 7 19.4% 4 11. 1% 0 0 9c 0 36 23 7 4 0 34 11 A s A G 30 78.9% 1 2.6% 7 18.4% 0 .0% 38 26 1 5 0 32 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 0 9c 0 0 .0% 0 0 9c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 09, 0 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 0 0 1 0 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 65 27.8 % 7 5.9 % 30- 33.0-% 6- 18.2-% 36 15 2- 23- 2- 12- 10 HOME SUSP. 42- 62.7-% 19- 73.1-% 11- 73.3-% 3- 100.0-% 75- 30- 18- 10- 3- 61- 11 A s A C 30 3000.0 % 1 100.0 % 7 700.0 % 0 .0 % 38 26 1 5 0 32 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 2- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 3- 1- 2- 0 0 3- Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 Time: 11: 55: 36 School: 026 ROSE Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 225 60.5% 97 26.1% 37 9.9% 13 3.5% 372 68 42 11 6 127 10 HOME SUSP. 149 60.8% 71 29.0% 17 6.9% 8 3.3% 245 53 32 8 4 97 11 A s A C 39 58.2% 14 20.9% 9 13.4% 5 7.5% 67 19 7 5 3 34 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_ 0 0 Og_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 Og_ 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------==-=================================================== 09 S.A.C. 165 58.3% 108 38.2% 8 2.8% 2 7 g. 0 283 58 37 4 2 101 10 HOME SUSP. 120 68.2% 42 23.9% 3 1. 7% 11 6.3% 176 48 19 3 1 71 11 A s A C 44 68.8% 16 25.0% 2 3.1% 2 3.1% 64 31 14 2 1 48 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 g_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------===========================-============-====---========================= )9 S.A.C. 60- 26.7-% 11 11. 3 % 29- 78.4-% 11- 84.6-% 89- 10- 5- 7- 4- 26- 10 HOME SUSP. 29- 19.5-% 29- 40.8-% 14- 82.4-% 3 37.5 % 69- 5- 13- 5- 3- 26- 11 A s A C 5 12.8 % 2 14.3 % 7- 77. 8-% 3- 60.0-% 3- 12 7 3- 2- 14 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 4/02/08 rime: 11:55:35 School: 020 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1 50.0% 0 .0% 1 50.0% 0 0 g. 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 10 HOME SUSP. 143 67.8% 48 22.7% 11 5.2% 9 4.3% 211 64 24 4 2 94 11 A s A C 0 0 g. 0 0 05!- 0 0 0 g. 0 0 0 g. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I. C. 0 .0% 0 0 g. 0 0 0 5!- 0 0 0 g. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 0 g. 0 0 .0% 0 05!- 0 0 05!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------=--===------------------------============= 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 5!- 0 0 05!- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 175 62. 7% 94 33.7% 10 3.6% 0 .0% 279 64 36 5 0 105 11 A s A C 7 87.5% 1 12.5% 0 .0% 0 .0% 8 7 1 0 0 8 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 0 g. 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ---============================================================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----=========================================================================== 09 S.A.C. 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 2- 1- 0 1- 0 2- 10 HOME SUSP. 32 22.4 % 46 95.8 % 1- 9.1-% 9- 100.0-% 68 0 12 1 2- 11 11 A s A C 7 700.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 8 7 1 0 0 8 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 05-06 800 ,__ _____ -------l 06-07 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF 05-06 1843 1189 471 158 06-07 1974 1121 441 173 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032S 4/02/08 11:55:35 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 470 50.8% 324 35.0% 93 10.1% 38 4.1% 925 182 136 54 29 401 10 HOME SUSP. 184 53.8% 119 34.8% 33 9.6% 6 1.8% 342 97 67 25 6 195 11 A s A C 0 Og. 0 0 Og. 0 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 4 .0% 1 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 28.6% 0 Og. 0 4 57.1% 1 14.3% 7 2 0 4 1 7 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------=======================================================-================ 09 S.A.C. 504 49.1% 300 29.2% 165 16.1% 57 5.6% 1026 180 144 87 35 44 6 10 HOME SUSP. 23 36.5% 28 44.4% 9 14.3% 3 4.8% 63 22 23 9 3 57 11 A s A C 54 47.4% 33 28.9% 16 14.0% 11 9.6% 114 40 24 11 10 85 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 Og. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 2 33.3% 0 .0% 1 16.7% 3 50.0% 6 2 0 1 3 6 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # R.EF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==--============================================================================ 09 S.A.C. 34 7.2 % 24- 7.4-% 72 77.4 % 19 50.0 % 101 2- 8 33 6 45 10 HOME SUSP. 161- 87.5-% 91- 76.5-% 24- 72.7-% 3- 50.0-% 279- 75- 44- 16- 3- 138- 11 A s A C 54 5400.0 % 33 3300.0 % 16 1600.0 % 11 1100.0 % 114 40 24 11 10 85 12 E. I.C. 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 3- 75.0-% 2 200.0 % 1- 0 0 3- 2 1- 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 D 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: AS AC 40 15 9 5 330 110 38 16 05-06 06-07 250 200 150 100 50 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 0 ~'--BM BF NBM NBF 05-06 84 38 13 3 06-07 227 67 27 7 05-06 06-07 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension BF NBM NBF 05-06 1166 565 208 54 06-07 719 281 71 26 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC 1 _/ 0.9-\" 0.8 _/ o. 7 _/ 0.6 _,, 0.5_/ 0.4-\" 0.3-\" 0.2-\" 0.1 _,, 0 ~ - - - - BM BF NBM NBF D 05-06 0 0 0 0 06-07 0 0 0 0 - D 05-06 06-07 300 250 200 150 100 50 D 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 204 58 30 3 266 57 30 1 05-06 06-07 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 D 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 4 2 5 2 3 0 3 3 05-06 06-07 250 200 150 100 50 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 o ~'--- BM BF NBM NBF 05-06 84 38 13 3 06-07 227 67 27 7 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0. 7-v 0.6 _v 0.5 _v 0.4-v 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1- 0 BM BF NBM NBF 05-06 0 0 0 0 06-07 0 0 0 0 05-06 06-07 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: AS AC BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 05-06 06-07 600 500 400 300 200 100 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BF NBM NBF 568 315 119 31 231 94 17 22 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools 250 200 150 100 50 O-i--BM D 05-06 40 06-07 238 Action 11: AS AC BF NBM NBF 15 9 5 75 15 5 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 BM BF NBM NBF D 05-06 1138 747 286 87 06-07 1171 696 215 88 05-06 06-07 I 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 05-06 06-07 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 705 442 185 71 803 425 226 85 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 _/ 0.9-v 0.8- 0.7- 0.6- o.s- 0.4-v 0.3 _v 0.2-v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF 05-06 0 0 0 0 06-07 0 0 0 0 05-06 06-07 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: AS AC BM BF NBM NBF 0 0 0 0 91 35 23 11 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 1 _,, 0.9-V 0.8 _v 0. 7 _v 0.6-v o.s-v 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1 _/ 0 BM BF NBM NBF 05-06 0 0 0 0 06-07 0 0 0 0 05-06 06-07 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension BM BF NBM NBF 394 192 59 20 221 130 23 3 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF 97-98 1801 862 547 132 98-99 1443 718 458 138 99-00 1468 662 401 139 00-01 1092 556 267 69 D 01-02 1276 574 354 107 02-03 1903 1050 512 172 D 03-04 1961 980 394 220 04-05 1560 860 390 172 D 05-06 1843 1189 471 158 7-Jun 1974 1121 441 173 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 D 01-02 02-03 D 03-04 04-05 D 05-06 7-Jun North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 1200--------------------, 1000--------\u0026lt;---------------\u0026lt; BOO--------\u0026lt;----------~ 600----11---------------~ 400- 200- o Jl. ....l.~..l.r.n.. ... I - - .ii. BM BF NBM NBF 97-98 511 125 104 13 98-99 566 141 125 22 99-00 406 113 102 18 00-01 385 92 64 7 01-02 692 234 92 21 02-03 522 193 63 13 03-04 469 157 66 18 04-05 753 325 111 43 05-06 1166 565 208 54 I nR.n7 719 281 71 26 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF D 05-06 3 2 5 1 06-07 2 0 2 3 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: E. I. C. K-5 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM BF NBM NBF 97-98 0 0 0 0 98-99 211 106 27 6 99-00 246 63 75 16 00-01 162 55 40 21 01-02 342 164 67 29 02-03 252 97 52 11 03-04 195 70 18 11 04-05 110 30 11 1 05-06 84 38 13 3 06-07 227 67 27 7 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 12 10 8 6 4- - 2- I j 0- I l I BM BF NBM NBF 97-98 6 5 0 0 98-99 7 2 1 1 99-00 3 0 2 0 00-01 3 0 5 3 D 01-02 1 0 2 1 02-03 2 0 2 0 D 03-04 2 0 2 0 04-05 11 0 9 1 05-06 4 2 5 2 Inn.: n7 ~ n \"l \"l 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 D 01-02 02-03 D 03-04 04-05 05-06 D 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: AS AC 600 500- 400- -!l 200- 100- l 0- J tn~ BM BF NBM NBF 97-98 515 148 112 8 98-99 359 148 88 22 99-00 351 129 90 27 00-01 325 136 56 12 01-02 210 83 52 11 02-03 244 86 83 25 D 03-04 316 155 51 16 04-05 3 1 0 0 05-06 40 15 9 5 06-07 330 110 38 16 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 D 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 North Little Rock Public Schools ~Analysis of Discipline Actions ~School Year 2006-2007 ~ District Level ~Elementary ~Middle Schools ~High Schools ~9 Year Comparison R 1: Date: Time: DJ.9032 1/31/08 8:30:05 Annlynin cf niqriplinnry Ar~ions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through MAY 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1843 50.3% 1189 32.5% 471 12.9% 158 4.3% 3661 722 515 257 107 1601 10 HOME SUSP. 1166 58.5% 565 28.3% 208 10.4% 54 2.7% 1993 566 288 134 37 1025 11 BOYS CLUB 40 58.0% 15 21.7% 9 13. 0% 5 7.2% 69 20 8 5 3 36 12 E. LC. 84 60.9% 38 27. 5% 13 9.4% 3 2.2% 138 60 26 11 3 100 17 EXPULSION 4 30.8% 2 15.4% 5 38.5% 2 15.4% 13 4 2 5 2 13 2 0 0 6 - 0 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ----==========================-------------------------========================= 09 S.A.C. 1974 53.2% 1121 30.2% 441 11. 9% 173 4.7% 3709 702 485 237 102 1526 10 HOME SUSP. 719 65.5% 281 25.6% 71 6.5% 26 2.4% 1097 367 164 52 11 594 11 BOYS CLUB 330 66.8% 110 22.3% 38 7. 7% 16 3.2% 494 184 80 27 14 305 12 E.I.C. 227 69.2% 67 20.4% 27 8.2% 7 2.1% 328 138 44 14 7 203 17 EXPULSION 3 33.3% 0 .0% 3 33.3% 3 33.3% 9 3 0 3 3 9 ==--============================================================================ COMPARISON ==--============================================================================ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ==----========================-------------------------========================= 09 S.A.C. 131 7.1 % 68- 5.7-% 30- 6.4-% 15 9.5 % 48 20- 30- 20- 5- 75- 10 HOME SUSP. 447- 38.3-% 284- 50.3-% 137- 65.9-% 28- 51. 9-% 896- 199- 124- 82- 26- 431- 11 BOYS CLUB 290 725.0 % 95 633.3 % 29 322.2 % 11 220.0 % 425 164 72 22 11 269 12 E.I.C. 143 170.2 % 29 76.3 % 14 107.7 % 4 133. 3 % 190 78 18 3 4 103 17 EXPULSION 1- 25.0-% 2- 100.0-% 2- 40.0-% 1 50.0 % 4- 1- 2- 2- 1 4-\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_41","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":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/41"],"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 EDUCATION 4STATECAPITOLMALL LITLEROCK,ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501)6824475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education January 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III FEB - 2 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 WR W Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JtJ.,+i-- 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 *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT REC!ZIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2006. Respectfully Submitted, J\n~ General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC::IVED FEB - 2 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLA1~GATI0N MONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Basea on tne information available at Decemoer 31, 2005, the ADE calculate the State Foundation Funding for FY 05/06, subect to P-eriodic adust e ts B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 asea on t e information available at Decemoer 31, 2005 ttie ADE ca culate for FY 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 January 31, 2006 On December 31, 2005, distributions of State Founaation Fundin for FY 05/06 were as follows LRSD - $29, 167,03 NLRSD-$15,188,225 PCSSD - $25,260 480 The allotments of State Foundation Funding calculated for FY 05/06 at December 31, 005, subject to eriodic adjustments, were as follows LRSD - $64, 167,47~ NLRSD - $33,414,099 PCSSD - $55,573,061 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 2005 for FY 05/06, subject to Qeriodic 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 January 31, 2006 Basecl on ttie information available, ttie ADE calculatecl at Decemoer 31 200 for FY 05/06 subect to eriodic adustments It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31, 2005 for FY 05/06, subject to g_eriodic adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2006 Distributions for FY 05/06 at December 31, 2005, totaled $6,358,347. Allotment calculated for FY 05/06 was $14,011,194 subject 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 January 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 January 31, 2006 Distributions for f=Y 05/06 at Decemoer 31, 20 LRSD - $1,619,27 NLRSD-$1,612,748 PCSSD - $4 320 38 The allotments calculate for FY 05/06 at December 31, 2005, subj adjustments, were: LRSD - $4,048,176 NLRSD - $4,031,872 PCSSD - $10,800,964 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of January 31, 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 January 31 , 2006 In March 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 04/05 to the Districts. In October 2005, General Finance was notified to pay the th ird 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. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 In March 2005, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 04/05 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 2005, the following had been paid for FY 04/05: LRSD - $2,650,087.34 NLRSD - $550,666.66 PCSSD- $1,690,442.44 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 2004, 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 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 31, 2006 Ongoing 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. 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 January 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 January 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 ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 January 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 regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 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 January 31, 2006 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 34 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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) 0. 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 January 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 summa for the months of November and December. 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 January 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. 5 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2006 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 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 January 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 January 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 pa rtici pants. 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 January 31 , 2006 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001. Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 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 January 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 January 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 January 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 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 increas\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_807","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":["2006-01/2006-06"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School boards","School employees","School superintendents","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/807"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n' BOARD OF EDUCATION NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:00 P. M. MEETING AGENDA NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, January 19, 2006-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Gregory Fudge, a Glenview Elementary Third Grader, son of Ms. Merlene Honorable FLAG SALUTE 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 RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Special Recognition: 1. Mrs. Mable Mitchell, Retiring NLRSD Board of Education Member 2. Maria Touchstone, Who's Who in the Hispanic Community by El Latino newspaper Superintendent's Honor Roll: I. Ann McKaig, Poplar Street Middle Special Education Aide 2. Wilma White, Poplar Street Middle Special Education Aide VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, December 15, 2005 5 P.M. - Regular Meeting- Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS Page 2 - Board Agenda January 19, 2006 A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report -G. Tucker C. Consider 2004 - 2005 Student Discipline Analysis Report - F. Jackson D. Consider Master Facility Plan Report-J. Massey (Open Public Hearing for Comments on Master Facility Plan) E. Consider Elementary North Central Association Membership - K. Lowe F. Consider Computer Leasing -G. Daniels-Page B - 1 G . Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel 1. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 2. Consider bid items - Page R - 1 3. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 4. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. District Financial Update- G. Daniels XI. PERSONNEL HEARING XII. SUPERINTENDENT'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW XIII. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES December 15, 2005 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, December 15, 2005 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. In public comments: A North Little Rock High School parent spoke to the Board about her daughter being removed from the basketball team. A Ridgeroad Middle Charter School teacher addressed the Board to encourage them to vote for the charter renewal at RRMCS. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m. Noah Delashaw, a Pike View Elementary third grader, 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 Mable Mitchell, Member Absent None 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. A-1 RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, presented outgoing Board President Teresa Burl with a gavel and the Board thanked her for her great leadership for the past two years. Mrs. Brazear introduced Kathy Heller and Lynn Fortner, Lakewood Middle School teachers as new National Board Certified Teachers. John Riley presented them with a certificate\nthanked them for their hard work and continued dedication to the students of our district. Lisa Meyer, McCain Mall/Simon Properties manager, was introduced as a Partner in Education with the North Little Rock School District. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION John Riley moved to accept the minutes of the November 17, 2005 Regular meeting as printed. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None UNFINISHED BUSINESS . A.V. \"Buster\" Beardsley of Beardsley Finance presented the final documents to the Board to facilitate the special election on March 14, 2006 for debt restructuring for the North Little Rock School District. MOTION Trent Cox moved to adopt the attached resolution with the proposed 2007 - 2008 budget for the purpose of authorizing a special election on March 14, 2006 for debt restructuring. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Rochelle Redus moved to petition the Commissioner of Education and the County Board of Election Commissioners to call a special election on March 14, 2006. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None NEW BUSINESS Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented the report. The committee requests two new policies be added to the classified personnel policies. The first policy is 3.6 - CL Professional Development which was revised from the certified policy 3.6 Professional Development. A-2 MOTION Teresa Burl moved to adopt 3.6- CL Professional Development as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None The second policy is CFC-CL Work Schedules In Case oflnclement Weather. Mrs. Tucker explained the wording needed to be changed for classified staff. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept CFC- CL Work Schedules In Case oflnclement Weather as presented. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Mitchell, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None Ridgeroad Middle Charter School Renewal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented information concerning the charter renewal. Mrs. Haynie provided financial and discipline information, test data, surveys of parents, teachers and former students. The Board reviewed and discussed the information and made several inquiries of Mrs. Haynie and other administrators. Some inquired concerning possible modifications about bells being utilized and teachers having using their prep time for planning instead of meetings. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to apply for renewal of the Ridgeroad Middle School's charter with modifications. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Mitchell, Redus, and Riley Cox, Moore, and Teague Mrs. Mitchell requested Mrs. Moore to suspend the meeting for an announcement. Mable Mitchell, Zone 1 Board member, announced after sixteen years she was retiring from the school board. She has enjoyed working with the Board and for the students and staffs of our district. All of the Board members thanked Mrs. Mitchell for her years of service to our district. Mrs. Mitchell exited the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mrs. Moore called for a recess at 7:05 p.m. The Board reconvened in session at 7:35 p.m. A-3 Elementary Textbook Adoption Committee Recommendation Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education, presented the committee's recommendation of Harcourt for mathematics beginning with the 2006 - 2007 school year. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the committee's recommendation for Harcourt math textbooks in the elementary schools for the 2006 - 2007 school year. Trent Cox seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) ABC Infant Toddler Program Proposal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education, also proposed an infant toddler program at Argenta Academy to serve the parents that are students at Argenta Academy. Mrs. Lowe explained the program would be funded with excess ABC funds. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept Administration's recommendation to implement an infant toddler program at Argenta Academy. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Kirspel requested the approval of the consent agenda as printed in the agenda. MOTION Teresa Burl. moved to accept the consent agenda as presented by Superintendent Kirspel. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Extra Curricular Duty Compensation Committee Report Danny Reed, Administrative Director for Personnel and Special Education, explained the committee had been diligently meeting and would have their extensive report ready for the Board in February. A-4 Transitional Academic Facilities Program and Master Facility Plan Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, updated the Board on the progress of the plans to be submitted to the State in February. Mr. Massey will present his complete Master Facility Plan in January. STUDENT EXPULSIONS Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, recommended Jason Parks, a 10th grade East Campus student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of Board policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Neither the student nor his parent/guardian was present. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Jason Parks for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Mr. Acklin recommended Ashley L. Layton, a 10th grade West Campus student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. Her parents requested a closed hearing. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to enter into a closed session for the student expulsion hearing. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) The Board entered into a closed hearing at 8: I 5 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at 9:25 p.m. MOTION Scott Teague moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Ashley Layton for one full calendar year for violation of policy 4.22 Weapons and Dangerous Instruments. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) Fran Jackson, Director of Student Affairs, recommended Kathryn Stone, a Lakewood Middle School seventh grade student, expelled for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of Board policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Her parent requested a closed hearing. A-5 MOTION Trent Cox moved to enter into a closed session for the student expulsion hearing. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) The Board entered into a closed hearing at 9:25 p.m. The Board reconvened in open session at I 0:40 p.m. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to expel Kathryn Stone for the remainder of the 2005 - 2006 school year for violation of policy 4.24 Drugs and Alcohol. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) PERSONNEL HEARING Mr. Reed explained the employee had requested the hearing delayed until the January meeting. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley and Teague None (Mitchell - absent) President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-6 N (0)l ET IEI lLIITTlL~ JE(O)CJEC I PTIJIB3ClLCI IC CJ B(I0 )( 0)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 10, 2006 Memo to: From: Subject: Mr. Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent Greg Daniels, CFO/Clo@ Recommendation for Leasing Computers The Technology Division recommends that the North Little Rock School District begin leasing computers instead of direct purchase. We have received proposals from Dell, NetGain (HP Compaq), and Jeny Rice representing ByteSpeed. We are recommending that we begin the process of leasing computers from Dell Corporation with the acquisition of 1,000 desktop computers and 50 laptops the first year beginning immediately. Year 2 would be a lease of 500 computers and 50 laptops. Year 3 would be a lease of 500 computers and 50 laptops. Year 4 would replace the first year's lease. The leasing program will be a vehicle to transport students and teachers into the 21st century technology. The computer is a valuable tool and not an end in itself. Decision Criteria How many kids will be helped? Entire student population Can we sustain it? Yes. Current purchase budgets will be transferred to lease options. How much will it improve student achievement? A tool to utilize various software in the remediation of core subjects, advanced subjects, etc. Haw far will it take (move) us toward our vision? A tool that will help us assist students in reaching their maximum potential. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 50V771-8000 B - 1 I North Llttle Rock School District - al 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 I Severance Tax Revenue from State Sources Unrestricted State Equalization Aid Student Growth Funding Other Unrestricted Grants-in- Aid Restricted Regular Education Special Education Early Childhood M-to-M Non-Instr Pgms Misc State e State NUE OPERATIONS d Total Revenu TOTAL REVE Building Fun Capital Outla Food Service Federal Revenue y TOTAL FEDE TOTAL REVE s Unrestricted-PL 874 Title I-B-4 ROTC Satellite EciRes.earch Title-I Title V-A Innovative Pgm Homeless Assistance Carl Perkins - Vocational Title 11-0 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 December 2005 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-O Actual $13,735,000.00 $6,999,481.59 $12,078,615.58 $6,530,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,410,000.00 $347,986.15 $791,399.09 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $181,000.00 $0.00 $111,983.42 $42,000.00 $21,958' .62 $44,841.87 $102,500.00 $3,166.07 $18,577.82 $360,000.00 $77,049.78 $305,483.82 $90,000.00 $6,872.25 $34,635.09 $819,990.00 $1,793.00 $52,884.32 $23,420,490.00 $7,458,307.46 $13,438,421.01 $13,000.001 $0.001 $4,693.831 $33,414,099.00 $3,037,645.00 $15,188,225.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 $499,745.00 $6,000.00 $477,085.74 $4,866,499.00 $279,251.00 $2,021,464.00 $2, 155,150.00 $0.00 $1,211,650.00 $4,825,000.00 $403,187.00 $1,897,464.52 $1,805,435.00 $125,327.45 $935,065.10 $136,000.00 $12,160.40 $17,882.33 $47,710,928.00 $3,863,570.85 $21,750,586.69 $71,144,418.00 $11,321,878.31 $35,193,701.53 $46,000.00 $93,583.05 $109,083.05 $1,523,253.00 $560,773.38 $824,521.98 $3,213,000.00 $372,620.46 $1,218,050.79 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,549.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $8,595.11 $38,843.53 $180,000.00 $0.00 $180,000.00 $3,175,702.00 $0.00 $0.00 $276,426.00 $0.00 $236,924.00 $180,000.00 $0.00 $183,000.00 $202,587.00 $4,500.00 $155,146.00 $58,407.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1 871,018.00 $980 648.00 $980,648.00 $705,491.00 $239,121.00 $239,121.00 $361,000.00 $44,944.30 $132,393.56 $610,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $16,976.00 $0.00 $0.00 $73,706.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 $12,334.83 $7,964,362.00 $1,281,808.41 $2,162,410.92 $83,891,033.00 $13,630,663.61 $39,507,768.27 0-1 % of Budqet Balance Balance $1,656,384.42 87.94% $6,530,000.00 0.00% $618,600.91 56.13% $150,000.00 0.00% $69,016.58 61.87% -$2,841.87 106.77% $83,922.18 18.12% $54,516.18 84.86% $55,364.91 38.48% $767,105.68 6.45% $9,982,068.99 57.38% $8,306.171 36.11%1 $18,225,874.00 45.45% $0.00 $7,250.00 19.44% $22,659.26 95.47% $2,845,035.00 41.54% $943,500.00 56.22% $2,927,535.48 39.33% $870,369.90 51.79% $118,117.67 13.15% $25,960,341.31 45.59% $35,950,716.47 49.47% -$63,083.05 237.14% $698,731.02 54.13% $1,994,949.21 37.91% $2,500.00 0.00% $65,549.00 0.00% $81,156.47 32.37% $0.00 100.00% $3,175,702.00 0.00% $39,502.00 85.71% -$3,000.00 101.67% $47,441.00 76.58% $58,407.00 0.00% $890,370.00 52.41% $466,370.00 33.89% $228,606.44 36.67% $610,000.00 0.00% $16,976.00 0.00% $73,706.00 0.00% -$4,000.00 $52,665.17 18.98% $5,801,951.08 27.15% $44,383,264.73 47.09% Expenditure Category CERTIFIED SALARIES CERTIFIED BENEFITS CLASSIFIED SALARIES CLASSIFIED BENEFITS TOTAL SALARIES \u0026amp; BENEFITS Purchased-Profrr 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 TOT AL EXPENDITURES North Little Rock School District December 2005 2005-2006 Current Month Budget Actual Y-T-D Actual $34,874,548.00 $4,359,784.15 $13,932,514.11 $10,107,052.41 $894,971.22 $2,910,445.82 $10,422,770.60 $1,163,456.48 $4,522,738.56 $3,857,441.17 $331,927.07 $1,355,642.85 $59,261,812.18 $6,750,138.92 $22,721,341.34 $977,902.19 $70,575.34 $363,549.05 $979,384.54 $79,678.13 $430,744.57 $2,537,508.99 $143,130.16 $663,102.86 $4,669,020.15 $270,807.69 $2,188,091.09 $274,292.00 $21,575.52 $108,372.50 $1,005,410.84 $14,814.00 $486,980.00 $700,207.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,143,725.71 $600,580.84 $4,240,840.07 $70,405,537.89 $7,350,719.76 $26,962,181.41 $1,599,207.00 $81,025.68 $725, 166.27 $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,635,909.95 $525,143.17 $2,035,212.79 $2,942,736.00 $360,311.40 $1,621,128.66 $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 0-2 %of Budget Budget Balance Balance $20,942,033.89 39.95% $7,196,606.59 28.80% $5,900,032.04 43.39% $2,501,798.32 35.14% $36,540,470.84 38.34% $614,353.14 37.18% $548,639.97 43.98% $1,874,406.13 26.13% $2,480,929.06 46.86% $165,919.50 39.51% $518,430.84 48.44% $700,207.00 0.00% $6,902,885.64 38.06% $43,443,356.48 38.30% $874,040.73 45.35% $1,676,206.00 0.00% . $7,600,697.16 21.12% $1,321,607.34 55.09% $54,915,907.71 36.34% North Little Rock School District FUNCTION December 2005 2005-2006 Current Function Category Budget Month Actual Y-T-D Actual 11 XX Regular Programs-Elem/Sec $27,427,290.72 $3,139,121.58 $10,494,315.10 12XX Special Education $9,477,206.00 $1,010,559.34 $3,130,019.87 13XX Workforce Education $2,077,304.00 $164,883.33 $755,118.84 15XX Compensatory Education $3,857,957.00 $241,817.42 $763,905.05 19XX Other Instructional $3,200,050.51 $347,328.34 $1,118,567.74 21XX Support Services-Students $7,141,053.00 $650,326.87 $2,182,111.74 22XX Suport Services-Instruction $5,587,492.92 $509,562.02 $1,958,476.92 23XX Support Services-Administration $1,092,984.39 $94,911.22 $392,042.77 24XX Support Services-Sch Adm in $4,337,794.80 $487,723.61 $1,908,077.52 25XX Support Services-Business $673,014.00 $75,067.52 $333,207.75 26XX M \u0026amp; 0 Plant Services $6,521,692.50 $562,445.16 $3,252,294.66 27XX Pupil Transportation $4,141,782.00 $372,309.27 $1,728,456.37 28XX Support Services-Central $1,494,281.00 $162,284.97 $689,008.42 29XX Other Support Services $456,555.00 $49,291.86 $181,291.15 31 XX Food Services $3,615,511.00 $426,537.56 $1,876,891.00 33XX Community Service Operations $71,841.00 $1,067.22 $2,605.22 34XX Other Non-Instr Services $68,243.00 $14,592.09 $49,662.39 43XX Site Improvement Services $0.00 $5,295.00 $5,295.00 46XX Bldq Acq/Constr Services $45,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 47XX Building Improvements $1,676,206.00 $0.00 $0.00 51XX LEA Indebtedness $1,889,564.00 $2,500.00 $522,341.62 53XX Payment to other LEA $1,270,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 55XX Indirect CosUAdmin Charqes $136,274.00 -$424.37 $0.00 GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 0-3 %of Budget Budget Balance Balance $16,932,975.62 38.26% $6,347,186.13 33.03% $1,322,185.16 36.35% $3,094,051.95 19.80% $2,081,482.77 34.95% $4,958,941.26 30.56% $3,629,016.00 35.05% $700,941.62 35.87% $2,429,717.28 43.99% $339,806.25 49.51% $3,269,397.84 49.87% $2,413,325.63 41.73% $805,272.58 46.11 % $275,263.85 39.71% $1,738,620.00 51.91% $69,235.78 3.63% $18,580.61 72.77% -$5,295.00 $45,500.00 0.00% $1,676,206.00 0.00% $1,367,222.38 27.64% $1,270,000.00 0.00% $136,274.00 0.00% $54,915,907.71 36.34% North Little Rock S~hool District SOURCE OF FUNDS - December 2005 2005-2006 . %of Current Budget Budget Source of Funds Category Budget Month Actual Y-T-D Actual Balance Balance 000 Non-categorical $67,849,075.08 $6,722,853.14 $26,114,644.23 $41,734,430.85 38.49% 020 Alternative-Local $7,047.00 $125.00 $580.65 $6,466.35 8.24% 045 Summer School $58,375.00 $0.00 $26,718.25 $31,656.75 45.77% 050 Camp Robinson Work Pgm $44,000.00 $1,581.33 $7,548.70 $36,451.30 17.16% 053 Grr Summer Quest $535.00 $0.00 $0.00 $535.00 0.00% 055 Soft Drink Sales $207,352.31 $10,883.63 $37,648.84 $169,703.47 18.16% 066 Teachers of Tomorrow $0.00 $375.00 $375.00 -$375.00 075 Arkansas Arts Council $0.00 $120.00 $240.00 -$240.00 083 Ark Heritage/Wildwood $640.00 $0.00 $640.00 $0.00 100.00% 090 Yale 21st Century $25,000.00 $1,863.92 $4,923.05 $20,076.95 19.69% 095 ADE Gates Grant $4,283.15 $0.00 $0.00 $4,283.15 0.00% 213 Intensive School Improvement $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 0.00% 223 Prof Development Act 59 $521,961.22 $46,976.36 $211,293.97 $310,667.25 40.48% 225 Technology Grant $1,724.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,724.00 0.00% 227 CPEP $71,710.00 $0.00 $18,581.89 $53,128.11 25.91% 245 Pathwise Mentoring $63,969.00 $26,874.43 $32,379.64 $31,589.36 50.62% 250 Act 591 Residential $73,000.00 $1,800.00 $12,250.00 $60,750.00 16.78% 260 Early Childhood Sp Ed $729,627.00 $86,606.72 $282,269.71 $447,357.29 38.69% 271 Gff Advance Placement $4,000.78 $0.00 $204.00 $3,796.78 5.10% 275 Alternative Learning Environment $1,290,745.00 $144,822.26 $448,435.61 $842,309.39 34.74% 276 Enqlish Lanq Learners $68,973.00 $8,439.63 $22,199.32 $46,773.68 32.19% 281 NSLA $2,710,070.00 $468,820.84 $1,052,516.54 $1,657,553.46 38.84% 340 Workforce Start-up $28,090.00 $0.00 $577.65 $27,512.35 2.06% 365 ABC Preschool $2,198,770.08 $215,626.26 $732,621.33 $1,466,148.75 33.32% 381 Smart Start Literacy $80,619.00 $8,051.83 $36,821.05 $43,797.95 45.67% 392 General Facility Funding $564,409.00 $46,212.84 $264,350.95 $300,058.05 46.84% 398 OHS Preschool Improvement $10,711.27 $23.65 $655.96 $10,055.31 6.12% 406 lmprv Lit Thru Libraries $0.00 $4,926.49 $23,068.17 -$23,068.17 430 ROTC $120,000.00 $13,342.76 $49,713.10 $70,286.90 41.43% 441 Title IV-8 21st Century $242,547.76 $30,203.86 $107,514.78 $135,032.98 44.33% 501 Title I-Reg Comp Ed $4,490,638.39 $144,961.91 $540,414.94 $3,950,223.45 12.03% 504 Title I Proqram Improvement $0.00 $0.00 $420.89 -$420.89 520 Title V-A Innovative Program $344,251.00 $0.00 $0.00 $344,251.00 0.00% 523 Title I Readinq First $234,444.00 $29,291.72 $80,064.37 $154,379.63 34.15% 530 Homeless-Stewart McKinney $19,209.00 $598.93 $8,297.45 $10,911.55 43.20% 535 Title V-8 Charter Schools $131,053.54 $54.35 $77,730.85 $53,322.69 59.31% 565 Teacher Quality Enhancement $0.00 $7,700.87 $23,610.85 -$23,610.85 570 Carl Perkins Vocational $196,114.00 $4,544.32 $122,715.56 $73,398.44 62.57% 595 Title 11-0 Ed Technoloqy $61,493.95 $0.00 $0.00 $61,493.95 0.00% 702 Title VI-B PL 94-142 $1,780,741.00 $144,985.18 $472,305.02 $1,308,435.98 26.52% 703 Title Vl-8 Head Start $89,910.00 $8,998.05 $30,484.82 $59,425.18 33.91% 710 Sp Ed Preschool Sec 619 $823,280.00 $75,092.58 $249,593.53 $573,686.47 30.32% 720 Title Vl-8 Sliver Grant $99,254.00 $0.00 ' $0.00 $99,254.00 0.00% 750 Medicaid $288,382.00 $7,396.09 $28,442.42 $259,939.58 9.86% 751 Medicaid Sp Ed Preschool $60,000.00 $4,714.06 $33,534.98 $26,465.02 55.89% 756 Title II-A Improve Teaching $534,343.31 $37,855.50 $147,046.48 $387,296.83 27.52% 761 Title Ill Enq Lang Acqui $11,662.00 $600.00 $1,107.98 $10,554.02 9.50% 781 Title IV-A Drug Ed $73,586.00 $5,773.82 $28,097.45 $45,488.55 38.18% 785 Comprehensive Sch Health $832.37 $832.37 -$832.37 796 Workforce Investment Act $35,000.00 $3,270.31 $10,216.78 $24,783.22 29.19% GRAND TOTAL $86,259,596.84 $8,317,200.01 $31,343,689.13 $54,915,907.71 36.34% 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 Operating Building Capital Outlay Funds 0-5 Federal Food Service !.!IB udget Expenses NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PERSONNEL OFFICE Board Agenda - January 19, 2006 CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RESIGNATIONS \u0026amp; RETIREMENTS Thomas Giuisti Roseanne Sallis Patrick Kirwin Nicole Schafer Eletha White NAME: CERTIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES From Active Military Duty Return to Argenta Academy, Alternative Education From NLRHS West Campus, PENolleyballffrack To NLRHS West Campus, PENolleyball NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math Effective 1/2/05, Category I, Step 11, 190 days Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade Effective 1/3/06, Category I, Step 5, 190 days NLRHS West Campus, Spanish Effective 1/10/06, Category I, Step 18, 190 days NEW CERTIFIED PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS Patrick Kirwin PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Lakewood Middle School, English/Social Studies/Math BA-Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 5/91 Middle School English/Math/Oral Communications/Coaching Pribilof School District, St. Paul, AK 8/05 - 12/05 EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION Little Rock School District, Little Rock, AR 10/96 - 5/05 Danville Public Schools, Danville, AR 8/93 - 5/95 Dr. Ginger Wallace, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services P-1 NAME: North Little Rock School District Board Agenda- January 19, 2006 Nicole Schafer PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: Seventh Street Elementary, First Grade EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION NAME: BSE - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 5/2000 Middle School Social Studies, Elementary Education K-6 North Little Rock School District, NLR, AR 8/00 - 6/9/04 Tulsa School District, Tulsa, OK 8/04-12/05 Pam Wilcox, Principal Kaye Lowe, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services Eletha Williams White PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT: NLRHS West Campus, Spanish EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: RECOMMENDATION BA - California Baptist College, Riverside, CA 8/67 Oklahoma License in Elementary Education, Spanish, English Literature, Newspaper, Yearbook, Business English, American Literature, Grammar \u0026amp; Comp, Speech \u0026amp; Drama and Middle School Social Studies Claremore High School, Claremore, OK 2/90 - 10/03 East End School District, Bigelow, AR 8/98 - 5/99 Beggs High School, Beggs, OK 8/88 - 5/89 Nowata Public Schools, Nowata, OK 8/86 - 5/88 Verdigris School District, Claremore, OK 8/83 - 5/86 - Gregg Thompson, Principal June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Danny Reed, Administrative Director of Personnel/Special Services CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TRANSFERS AND CHANGES Jeremy Rollins Walter Faux Bruce Strong, Sr. From NLRHS West Campus, Custodian To Plant Services, Substitute Custodian NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL Transportation Department, Bus Driver Effective 1/5/06, Category 507, Step 46, 190 days Plant Services, Lead Custodian Effective 12/19/05, Category 601, Step 27,252 days P-2 :. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JANUARY 2006 BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER : RFP BID NAME : Energy Services Company SOURCE OF FUNDING : LOCATION: JOHNSON'S CONTROLS, INC. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES TRANE OF ARKANSAS ***** * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended R-1 JAN. 5.2006 11:21AM /'10.194 P.2/2 ::\u0026lt;:r:::p:. .- Parksa ndR ecreatioDne partment 2700 WillowS treet Voice (501) 791~8538 January S. 2006 Mr. Barry Kine! parksandrec@northlittlerock,ar.gov North Little Rock School District 2700 Popular Street. North Little Rock. AR 72114 Dear Mr. Kincl, Fax (501) 791-8528 I would like to request the use of the NLRHS Football Field for the following dates from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. July I. 2006 July 22. 2006 July 29, 2006 August 26, 2006 September 9, 2006 Thank you for your assistance with this matter. I hope to hear from you soon. I can be reached at (501) 791-BS43. Sincerely, Tina Worrell Recreation Superintendent Sl North Little Rock School of Dance 753-5039 Barry Kincl 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Ar 72114 Mr. Kincl, I am writing this letter as a request to use the North Little Rock East Campus Auditorium for the dates of Saturday, June 10,2006 (approximately 10a.m.-6p.m.) and Sunday, June 11,2006 (approximately 3p.m.-8p.m.). This is my first choice. My second choice is for the dates of Wednesday, June 14,2006 (approximately 10a.m.-6p.m.) and Thursday, June 15,2006 (approximately 5p.m.- 10p.m.). Sincerely, Karen K. Bowren North Little Rock School of Dance S2 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT AW PELLER \u0026amp; ASSOCIATES INC A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA AAMSCO ACCESS SCHOOLS ACE GLASS COMPANY, INC. ACE MART RESTAURANT SUPPLIES ACI PLASTICS ADAM ROBINSON ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AFFORDABLE COMPUTER PRODUCTS AGS PUBLISHING AHA PROCESS INCORPOARTED AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN .11.LIGN ALIGN ALISHA HERRING ALISHA HERRING ALL AMERICAN INC. T- 1 .00 456.28 175.68 59.86 65.00 27.00 288.80 172. 00 1,987.50 294.--27 484.48 79.57 68.00 12,703.62 1,317.71 1,162.78 2,102.00 50.00 2,102.00 50.00 2,102.00 416.13 1,677.43 795.00 153.23 104.64 67.28 96.48 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .oo .00 115. 05 91.92 1,182.27 CHK. NO. 0 52325 52232 52797 52202 52498 52283 52186 52596 52327 52114 52069 52660 52265 52641 52532 51863 52053 52277 52306 52543 52502 52579 52762 52192 52333 52352 52217 51855 V 52020 V 52030 V 52044 V 52057 V 52062 V 52236 V 52269 V 52281 V 52297 V 52307 V 52324 V 52528 V 52535 V 52547 V 52556 V 52571 V 52577 V 52214 52775 52065 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ALL AMERICAN INC. ALL ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC. ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLTEL MOBILE ALPHASMART INC ALPS PUBLISHING AMANDA STUCKEY AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMBOY ELEM ACTIVITY FUND AMERICAN LIBRARY PREVIEW AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGEAMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMY VOLLMAN AMY VOLLMAN ANDREA HAIN ANDREW CALAWAY ANDRIA SMITH ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE HUTSON ANGIE JOHNSON ANITA HOLLAND ANNAN. VAMMEN ANOINTED BY DESIGN AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. APPERSON PRINT MANAGEMENT APPLE COMPUTER INC APPLIED IND TECH ARA CONFERENCE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCOM SYSTEMS ARKANSAS AIR FRAGRANCE COMPANY ARKANSAS ALTACARE ARKANSAS ART CENTER ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISHING ARKANSAS CHORAL DIRECTORS ASSO ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACHERS ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS T- 2 95.00 109.14 70.85 3,080.12 870.00 297.00 3,941.78 990.50 792.30 41. 95 40.52 119.09 152.25 161. 50 3,345.00 12,120.00 375.00 12,160.00 375.00 12,160.00 132.25 67.55 26.60 52.00 71. 33 54.52 63.18 101.80 99.00 38.88 122.50 2.22 178.99 377.55 271.83 259.42 44.31 115. 00 3,699.77 302.16 2,565.00 259.20 49,392.00 280.00 1,700.00 255.00 55.00 20.00 103.55 CHK. NO. 52328 52802 52068 52334 52475 52727 52145 52339 52752 52100 52756 52480 52732 52662 52169 51862 52052 52276 52305 52542 52158 52709 52215 52389 52189 52746 52149 52447 52598 52623 52061 52493 52196 52580 52749 52375 52768 52515 52359 52610 52758 52478 52161 52683 52477 52443 52439 52715 52143 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TRAILER ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY HANAN ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION \u0026amp; ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS 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 BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BECKERS SCHOOL SUPPLIES BECKY WITCHER BEDFORD CAMERA AND VIDEO BELWOOD ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENCHMARK EDUCATION COMPANY BENTONVILLE PROMOTIONS BEVERLY KELSO BILL DUVALL BILL DUVALL BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BINSWANGER GLASS COMPANY BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. BLUE BELL CREAMERIES, L.P. T- 3 130.80 1,260.00 375.00 608,387.68 31,338.90 2,805.44 947.00 1,330.26 1,469.11 44.23 20.24 4,745.87 11,102.43 2,995.20 27. 95 63. 95 29,227.13 50.00 200.00 440,529.17 45,619.82 440,033.61 51,389.49 442,865.16 37,635.38 1,220,293.83 173,326.86 1,198,335.92 195,552.75 1,231,918.99 146,174.34 988.34 103 .13 5,528.36 4,502.02 99.17 253. 97 172.57 111.29 2,229.70 1,963.50 2,391.46 5.22 51.09 8.60 107.26 290.71 890.20 395.15 CHK. NO. 52693 52420 52581 52058 52059 52060 52534 52402 52064 52507 52777 52138 52427 52680 52071 52589 52296 52640 52330 51857 52046 52271 52299 52537 52574 51856 52045 52270 52298 52536 52573 52341 52331 52337 52588 52500 52699 52338 52179 52488 52741 52081 52248 52079 52344 52380 52078 52153 52704 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOBBY ACKLIN BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND BRANDY NESSELRODT BRANDY NESSELRODT BRENDA BUTLER BRENDA CREWS BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BRYNN HARVISON BUDS N BOWS BUSTER 400 C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CAMBIUM LEARNING INC CAMPUS TEAM WEAR INC CAPITOL ADVERTISING CARLTON-BATES CO. CARLTON-BATES CO. CAROLYN GARRETT CARSON DELLOSA PUBLISHING CO CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTRAL ARKANSAS TRANSIT CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHAMBER THEATRE PRODUCTIONS CHARLES JONES CHERYL HALL CHILD CARE PROVIDERS FUND CI CI'S PIZZA CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CITY YEAR INC CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLASSROOM DIRECT CLASSROOM DIRECT CLAUDIA GARRIGUS CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COBB AND SUSKIE LTD. COCA-COLA USA COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING T- 4 275.40 82.29 3,023.00 153.47 111.07 117. 08 84.08 40.00 18.90 153.16 56.00 104.29 460.00 9,116.25 39.91 94.18 224.29 196.19 248.30 55.40 260.33 194.40 428.22 1. 70 68. 68 99.76 18,813.25 550.00 1,652.74 116. 00 44.20 30.62 100.00 125.00 130. 36 42.68 130. 36 130.36 1,000.00 817.50 1,199.00 7,625.61 1,586.50 78.00 264.13 139.88 14,062.50 1,537.50 6,641.76 CHK. NO. 52345 52440 52595 52482 52220 52787 52495 52789 52347 52348 52388 52593 52127 52529 52083 52349 52601 52350 52612 52209 52665 52085 52602 52247 52468 52332 52585 52 697 52721 52132 52252 52162 52457 52 682 52035 52286 52312 52561 52616 52410 52663 52490 52748 52267 52176 52729 52570 52101 52156 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION COMPLETE COMPUTING CONNIE FOX CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORKYS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CRAB TREE PUBLISNING COMPANY CROW BURLINGAME CO CRYSTAL EVANS CRYSTAL EVANS CUMMINS MID SOUTH LLC CURRICULUM ASSOCIATES INC CWI, PLC DAMARIS PURTLE DANA CHADWICK DANA MCCOY DANA MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DAPHNE KNIGHTEN DARLENE ROBERTS DARRELL MCCOY DARYL FIMPLE DATAMAX OF ARKANSAS DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAWNE CARROLL DAWNE CARROLL DAYLIGHT DONUTS DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBBIE GREENE DEBBIE ROZZELL DELI PARTNER'S DELI PARTNER'S DELL MARKETING LP. DELTA DENTAL DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DESIGN IT INC DETCO INDUSTRIES DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS T- 5 5,453.66 46.31 251.56 52.08 206.31 628.35 9,038.04 3,853.49 3,888.74 40.56 24. 72 43.60 2.94 70.95 1,798.20 2,152.50 74.43 302.56 120.04 94.69 20.00 20.00 20.00 14.12 5.15 35.00 40.00 155.74 '31,788.07 458.78 2,238.00 458.78 458.78 56 .12 54.25 22.50 39.37 43.10 51. 72 33.23 67.20 449.25 118. 7 6 55,454.72 252,242.31 739.08 2,448.00 3,335.00 736.28 CHK. NO. 52707 52336 52351 52241 52258 52096 52166 52463 52717 52702 52464 52171 52251 52476 52606 52385 52445 52091 52221 52788 52033 52310 52559 52472 52726 52658 52604 52651 52578 52031 52282 52308 52557 52183 52738 52740 52509 52514 52747 52424 52146 52441 52399 52257 52572 52666 52706 52804 52416 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIRECT SCHOOL SUPPLY DONNA RIPPER DONNA STEWART DONNA STEWART DOREEN MICK DOROTHY FARRIS DREW CAMP DWIGHT JONES INC. E-RATE CONSULTING SERVICES EAST CAMPUS ACTIV~TY FUND EASTER SEALS OUTREACH PROGRAM ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF ELAINE BLOCK ELECTRONIC VIDEO SYSTEMS ELIZABETH HART EMILY TAYLOR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERGY SYSTEMS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, IN F \u0026amp; E CHECK PROTECTOR COMPANY FAIRFIELD LANGUAGE FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FCCLA FCCLA LOCKBOX OPERATION FERRELLGAS FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLINN SCIENTIFIC COMPANY FLOORCOVERINGS INTERNATIONAL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOOTLIGHTS FRANKLIN COVEY FRANKLIN COVEY GALE STANLEY GARRETT BOOK COMPANY GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION GENERATION PRODUCTS COMPANY GEORGE TAYLOR T- 6 308.96 112. 32 13. 80 175.03 87.52 52.08 91. 85 112. 94 200.00 6,243.75 619.15 240.00 1,391.39 56.51 1,070.07 52,545.38 52.00 8,592.10 17.47 240.00 387,902.48 10,100.00 6.68 350.00 374.33 1,606.80 54.00 54.00 54.00 168.92 128.16 60.00 280.00 42.01 1,846.66 63.20 440.89 310.68 104.76 122.37 99.97 17. 20 30.14 14.94 35.28 365.03 59.22 598.41 11. 77 CHK. NO. 52669 52185 52266 52086 52603 52254 52191 52230 52094 52776 52731 52182 52092 52608 52093 52356 52244 52080 52107 52412 52264 52329 52317 52799 52423 52354 52027 52292 52554 52364 52614 52125 52222 52684 52613 52363 52335 52700 52040 52319 52568 52607 52373 52597 52237 52763 52362 52106 52369 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT GINGER WALLACE GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLORIA SMITH GMS MEETING MANAGEMENT GOLDEN CORRAL GRAINGER GRAINGER GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES GREAT IDEAS FOR TEACHING GRETCHEN LAUIPPA GRETCHEN WILLOUGHBY GRUENYS GRS INC HAESE \u0026amp; HARRIS PUBLICATIONS HARCOURT ASSESSMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HAROLD D STARK HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HAROLD GWATNEY CHEVROLET CO. HASLER INC HEALTH ED HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HIGGINS AUTO TRANSMISSION HIGHSMITH INC HOME DEPOT/GECF HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY HOPE FOUNDATION HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HUM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT ILLINOIS THEATRICAL IN DYER NEED ENTERPRISES INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC INDEPENDENT MUSIC SERVICE, INC INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INFORMATION DOCUMENTS, INC INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS T- 7 403.08 655.58 778.34 31. 43 740.00 1,129.50 596.78 1,463.49 1,917.18 76.95 600.00 10.00 19.78 2,036.59 286.49 414.20 473.06 97.50 25.00 25.00 25.00 588.60 149.00 2,832.50 1,500.00 85.80 986.83 539.06 399.61 854.07 1,200.00 117.59 405.85 11. 71 55.29 318.37 425.00 425.00 425.00 104.75 154.26 112.16 265.00 138.82 3,410.89 147.40 3,465.00 437.50 3,465.00 CHK. NO. 52470 52200 52760 52229 52394 52725 52436 52687 52370 52164 52503 52239 52617 52408 52455 52512 52784 52521 52043 52322 52569 52753 52656 52190 52150 52374 52696 52194 52195 52446 52342 52208 52770 52376 52621 52622 52028 52293 52555 52793 52582 52456 52711 52564 52340 52368 51861 52051 52275 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR DECEMBER, 2005 AMOUNT ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATIONAL INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE J \u0026amp; SPRINTING J \u0026amp; SPRINTING J A RIGGS TRACTOR COMPANY J W PEPPER AND SON J. L. HEIN SERVICE, INC. JACK T CARTER COMPANY JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACQUELINE SUMLER JACQUELINE SUMLER JAMES BROS. JAMIE EUBANKS JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANET FOSTER JANN PHARO JASON GOLDEN JENNIE BOTTS JENNY OBANNON JERRY DOWDY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JILL MILLS JILL MILLS JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JONATHAN MOORE JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JUNE HAYNIE JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES JUST RIBBONS KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER T- 8 437.50 3,465.00 525.00 2,838.38 64,286.49 7,644.45 136.00 136.00 136. 00 654.68 334.00 157.38 355.00 1,315.00 902.87 162.69 501.12 145.78 2,329.50 54.52 43.86 39.24 1,190.00 1,907.50 1,184.17 271.20 161. 62 14.70 ll0.16 15.70 ll5.59 66.30 148.87 472.00 85.89 32.76 21. 84 258.46 281.37 281. 37 85.00 869.43 2,896.54 869.43 869.43 31.16 585.00 4 ll. 00 46.15 CHK. NO. 52304 52541 52639 52184 52487 52739 52026 52291 52553 52144 52694 52404 52407 52780 52626 52022 52099 52285 52377 52224 52794 52102 52207 52769 52438 52159 52712 52449 52409 52 636 52199 52518 52160 52459 52714 52097 52624 52036 52314 52563 52386 52039 52294 52318 52567 52628 52781 52461 52313 V Natara Johnson Calvin Key Jeffrey Martello Carol Mayerhoff Marsha G. Satterfield William Singleton Vilesia Tatum Tammy Young North Little Rock School District Board Agenda, February 16, 2006 NEW CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL CONTINUED Argenta Infant/Toddler Program, Teacher's Aide Effective 1/24/06, Category 236, Step 67, 185 days Crestwood Elementary, Lunch Aide Effective 1/18/06, Category 260, Step 21, 178 days Administration Annex, Computer Technician Effective 1/24/06, Category 252, Step 135, 252 days Amboy Elementary, Early AM Aide Effective 1/9/06, Category 266, Step 33, 178 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Pre-K Teacher's Aide Effective 1/30/06, Category 242, Step 54, 185 days Indian Hills Elementary, Special Education Aide Effective 12/1/05, Category 240, Step 54, 185 days Lynch Drive Elementary, Lunch Aide Effective 1/20/06, Category 260, Step 18, 178 days Argenta Infant/Toddler Program, Teacher's Aide Effective 2/7/06, Category 242, Step 50, 185 days -P-3 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEBRUARY BIDS FOR APPROVAL BID NUMBER: 06-02-042 BID NAME: Holding Cabinets (14) SOURCE OF FUNDING : Food Service Funds LOCATION : Food Service Department AIMCO PIONEER SUPREME FIXTURE BID NUMBER : 06-02-042B $29,112.70 $28,820.08 $30,222.06 BID NAME: Gas Convection Ovens (3) SOURCE OF FUNDING : Food Service Funds LOCATION : Food Service Department AIMCO PIONEER SUPREME FIXTURE * ** *** **** ***** Did Not Meet Specifications Part of all or No Bid Quality Not Recommended Limited Coverage Recommended $15,881.51 $19,822.80 $17,524.32 R- l- ***** ***** ~HILL ~ ISTCHURCH Friday, February 03, 2006 Mr. Barry Kincl: 20 I East \"C\" A venue North Little Rock Arkansas 72116 (501) 753-3413. Fax (501) 771-6718 aaronhulse@aristotle.net www.parkhillbaptist.org Dr. S. CARY HEARD PASTOR I am the Minister to Students at Park Hill Baptist Church here in North Little Rock and I have teamed up with many of the Youth Pastors from churches in our community to host REAL ENCOUNTER for all 7th - 12th grade students in the area. I am writing t.o you to request the use of the North Little Rock West Campus Gymnasium for this community wide Christian youth rally that will be held on Wednesday night, September 27, 2006. REAL ENCOUNTER is lead by a professional motor cross rider named Brad Bennett along with the help of a drama team and a band. This event will be free for all students in the North Little Rock and North Pulaski communities. The hosting churches are taking on the responsibility of funding. The event will be promoted through the churches as well as through character based school assemblies that will take place on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of that same week. We are targeting 15 middle and senior high schools in the North Pulaski area, including.all 5 of the schools in Nortlr Little Rock. So far we have confirmed with 8 of the 15. We see the potential for a lot of students attending this Christian youth rally and want to host it in a neutral, non-threatening location that has the capacity to hold a large crowd. Dan Russell and lhave visited.together.and.discussed.the.possibility ofus using the NLR West Campus Gymnasium.: lisf SIIg~tha.t:.l senclaleitetto you for approval of our event-aLWestCampUS-Gym. I loo~forward to visitin~witlhyouo-0boutREAL ENCOUNTER-I hae.included~some materialahout.REAL ENCOUNTER for you to have. I will contact.you.soon. Sincerely, D. Aaron Hulse:- .\\ARON HULSE MINISTER TO STUDENT S-l - ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT A \u0026amp; A FIRE AND SAFETY COMPANY A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A-PLUS TEACHING SUPPLIES A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC A'TEST CONSULTANTS INC AAEA MEA MSBO ABILITATIONS ACADEMY SPORTS ACCESS SCHOOLS ACCURATE LABEL DESIGNS ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AEA AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AEA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AETNA LIFE \u0026amp; CASUALTY AIMEE WRIGHT ALAN CROWNOVER ALEXANDRA PRITCHETT ALIBRIS FOR LIBRARIES ALICIA YARBROUGH ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN ALISHA HERRING ALL AMERICAN INC. ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP ALLIED PRINTING AND SUPPLY CO. ALLIED THERAPY \u0026amp; CONSULTING ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #858 ALLISON CALLAHAN - T- 1 .00 731.39 433.28 1,486.15 86.50 192.50 318.80 290.00 115. 00 379.09 1,225.69 1,450.00 139.95 12,626.34 1,317.71 1,186.74 2,102.00 50.00 50.00 1,751.60 58.03 141.56 11. 70 157.00 16.93 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 117. 94 966. 67 285.56 92.65 750.00 3,905.83 3,941.78 57.37 CHK. NO. 0 53372 53192 53417 52914 53397 53086 53453 52981 52896 53471 53267 53048 52962 53204 53426 52972 53082 53251 52806 52909 52816 53272 53145 53061 52805 V 52940 V 52964 V 52976 V 52980 V 53073 V 53084 V 53098 V 53112 V 53197 V 53226 V 53241 V 53245 V 53253 V 53421 V 53452 V 53503 53113 53254 53115 53376 52876 53475 53504 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT ALLTEL MOBILE ALLTEL MOBILE ALPHASMART INC AMANDA WARE AMERICAN ACCESS INC. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES AMY VOLLMAN ANDRIA SMITH ANGIE COLCLASURE ANGIE COLCLASURE ANITA CAMERON ANNAN. VAMMEN AOS LASER SERVICE, INC. APPERSON PRINT MANAGEMENT APPLAUSE LEARNING RESOURCES APPLAUSE LEARNING RESOURCES AR EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARCH FORD EDUCATION SERVICE ARKANSAS BAG \u0026amp; EQUIPMENJ CO ARKANSAS BUSINESS PUBLISHING ARKANSAS COUNCIL OF TEACHERS ARKANSAS COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS DEPT. OF EDUCATION ARKANSAS LAMINATION PRODUCTS ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS READING ASSOCIATION ARKANSAS SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIA ARKANSAS SCHOOL PLANT MANAGEME ARKANSAS SPECIAL OLYMPICS ARKANSAg STATK POLICE ARKANSAS STATE POLICE ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER-RETIREMENT~ ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT ARKANSAS TE.CH. UNLVE.RSITY ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER \u0026amp; CO. ASCD ASCD ASCO HARDWAREC. OMPANY, INC. T- 2 77.88 627.45 20.61 8.38 4,395.00 11,260.00 375.00 375.00 109.24 98.83 61. 21 129.48 26. 43 59.35 377.55 170.93 89.75 87.78 8.00 661.48 76.70 150.50 1,315.00 490.00 80.00 285.70 168.20 30.00 31,182.14 10.00 100.00 444.72 1,225.00 220.00 1,464.00 400.00 100.00 408.00 340.00 400.00 917,592.02 47,383.00 3,950.00 931.12 1,000.00 38,814.88 189.00 69.00 1,170.66 CHK. NO. 52818 53116 53389 52882 53322 52971 53081 53250 53480 534 96 53033 53477 53455 52908 53256 53181 52851 53304 53114 52834 53001 52933 53377 53165 52894 52833 53124 53483 53199 53224 53391 53162 52866 53025 53200 53456 53479 53459 53460 53287 52977 52978 52979 53428 52836 53488 52891 53364 52807 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT ASCO HARDWARE COMPANY, INC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASHLEY-WOODSON \u0026amp; ASSOC. ASPA B-SEW INN BABB BONDING INC BACKGROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS 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 BARBARA BROWN BARNES AND NOBLE BARNES AND NOBLE BARRY KINCL BASEBALL EXPRESS INC BASICS PLUS BASICS PLUS BAUXITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECKY WITCHER BEVERLY KELSO BILL DUVALL BILL WHITTEN BILL'S LOCK \u0026amp; SAFE BILL'S OFFICE FURNITURE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BLUE HILL WRECKER SERVICE BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOBBIE J RIGGINS BOILER INSPECTION DIVISION BONANZA BOONE PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND SORENSON AND ASSOCIATES BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BOUND BOOKS BOUND TO STAY BQUND BOOKS BRANDERS.COM BRENDA BUTLER BROCK MOORE BROMLEY PARTS \u0026amp; SERVICE BROWN JANITOR SUPPLY BUREAU OF EDUCATION \u0026amp; RESEARCH C \u0026amp; W TOOL REPAIR C.T.A. CABOT FLORISTS CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. T- 3 14.17 4,240.16 3,659.50 150.00 196.04 50.00 200.00 435,215.82 40,027.14 49,632.50 1,153,484.46 149,436.40 190,119.62 3.35 1,122.76 1,426.30 5.00 208.01 489.72 164. 64 10.00 139.70 105.68 59.63 37.52 17.88 304.88 102.60 102.60 225.74 16.18 106.16 68.00 100.00 90.04 165.00 364.67 1,293.11 83.08 1,783.95 47.97 68.88 55.26 77.18 318.00 30.64 9,159.15 106.17 25.45 CHK. NO. 53454 53157 53474 53216 53299 53328 52986 52966 53075 53242 52965 53074 53246 52899 52819 53263 53257 53355 52989 53458 52922 53476 52946 52822 53069 53133 52983 52823 52991 53264 53041 53172 53118 53327 53044 53035 52824 52992 53119 53020 53051 53410 53265 53266 52875 53168 53422 52993 52995 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT CALLOWAY HOUSE, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CCI OF ARKANSAS, INC. CDW GOVERNMENT, INC CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTER POINT ENERGY ARKLA CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES CENTRAL STATES BUS SALES, INC. CHARLOTTE VIRDEN CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP CHILDCRAFT EDUCATION CORP C,HRIST HEALTH PRIMARY CARE CHRISTINE HICKMAN CHRISTINE KEENE EDITING DESIGN CINTAS CINTAS CINTAS CLARK EXTERMINATING CO, INC. CLASSROOM DIRECT CLEAN SOLUTIONS CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN CLEAR MOUNTAIN COCA-COLA USA COCA-COLA/DR PEPPER BOTTLING COMCAST CABLEVISION CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATE EXPR\u0026amp;S.S. CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS COSTUME CORNER COURTNEY PHAUP COUSINS VIDEO CRE,WS.\u0026amp;.--. ASSOCIATE,S ,- INC. CROCKETT BUSINESS MACHINES: CUSTOM PRINTING CWT~ P.L-C-- D H L EXeR\u0026amp;S.S INC DAMl\\RLS.. E.URT-LEDAMAR- LSP,.U. RTLE.. DAMARIS PURTLE DAN RUSSELL DAN RUSSELL. DANA CHADWICK DA.N\u0026amp; CHADJtl.LCK DAN~ CHADWICK DANK MCCOY DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN - T- 4 295.09 13,261.76 8,994.00 185.30 218.15 74,624.42 16,340.00 518.29 26. 42 114.99 358.73 117. 00 84.24 270.00 42.68 130.36 130.36 981.00 156.93 1,982.06 25.20 32.90 162.25 1,212.50 899.45 46.28 206.31 52,899.86 1,648.09- 444.33 2,542.55 259.42 1,006.23 900.90 l O 6 , 9 9 9 . 8 6- 129.00 279.04 '.::25:00 59. 89: - 713. 0-CT 123.62' 433.67 98.60 354.12 ~J9. 67 - 141.72 82.40 1Jl.3I 20.00 CHK. NO. 53121 53056 53400 53066 52987 53260 53283 53373 52952 52996 53270 53344 53068 53324 53088 53103 53231 53147 53049 53187 52901 53177 53379 53202 53169 52817 52956 52895 53040 53171 53366 5331-9 53059 53409 53055 5288L 53273' 53008 528A2- 5303Z 53n~r 5 3 3~5'.6- 53222 53223 528:fef 5299 9'- 5T2UT'_ 53505- 53101 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT DANIEL K MACGLOTHIN DARLA EARLES DARLENE HOLMES DARLENE KELLEY DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVID D. COOP DAVIS ACOUSTICS DAWN SIMPSON DAWNE CARROLL DAYLIGHT DONUTS DEALERS TRUCK EQUIPMENT DEANN ROACH DEBBIE DAVENPORT DEBORAH COKER DELTA DENTAL DELTA EDUCATION DEMCO DENISE WADLEY DEPT. OF FINANCE \u0026amp; ADMINISTRAT DFA-SALES \u0026amp; USE TAX DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DIANE CRITES DICK BLICK DINAH ALLEN DISTRICT VIII FBLA DOROTHY FARRIS DREW CAMP EAST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND EASTER SEALS ARKANSAS ECOLAB, INC. EDS SUPPLY CO. EDUCAITON OPPORTUNITY CENTER SDUCATIONAL RESOURCES EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK DEPOSITORY OF EDUCATORS BOOK-DEP-.O~LTORYO F EDUCATORS PUBLISHiNG. SERVTCE\" ELTRUDIA ADAMS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION ENERGY EDUCATION INC ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS FAIRY TALE FLORALS FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTER FARRELL-CALHOUN PAINT CO FAYETTEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT FLAGH.QUSE. T- 5 20.00 91. 4 6 387.51 3. 72 2,238.00 458.78 458.78 1,470.00 219.64 45.51 13.50 3,888.48 16.93 21. 96 65.69 55,344.20 224.68 183.10 53.22 89,926.82 3,286.00 319.57 32.30 107.25 32. 4 9 222.00 91.61 80.54 263.06 120.00 1,337.43 131.32 14,400.00 158.65 1,745.34 5r124.77 14,915.60 316.85 468.73 22.00 233.68 388,810.88 10,LO.O.OO 125.00 45.78 :\u0026gt;4. 00 319.86 119. 00 436.24 CHK. NO. 53229 53469 53482 52944 53085 53099 53227 52877 52947 53492 53386 53205 52920 52925 53398 52955 52874 52829 53402 53423 53507 53334 52932 53416 52828 53331 53497 j2934 53219 5338Z 52831 53276 53186' 53282 52832 53000 53122 53277 53464 52884 52850 52961 53255 52915 53405 53094 5312 52898 52880 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT FLEET TIRE SERVICE OF NLR, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FOLLETT LIBRARY RESOURCES FRANK FLETCHER DODGE FRANK WISE FRIENDSHIP HOUSE GALE GROUP GARETH STEVENS PUBLISHING GARY DAVIS GEORGE F CRAM GINGER WALLACE GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX GLORIA SMITH GOLDEN WEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GOLDEN WEST INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION INC GRADY W JONES CO INC GRAINGER GREAT AMERCIAN OPPORTUNITIES GREG BURL HAND IN HAND DAY CARE HARCOURT EDU. MEASUREMENT HARDING UNIVERSITY HAROLD D STARK HARVEST FOODS #6045 HEADSETS.COM HEADSETS.COM HELPING HAND CHILDRENS HENDERSON STATE UNIVERSITY HENDRIX COLLEGE HIGHSMITH INC HOME DEPOT/GECF HOME DEPOT/GECF HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NLR HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL HOM'S HARDWARE \u0026amp; RENTAL I TECH A-V ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INDEPENDENT SERVICE FINANCE, INDIAN HILLS ELEM ACTIVITY INFORMATION VAULTING SERVICES ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS ING RETIREMENT PLANS INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP T- 6 1,664.87 86.05 86.05 2,758.81 170 .10 32.57 158.30 3,559.22 155.50 539.00 300.33 300.00 260.82 555.67 33. 46 338.09 895.70 43.58 2,390.09 279.61 2,443.48 52. 45 1,500.00 7,368.40 90.00 63.18 70.65 123.90 372. 90 2,240.00 100.00 750.00 130.80 47.60 9.23 1,200.00 3.71 46.63 3,039.42 425.00 193.93 422.14 151.55 147.40 3, 46'5. 00 462.50 462.50 12,997.71 192.42 CHK. NO. 52837 53110 53238 53003 53411 52916 53308 53335 53062 52890 53268 53487 53053 53284 52931 52821 53117 53290 53370 53351 53288 52948 52827 53063 53329 53067 53271 52988 53261 53050 53278 52926 53291 53031 53164 52820 53132 53292 53303 53095 53106 53234 53221 53004 52970 53080 53249 52906 53046 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTEGRATION SERVICES CORP INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE JACK,LYON,\u0026amp; JONES, P.A. JACKSONVILLE HIGH SCHOOL JAMES BROS. JAMES HUMPHREY JAMES L. BURGE PHOTOGRAPHY, IN JAMES W. WOODARD, JR JAMIE EUBANKS JANET E. THOMAS P.T. JANET FOSTER JANIS MASTERS JANN PHARO JENNY OBANNON JERRY MASSEY JERRY MASSEY JILL MILLS JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JO-ANN GOLDMAN, TRUSTEE JOHN HAYNIE JOHNNY APPLE SEED JONES SCHOOL SUPPLY CO INC JONI WALKER JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JOYCE BRADLEY BABIN JULIE DERDEN JUNE HAYNIE JUNE HAYNIE JUST FOR KIDS THERAPY SERVICES K \u0026amp; E OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT KAIRI CLEMONS KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KANSAS PAYMENT CENTER KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAPLAN EARLY LEARNING CO KAREN COLEMAN KATHY VANCE CHAMBERS KATY GEARHART HUNT KAYE LOWE KAYE LOWE KEITH FAULKNER KEN THOMPSON KENNETH A. KIRSPEL KERR PAPER \u0026amp; SUPPLY CO. KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS T- 7 8,400.79 5,064.48 2,281.74 136. 00 350.00 97.00 60.79 237.33 19.34 79.99 980.00 857.50 188.68 652.50 19.34 58.42 122.85 818.30 42.51 281.37 281.37 101.92 95.40 242.55 144.70 2,896.54 869.43 601.76 5.00 365.00 122.12 210.00 110. 02 124.95 46.15 46.15 809.42 2,724.87 38 9. 4 8 1,040.00 107.02 67.24 27.69 43.20 92.38 65.00 500.00 1,539.29 1,995.75 CHK. NO. 53180 53384 53493 53093 52841 52845 53293 52918 53071 52929 53502 53163 53481 53038 52879 52911 52886 52887 534 67 53105 53233 53213 53321 53362 52815 53096 53109 53237 52945 53203 53294 53406 53415 53470 53104 53232 52844 53006 53134 53060 53484 53457 52826 52994 53239 53176 52930 53193 53155 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT KESSLERS TEAM SPORTS KEVA RODGERS KEVIN MARTIN KIDS DIRECTORY LLC KIM REYNOLDS KONE INC KRISTEN MADDOX KRISTIE RATLIFF KROGER #639 KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/INDIAN HILLS KROGER COMPANY/PERSHING KWIK-KOPY PRINTING LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS LAKEWOOD MIDDLE ACTIVITY FUND LARA HUMPHRIES LAURA JENNINGS LCR-M CORPORATION LEDENA STEPHENS LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LEWIS AND LEE DISTRIBUTING LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIBRARY VIDEO COMPANY LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LIFE INS OF SOUTHWEST LINDA BENNETT LINDA WILLIS LINDSEY'S BARBECUE LISA WEST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. LONGS ELECTRONICS LORI. ISNER LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LOWE'S LRP PUBLICATIONS DEPT. 170-F LUNCHBYTE SYSTEM INC LWM CONSULTING LYNDA SISCO LYNDA SISCO LYNN CHADWICK T- 8 1,073.76 19.50 44.86 275.00 111.31 2,450.14 36.66 18.02 282.34 102.80 19.54 17 .11 20.02 196.12 1,026.70 835.58 638.24 3.59 56.20 295.96 27.23 2,054.20 2,324.00 347.38 33.90 62 6. 32 1,719.35 3,081.87 2.92 78.24 143.85 35.29 562,340.38 54,000.00 18.42 140.67 439.70 500.00 578.00 258.60 105.73 35.35 324.98 192.00 175.00 1,560.00 120.00 120.00 114.23 CHK. NO. 53190 53499 52927 53390 53463 53167 53495 52910 53357 53007 53136 53296 53166 53295 53023 53332 53220 52919 52808 52889 52942 53052 53500 53138 53300 52967 53076 53243 52950 53297 52846 53129 53009 53137 53139 53306 53010 53298 53320 52936 53072 53196 53420 53170 53047 53144 52938 53120 V 53359 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT LYNN FORTNER M J COMMUNICATIONS M J COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS MAGGIE BILLINGS MARCIVE, INC MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE MARDEL CORPORATE OFFICE MARIA TOUCHSTONE MARJEAN ROWE MARSHA SATTERFIELD M~RSHA SATTERFIELD MARTHA FEWELL MARY HANKINS MARYRUTH BOOKS INC MASON ELECTRIC MATHEMATICS OLYMPIADS FOR MCALISTERS MCINTIRE ENTERPRISES INC MCM MEADOW PARK ELEM ACTIVITY FUND METRO BUILDERS \u0026amp; RESTORATION METRO FOODS MEYER LAMINATES MICHAELE WARRICK MICHELLE BONES MICHELLE TALLEY MID-SOUTH APPLIANCE PARTS CO. MIKKI EUBANK MINORITY TIMES MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MITCHS TIRE SERVICE MODERN RED SCHOOL HOUSE MUSIC IS ELEMENTARY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY N.L.R. WINTEMP SUPPLY NAEIR NAEIR NANCY C. GREEN NANCY STEWART NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS NASCO NASCO NASCO NATALIE DARNELL NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC KIDS NATIONAL HOME CENTER NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE - T- 9 41. 34 440.99 52.32 269.95 200.00 31. 53 111. 83 100.00 212.08 86.35 92.04 94.07 7.25 10. 45 112. 20 201.65 45.99 115. 00 3,032.58 156.59 72. 69 311.80 2,246.75 278.85 118.10 32.00 10.00 19.49 48.75 995.00 340.00 110. 00 288.00 437.25 924.93 1,044.51 108.00 40.00 89.32 296.56 1,231.67 87.40 273.60 34.54 221.78 7.60 89.75 35.78 598.86 CHK. NO. 53466 52935 53194 53275 52937 53301 52814 53258 52907 53461 52893 53039 53141 52941 53014 52849 52888 53498 52839 52892 53179 52809 52885 53367 53089 52838 52943 53302 53198 53191 52912 53393 53143 52843 52852 53305 52872 53160 52897 53486 53128 53285 53013 53140 53307 53262 53012 53309 53371 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT NATIONAL SCHOOL PRODUCTS NATIONAL WILD LIFE FEDERATION NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLR WELDING SUPPLY NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD TRANSPORTATION DEPT. NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD WAREHOUSE NLRSD-BACKGROUND CHECK NLRSD-SELF INSURANCE NO. LITTLE ROCK EDUCATORS CRED N.O. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NO. LITTLE ROCK WINNELSON CO. NORTH HEIGHTS ELEM ACTIVITY NORTH LITTLE ROCK CHAMBER OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK HEALTH DEPT NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK POSTMASTER NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TROPHY COMPA NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NORTH LITTLE ROCK UTILITIES NOVELL INC OCSE OCSE OCSE OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY, INC. PACHECO OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT PAM GLOVER PARK HILL FLORIST PATRICIA MCMURRAY PEARSON EDUCATION PEDIATRIC THERAPY SERVICES PERFECTION LEARNING CORF. PERMA-BOUND PERMA-BOUND PETSMART PFG LITTLE ROCK T-10 316.62 99.75 5.24 10.49 11,238.36 3,246.18 6,150.00 250.00 499.65 14,685.69 79,750.30 700.98 756.83 22.45 1,500.00 12.00 252.31 195.00 72.00 3,165.34 332.50 52 6. 4 4 329.26 4.69 4.04 191.84 30,545.67 376.91 574.22 54,519.29 2,495.00 2,375.59 2,087.02 2,144.69 g97.86 804.93 879.05 63.50 1,63-7.50 47.20 84.48 69.90 274.46 l,l47.50 70.59 129.00 3,084.91 151.57 2,162.34 CHK. NO. 53310 53011 53015 53311 52869 53350 52928 53413 53427 52959 53424 52853 53313 52904 53312 53494 53314 53388 52854 53016 53315 52963 53097 53111 53240 53316 52835 53002 53126 53281 53383 53087 53100 53228 52883 53037 53361 52870 53404 52951 53018 53184 53185 53407 53348 53131 53289 53378 52858 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT PITNEY BOWES POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POPLAR STREET ACTIVITY FUND POSITIVE PROMOTIONS POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD POSTMASTER, SHERWOOD PRO BENEFITS GROUP/TPA PRO-ACT INC OBA PROMOTIONS PLUS PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SY PULASKI TECHNICAL COLLEGE PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUALITY PETROLEUM INC QUALITY WHOLESALE BUILDING RADIO SHACK RAYMOND SMITH RAYMOND SMITH REFRIGERATION \u0026amp; ELECTRIC REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU INC REXEL DAVIES REXEL DAVIES RIVER CITY MATERIALS, INC. RIVER VALLEY HORTICULTURAL SABRYNA B WASHINGTON BREWER SAFETY - KLEEN, lNC. SAMANTHA CURRAN SAMMONS PRESTON ROLYAN SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SAMS CLUB DIRECT SANDERS SUPPLY SANDRA CAMPBELL S.z:\u0026gt;.P.ILEAD EATON SAX ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS SBC SBC GLOBAL SERVICES INC ..iBG-VAA SBG-VAA SBG-VAA SCANTRON CORPORATION SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC BOOK FAIRS SCHOLASTIC INC SCHOLASTIC INC. - T-11 113.75 690.06 737.67 1,200.00 493.90 76.00 39.00 1,175.21 21. 80 433.60 185.83 144.15 116. 60 1,937.52 2,112.34 20,780.00 5.97 1,303.66 2,054.65 217.89 126.28 659.80 198.20 62.61 121.63 14.10 385.27 277.88 241.50 325.51 41.65 90.63 99.26 50.00 101.32 29.03 102.80 3.92 187.01 89.60 124.91 i,123.00 25.00 25.00 163 .11 400.00 51. 59 664.60 257.58 CHK. NO. 53019 52903 53490 53491 53374 53036 53478 52975 53174 53042 53102 53230 52921 53078 53244 53214 53070 52840 52900 52860 52847 52848 53330 53092 53123 53279 52862 53207 .53208 53195 53462 53130 53021 53148 53209 52923 ::i350o 52949 53337 52990 53472 52973 53083 53252 53022 52861 53403 53024 53369 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCHOOL SPECIALITY SCIENCE KIT INC SOE SEARCH SOFT SOLUTIONS INC SECURITY BENEFIT GROUP SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SERVICE FINANCE CORPORATION SEW PERFECT SHANNON DUKE SHARA BRAZEAR SHARA BRAZEAR SHEILA BAKER SHERAH WARNOCK SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SHOWBOARD SHRED-IT SILOAM SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL SKILLS USA/VICA SOCIAL STUDIES SCHOOL SERVICE SOUTHERN ICE EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN REGIONAL EDUCATION SOUTHERN REPROGRAPHICS, INC. SOUTHWEST SPORTING GOODS CO SPORTIME STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STANLEY HARDWARE CO. STAR BOLT \u0026amp; SCREW CO., INC. STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STERLING PAINT STEVE CANADY SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPERIOR SPRING CLUTCH \u0026amp; GEAR SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUPREME FIXTURE CO. SUSAN HYDEN SUSAN MILLER SYSCO FOOD SERVICE OF ARKANSAS T \u0026amp; T EQUIPMENT CO. T-SHIRT SHOP TAMMY DEATHERAGE TANKERSLEY FOODSERVICE TASC TASC TASC TEACHER'S DISCOVERY T-12 1,251.08 1,462.42 59.07 1,710.00 15,600.00 675.00 176.25 176.25 1,000.00 5.00 92.60 123.18 23.90 2.95 1,038.44 38.97 55.00 70.00 12.50 26.00 299.27 14.00 52.68 64. 76 756.37 2,125.00 64.34 483.20 75.85 101. 28 621.69 2,849.12 116.57 19.95 412.41 455.64 90.84 5,307.43 131.86 32.88 11,399.26 4 381.50 365.47 713.00 22,497.47 11,632.30 116. 66 116. 66 286.61 CHK. NO. 53026 53338 53135 53387 53318 52974 53108 53236 53325 52960 53215 53375 53414 53058 53150 53149 53182 52859 53401 53339 53408 53274 53286 53151 53146 53064 53153 53342 53154 53156 53345 53473 52865 53158 52864 53336 53210 53346 53468 52917 52871 52813 53175 53005 52924 52968 53077 53247 53358 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT TEACHER'S MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS DISCOUNT TEACHERS MEDIA COMPANY TEACHERS' DISCOUNT TEACHING RESOURCE CENTER TECH-KNOW INDUSTRIES TELETOUCH THE ARKANSAS ARTS CENTER THE CENTER FOR LEARNING THE FIELD SHOP THE HR SPECIALIST THE MARKERBOARDP EOPLE THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THE SOUTHERN CO. NLR., INC. THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE SPORTSTOP INC. THE TIMES THE TREE HOUSE, INC. THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMSON GALE TIGER DIRECT TODD HUFF TOYS R US TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TREADWAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC 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 TRAILER SALES AND US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION fJ S FUEL US FUEL US NETCOM CORP U.S. PIZZA CO. UALR UALR READING RECOVERY UAPB FOUNDATION UCA UNISOURCE LITTLE ROCK UNITED ART \u0026amp; EDUCATION SUPPLY T-13 212.52 406.06 369.15 190.28 62.59 440.00 105.37 725. 00 140.53 51. 06 97.00 99.00 353.16 264.39 264.94 314.44 66.36 66.00 5,467.50 1,425.91 2,931.92 39.50 90.38 1,226.82 174.55 246.18 34.40 527.34 839.51 15,100.98 15,723.89 12,260.02 29.22 4,261.65 5,809.06 15,893.90 204.03 73.74 120.03 259.27 552.57 235.00 205.52 825.26 910.00 85.00 675.00 4,684.32 37.79 CHK. NO. 53280 53412 53259 53189 53365 53065 52985 53034 53385 53173 53326 53399 53057 53340 53152 53341 53349 53394 53363 52982 53045 52997 53347 52825 53159 52867 53027 53360 52998 53368 53485 53419 52855 52953 52954 52957 53091 53107 53235 52905 53381 53396 53465 53392 52863 53323 53343 52984 53333 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR JANUARY, 2006 AMOUNT UNITED LABORATORIES INC UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNIV OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA UNIVERSAL INCORPORATED UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS 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 VARSITY W PAUL BLUME WALLACE PRESSURE WASHING WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WALMART COMMUNITY BRC WARD TRANSPORTATION SERVICES WARDS NATURAL SCIENCE WEEKLY READER WEEKLY READER WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FCJNIJ WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAME.US ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND. WESTERN FOODS WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES WILLIAM V MACGILh \u0026amp; CO '.:ILLIAM V MACGLLL \u0026amp; CO\nn,1 STEPHEN- CRAIN WORLD ALMANAC EDUCATION ~lYNDHAMEM ERALD PLAZA HOTEL XEROX CORPORATION YOUTH HOME-INC 600.40 1,541.42 1,750.00 104.62 2,000.00 2,500.00 4,087.80 4,871.26 239.45 629 .11 65.96 478.47 31,119.30 825.00 825.00 788.95 906.25 1,226.25 72.00 1,680.45 203.17 1,150.55 106.45 331.36 33.05 981. 3 9 684.46 272.16 235.98 241.18 80.00 316-70 80.00 80.00 950.50 131.56 160.25 166.50 142.70 437.88 703.12 2,768.44 5,610.00 CHK. NO. 53418 53425 53125 53188 52812 52811 52958 52856 53017 53142 53206 53317 52969 53079 53248 53269 53217 52810 52913 53054 53183 53225 53395 53501 53352 53028 53030 53353 52902 53043 53178 53218 53380 53489 52878 53029 52873 53354 53090 52868 4 52857 53211 53161 CHECK TOTALS FOR JANUARY, 2006 5,309,981.65 CHECK VOIDS FOR JANUARY, 2006 120.00 - T-14 ' . BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED MAR1 3 2006 OFFIOCFE ESEGREGMAOTINOIHT ORING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:00 P. M. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. III. IV. V. VI. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, March 16, 2006 -5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Chasity Walker, NLRHS Senior, daughter of Joyce Rodgers \u0026amp; Tony Walker FLAG SALUTE 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 RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Superintendent's Honor Roll- S. Brazear 1. Gwen Wiggins, LRHS West Campus Teacher 2. \\11\u0026lt;.:.: iel tone. 'ieventh Street Elementary Assistant Prin\u0026lt;..,:i i B. S 11 1.:0J111tion 1. 2()1). ~ ( Varsit) ~. dball Team - D. Russell DJ TI OF MI l TES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. lL r ... y,Febr ary !6,2UU6 5:00 P.M.-RegularMeeting-PageA-1 - Page 2 - Board Agenda March 16. 2006 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Consider New Board Policies CEAC Attendance Incentive. CEAD Sick Leave Redemption, CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive, and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption (Second and Final Reading) ' - K. Kirspel - Page B - 1 VIII. ACTIO ITEMS - NEW BUSINESS A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Consider Update Report on Desegregation Unitary Status - K. Kirspel Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report - G. Tucker Consider 2006 - 2007 School Calendar - K. Kirspel - Page C - 1 Consider Secondary Summer School Recommendation-June Haynie - Page D-1 Consider Secondary Math Textbook Adoption Recommendation- Page E - 1 - June Haynie Consider Board Policy CFEB Extra Compensation Recommendation - K. Kirspel - Page F - 1 Consider Proposal to Purchase Four Buses - John Haynie - Page G - 1 Consider Architect's Bids for Indian Hills Elementary Asbestos Abatement and Renovation - Page H - 1 - J. Massey Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirs el I. Consider monthly financial repo , Page U - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - I 3. Consider bid items - Page R- I 4. Consider building use request - Page S - I 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - I IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Spring Break- Monday, March 27, 2006 through Friday, March 31, 2006 B. Regular Board Meeting - Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. X. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. 2004 -2005 School Year Audit- G. Daniels Page 3 - Board Agenda March 16, 2006 B. Schedule Date for Financial Workshop -M. Moore XI. ADJOURNMENT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES February 16, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, February 16, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. During public comments, Mr. Bill Bowers, Poplar Street Middle School Principal, invited everyone to attend Poplar Street Middle School Mardi Gras celebration on Friday, February 17, 2006 at Fisher Armory. Many Poplar Street Middle students handed out multi-colored beads. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. Ryan Stanley, Lakewood Middle School seventh grader, gave the invocation. The flag salute followed. 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\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, Communication Specialist, introduced Michael Blythe, Kevin Martin and Jerry Dowdy as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. These three computer technicians were nominated by Roy Spradlin, Technology Coordinator, for their handling A-1 the updating of the District's computer system. Teresa Burl and John Riley presented all three with plaques and umbrellas. Suzette Patterson, NLRHS West Campus Art teacher, introduced three of the five T.H.E.A. Foundation scholarship winners for their art work. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRlOR MEETING Chairman Moore explained that during the January 12, W06 meeting the Board moved to appoint Dorothy Williams to fill the rest of Mable Mitchell's term until September 2007. However, by Arkansas state law, she could only be appointed until the next school election which will be in September 2006. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to amend the previous motion and to change the Board's appointment of Dorothy Williams to September 2006. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept the minutes of the January 12, 2006 Special meeting with the change of motion\nJanuary 19, 2006 Regular meeting and the January 23, 2006 as printed. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) UNFINISHED BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider presented their report. Mrs. Snider said the committee worked hard and proposed 2 new Board policies-CEAC Attendance Incentive and CEAD Sick Leave Redemption. Also, the committee requested approval of revisions to Board policies CEA Sick Leave and CEAA Sick Leave Bank. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEA Sick Leave. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) A-2 .. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEAA Sick Leave Bank. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Teresa Burl moved to accept new Board Policy CEAC Attendance Incentive as presented for a first reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAD Sick Leave Redemption as presented for a first reading. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) - Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker presented the report. She explained their committee had also worked on the same revisions to Board Policies CEA - CL Sick Leave and CEAA - CL Sick Leave Bank. She also presented the proposed new Board Policies CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEA - CL Sick Leave. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams one (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept the changes as presented to Board Policy CEAA- CL Sick Lewe Bank. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEA: AYS: Burl, Moore. Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) A-3 MOTION John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive as presented for a first reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) John Riley moved to accept new Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption as presented for a first reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-up) Resolution Mr. Kirspel explained that as a requirement by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) the resolution would need to be adopted to ensure employees who had previously elected to be non-contributory would now have the option to change to contributory. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the following resolution. John Riley seconded the motion. Payroll Reduction (Employer Pick-up) Resolution Whereas, Internal Revenue code (IRC) Section 414(h)(2) permits employer \"pick-up\" of the employee portion of contributions to a. retirement plan, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions\nand Whereas, under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) plan conditions, members may be allowed to make additional contributions, back contributions, conversion contributions. repayment contributions or purchased service contributions through payroll reductions Therefore, be it resolved, that as an Employer (as defined in AC.A. 24-7-202) under the A IRS Act. the undersigned shall make all member contributions required by A.C.A. 24-7-206. and that the employees of such Employer may not elect to receive such contributions directly. This resolution shall apply to all teacher and nonteacher employees a\u0026lt;: defined in A.C.A. 24-7-406. Further resohed, that the undersigned shall pick up the member contributions required by A. C A. 24-7-406 from the salary earned by a member after June 30, 2006, and those contributions shall then be treated as employer contributions in determining tax treatment A-4 - under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Act of 1929, 26-51-101 et seq. If a member elects to make additional contributions, back contributions, conversion contributions, repayment contributions, or purchased service contributions through payroll reductions, the undersigned shall pick up the amount required to make such contributions from the employee's salary earned after the employee signs an irrevocable payroll authorization prescribed by the A TRS, and those contributions shall then be treated as employer contributions in determining tax treatment under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Income Tax Act of 1929, 26-51-101 et seq. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Resolution Certifying the Dedication of Local Resources to Meet District' Share of Financial Participation Mr. Kirspel presented the resolution to certify the dedication of our resources stating that we will meet our share of the financial portion of the proposed projects. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the following resolution. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE DEDICATION OF LOCAL RESOURCES TO MEET DISTRICT'S SHARE OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION WHEREAS, North Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the \"District\") proposes to construct and equip new construction projects at the District (the \"Projects\") as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Crestwood Elementary/6002-36/Roofing Improvement Boone Park Elementary/6002-37/HV AC Improvement Amboy Elementary/6002-38/ Roofing Improvement Redwood Preschool/6002-39/Roofing Improvement Snenth treet Elementary/6002-40/Roofing Improvement Rose City Middle/6002-41 /Roofing Improvement Lakc\\\\ood Elementary/6002-42/Roofing Improvement Lynch Drive Elementary/6002-43/Roofing Improvement Nonh Heights Elementary/600 -44/Roofing Improvement Poplar treet Middle/6002-45/1 oofing Improvement East Carnpus16002-46/Roofing Improvement West Campus Fine Ans Building/6002-47/Roofing Improvement \\\\ 'St Campus Science Building/6002-48/Roofing Improvement R1Jgeroad \\liddle Charter/6002-49/Roofing Improvement Boone Pai Elementary/6002-50/Roofing Improvement A-5 16. West Campus Main Building/6002-51/Roofing Improvement 17. West Campus Music Building/6002-52/Roofing Improvement 18. Crestwood Elementary/6002-5 3/ Addition 19. West Campus/6002-54/HV AC Improvement 20. East Campus/6002-55/Cafeteria Restroom Addition 21. Lakewood Middle/6002-56/Addition 22. East Campus/6002-57/HV AC Improvement 23. Lakewood Middle/6002-58/HV AC Irnprove~ent WHEREAS, the District proposes to obtain a portion of the funds to accomplish the Projects from the issuance of one or more series of Bonds to be issued in the approximate principal amount of $6,415,000 (collectively, the \"Bonds\")\nWHEREAS, the Projects have been previously included on the District's Master Plan\nWHEREAS, the District has prepared an application in conformance with the requirements published by the Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation (the \"Application\")\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is for the District to certify its dedication oflocal resources to meet its share of financial participation in the Projects\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the District: Section 1. That the District hereby dedicates its local resources to meet its share of financial participation in the Projects (the \"Local Resources\"). The Local Resources includes (i) debt service on the Bonds which will be paid from the proceeds of a continuing debt service tax voted [ and approved] by the electors of the District at a school election to be held on March 14. 2006, specifically for the payment of these Bonds, and surplus revenues derived from debt service taxes heretofore or hereafter voted for payment of other issues of the District subject to prior pledges of. such surplus revenues, and (ii) funds on hand.] Section 2. That the total estimated cost of the Projects, including professional fees for design and construction management is $10,415,300. Sectio~ hat the Projects conforms with sound educational practices. !\u0026gt;ection 4. That the iects will be in compliance with current acade~ facilities standards co11':1ined1 n \u0026lt;1-..ansaSsc hool Facility Manual, including, without limitation 1 _ riate space utilization of existing academic facilities in the District as determi by rn~ Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation. A-6 Section 5. That the allocation of Projects costs between new construction activities and maintenance, repair and renovation activities is as described in the Application attached hereto. Section 6. That the Projects supports the prudent and resourceful expenditure of state funds and improves the District's ability to deliver an adequate and equitable education to public school students in the District as described in the Application attached hereto. Section 7. That all Resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 8. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus- absent) Recommendations for Professional Services Jerry Massey, Plant Services Director, presented the recommendations for the transitional funding projects which approval will be needed to begin after the March 14 election. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept the professional services recommendations as printed in the agenda. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Moore, Riley, Teague and Williams None (Cox and Redus - absent) Board Member Reappointment to Desegregation Team Mrs. Moore explained due to the resignation of Mrs. Mable Mitchell from the Board of Education, a new Board me1 '1er n eded to be appomted to the District's Desegregation Team. MOTIO John Riley moved to appoint Dorothy William as tile new Board member to the District\" s Desegregation 1 eu 11. ere Burl seconctL Ile motion. YEA. NAYS: Burl, Moore. Ptky. Te nd Williams one (Cox anJ Redus - .1 nt) A-7 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 AMOUNT THE BLACK STALLION LITERACY THE BRIDGEWAY THE FIELD SHOP THE FIELD SHOP THE PRINTER WORKS THE PRINTING DEPARTMENT INC THERAPY PROVIDERS, P.A. THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC. THOMSON LEARNING TNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES INC. TOYS R US TRACEE RAINEY TRANS AMERICAN TIRE COMPANY TREADWAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC TRIARCO ARTS \u0026amp; CRAFTS TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TROUTMAN OIL CO.,INC. TURNER DAIRY TWIN CITY PRINTING \u0026amp; LITHO INC US ABLE LIFE US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE CO US ABLE LIFE INSURANCE/CANCER US BEVERAGE INC US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION US FUEL U S FUEL UALR UALR DEPT. OF AUDIO \u0026amp; HEARING UAMS UAMS UNIPACK CORP. UNITED WAY OF PULASKI COUNTY UNUM LIFE INSURANCE OF AMERICA US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-F~S US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY-FMS UTILITY BILLING SF~VICES UTILITY BILLINGS~. VICES UTILITY BILLING SERVICES VALERIE KEENER VALERIE KEENER VALIC VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VALIC - VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE VIRCO MFG. CORPORATION T-16 184.00 4,950.00 102.41 400.41 150.36 349.89 9,675.00 298.50 739.28 199.54 487.03 55.34 3,166.88 65.15 87.35 3,587.84 15,490.54 15,239.05 19,937.07 30.52 4,261.90 5,811.60 15,893.40 1,415.88 204.03 114.53 204.03 94.97 434.04 650.15 825.26 80.00 50,044.80 20.00 27.00 1,531.48 4,173.80 2,648.24 27,115.55 5,423.89 208.35 1,175.50 9.20 281.00 31,144.30 825.00 30,992.63 825.00 3,292.73 CHK. NO. 54016 53739 53740 54126 53613 53794 54116 53958 53573 53607 54246 53636 53998 54092 53713 53738 53935 54125 53962 53699 53509 53539 53541 54025 53446 53554 53862 54190 53941 54139 54147 54263 53923 54188 53700 54198 53512 53871 53872 53658 53903 54060 53526 53860 53434 53565 53846 53971 54093 ACCOUNT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 AMOUNT VIRGINIA WALLACE 41. 36 VIVIAN HARRIS 41.15 VIVIAN HARRIS 1,188.00 VIVIAN HARRIS 13. 46 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 3,342.18 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 426.50 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 1,205.16 WALMART COMMUNITY BRC 109.29 WANDA BROWN 25.00 WANDA HAWKINS 124.35 WARDS TURF EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 307.67 WEEKLY READER 41. 00 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 322.73 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 540.00 WEST CAMPUS ACTIVITY FUND 80.00 WHITNEY FLETCHER 34.54 WM STEPHEN CRAIN 142.70 WM STEPHEN CRAIN 142.70 XEROX CORPORATION 548.27 YARBROUGH THERAPY SERVICES INC 2,730.00 501 TIRE AND WHEEL 252.41 501 TIRE AND WHEEL 22.35 CHECK TOTALS FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 CHECK VOIDS FOR FEBRUARY, 2006 T-17 CHK. NO. 54268 53749 53750 53936 53786 53948 54151 54278 53670 53793 53956 54250 53758 54133 54272 53823 53444 53861 54029 54155 53615 54009 6,509,223.91 320 .11 BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED APR 19 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ass North Little Rock School District Thursday, April 20, 2006 . 5:00 P. M. ., NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT I. II. m. IV. V. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Thursday, April 20, 2006-5:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS CALL TO ORDER, Marty Moore, President INVOCATION, Anton Beard, Meadow Park Elementary Fourth Grader, son of Ms. Katina Brown and Mr. Floyd Beard FLAG SALUTE 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 RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Recognition: 1. State PT A Winners - D. Boone, NLR PT A Council President 2. PTA Reflection Winners-M. Ware 3. Young Arkansas Artist Winners - M. Douglass 3. Duke Talent Search Students -A. Kincl 4. Environmental Excellence Award Winners -K. Collie VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETINGS A. Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:00 P.M. -Regular Meeting-Page A- 1 VII. ACTION ITEMS - UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. ACTION ITEMS - NEW BUS~SS Page 2 - Board Agenda April 20, 2006 A. Consider Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report - M. Snider B. Consider Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report - G. Tucker C. Consider North Little Rock Public Education Foundation Resolution - K. Kirspel - Page B - I D. Consider Revisions to Salary Schedules -K. Kirspel E. Consider Contract Renewal for Administration, Certified, and Clerical Personnel - D. Reed - Page C - I F. Consider Pre - K and Elementary Summer School Recommendation - K. Lowe - Page D - I G. Consider Resolution Finalizing Bond Issue - G. Daniels -Page E - I H. Consider Approval of the 2003 - 2004 School Year Audit - G. Daniels I. Consider Motion for Consent Agenda - K. Kirspel I. Consider monthly financial report - Page O - 1 2. Consider employment of personnel - Page P - 1 3. Consider bid items - Page R- I 4. Consider building use request - Page S - 1 5. Consider payment of regular bills - Page T - 1 IX. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Lakewood Village Band Night - Friday, April 28, 2006 B. Grand March - Friday, May 6, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at Lakewood Village C. Senior Prom - Friday, May 5, 2006 at 8:00 p.m. - The Next Level D. PTA Post Prom Party-May 7, 2005 from 12:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. at The Fisher Armory E. Regular Board Meeting-Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. ., X. STUDENT EXPULSIONS XI. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 - Board Agenda April 20, 2006 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION MINUTES March 16, 2006 The North Little Rock School District Board met in a regular session on Thursday, March 16, 2006 in the Board Room of the Administration Building of the North Little Rock School District, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. During public comments, Shawn Key, Education Renewal Zone Representative, addressed the Board. President Marty Moore called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Chassidy Walker, NLRHS Senior, 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 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\npress\nother staff members and Darlene Holmes, Superintendent's secretary were also present. Billy Duvall (audio) taped the meeting. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist, introduced as new members of the Superintendent's Honor Roll. The first new member is Gwen Wiggins, NLRHS West Campus Teacher, nominated by Gregg Thompson, NLRHS West Campus Principal, for her continuing great work with students and always having a positive attitude. John Riley presented her with a plaque. The second new member is Michael Stone, Seventh Street Elementary Assistant Principal, nominated by Pam Wilcox, Seventh Street A-1 Elementary Principal, for his great work with the students and faculty. Teresa Burl also presented him with a plaque. Mr. Acklin presented Coach Daryl Fimple, NLRHS Girls Basketball Head Coach and all of the Girls Basketball Team as the new AAAAA Arkansas State Girls Basketball Champions. Each athlete and all coaches were given a framed picture of their State Championship photo. All Board members thanked them for representing the District as very \"World Class\" student athletes. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the minutes of the February 16, 2006 as printed. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None UNFINISHED BUSINESS New Board Policies-CEAC Attendance Incentive, CEAD Sick Leave Redemption, CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive, and CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption (Second and Final Reading) - Mr. Kirspel explained that he recommended the adoption of these new Board policies with the exception of changing the second paragraph in CEAC Attendance Incentive: From: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes July 1 to December 15. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December, at the end of the work day. The second attendance incentive period will include December 16th to June 30th . This second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. To: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes the attendance period associated with the July 15th paycheck through the attendance period in December associated with the December 15th paycheck. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December at the end of the working day. The second attendance period includes the second attendance period in December through the last attendance period of the fiscal year. The second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. A-2 Also, recommending that CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive revised: From: The first attendance incentive period will include July 1 to December 15. This incentive will be paid on the last student day in December. The second attendance incentive period will include December 16 to June 30. This will be paid on the employees last contract day of the year. The Attendance Incentive will be paid at the end of the employees work day. To: The incentive will be paid twice yearly. The first attendance incentive period includes the attendance period associated with the July 15th paycheck through the attendance period in December associated with the December 15th paycheck. The first attendance incentive will be paid on the last student day in December at the end of the working day. The second attendance period includes the second attendance period in December through the last attendance period of the fiscal year. The second incentive will be paid on the last working day of the employee's contract at the end of the working day. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the recommended change in paragraph two for proposed Board Policy CEAC Attendance Incentive. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Trent Cox moved to accept CEAC Attendance Incentive as a second and final reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. MOTION Dorothy Williams moved to accept CEAD Sick Leave Redemption as a second and final reading. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Scott Teague moved to accept the recommended second paragraph change for CEAC - CL Attendance Incentive. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Scott Teague moved to accept Board Policy CEAC -CL Attendance Incentive as second and final reading. Trent Cox seconded the motion. A-3 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Mr. Kirspel explained Proposed Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Bank needed an addition in item three (3). The addition needs to include (A-drop) which will cover the employees covered by the Arkansas Public Employee Deferred Retirement Option Plan. MOTION Trent Cox moved to accept the recommended change in Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption. John Riley seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: MOTION Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Trent Cox moved to accept Board Policy CEAD - CL Sick Leave Redemption for a second and final reading. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None NEW BUSINESS Update Report on Desegregation Unitary Status Mr. Kirspel explained that he requested Steve Jones, NLRSD Desegregation attorney, to address the Board concerning our District's unitary status. Mr. Jones spoke with the Board at length to explain things are changing and that he felt like the time may be here to request unitary status from the court. Mr. Jones also stated there are many different phases to the request but he wanted to make sure he had the Board's approval to do so. Mr. Jones stated he would also meet with John Walker, attorney for the Joshua Interveners. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the following resolution with Teresa Burl seconding the motion: To authorize the District's Desegregation Attorneys, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones P.A., to initiate discussions with the State of Arkansas for Assistance in seeking unitary status and to seek a judicial declaration that North Little Rock School District is unitary and request release from court supervision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District\nET AL. USDC No. LR - C - 82 - 8266 WR W /JTR and for other purposes. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None A-4 The Board discussed that a Board member needed to appoint a member to negotiate with Mr. Kirspel and Mr. Jones on behalf of our school district. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to appoint Board President Marty Moore as a member of the negotiating team with Superintendent Kirspel and Attorney Steve Jones. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams NAYS: None Certified Personnel Policies Committee Report Margie Snider stated there were no new proposals and no minutes. Classified Personnel Policies Committee Report Glenda Tucker stated their proposals with corrections were handled under unfinished business. 2006 - 2007 School Calendar Mr. Kirspel presented the calendar for next school year with revisions. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the 2006 - 2007 School Calendar as presented. Teresa Burl seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Secondary Summer School Recommendation June Haynie, Administrative Director of Secondary Education, presented the recommendation for 2006 secondary summer school with the list of programs with their funding information. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept Administration's recommendation for secondary summer school as presented. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Secondary Math Textbook Committee Recommendation Mrs. Haynie presented the committee's recommendation for secondary math textbooks. MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept Administration's recommendation for the secondary math textbooks as printed in the agenda. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. A-5 YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Board Policy CFEB Extra Compensation Recommendation Mr. Kirspel explained the extra compensation committee had completed their recommendation to him and complimented all of them on their work. He recommended the policy changes as printed in the agenda. ' MOTION Teresa Burl moved to accept the Administration's recommendation as printed in the agenda with the exception of adding \"and/or\" after the first comma in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Policy CFEB Extra Compensation. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Proposal to Purchase Five Buses John Haynie, Director of Transportation, requested approval of the recommendation to purchase five new buses to keep our fleet updated. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the Administration's recommendation to purchase five new buses. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Architect's Bids for Indian Hills Elementary Asbestos Abatement and Renovation Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services, presented the bids for the asbestos abatement and renovation as printed in the agenda. MOTION John Riley moved to accept the bids for the asbestos abatement and renovation as printed in the agenda. Rochelle Redus seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None Consent Agenda Mr. Kirspel recommended approval of consent items listed on pages O - 1 through T - 14. A-6 ,. MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to accept the consent agenda as presented. Dorothy Williams seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Mike Cobb of Cobb and Suskie presented the 2004 - 2005 School Year Audit. Mr. Cobb highlighted areas of improvement for the Board and answered questions from the Board. The 2004 - 2005 School Year Audit will be presented for approval at the April Board meeting. The Board decided to have a financial workshop on Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Rochelle Redus moved to adjourn the meeting. Scott Teague seconded the motion. YEAS: NAYS: Burl, Cox, Moore, Redus, Riley, Teague and Williams None President Moore declared the meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Marty Moore, President Rochelle Redus, Secretary A-7 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the mission of the North Little Rock School District is to provide for achievement, accountability, acceptance, and the necessary assets in the pursuit of each student's educational success, and WHEREAS, the m1ss10n of the North Little Rock Public Education Foundation is to improve academic achievement for students in the North Little Rock public schools through community support\nTHEREFORE, Be It Resolved, on this 20th day of April, 2006, that the North Little Rock School Board supports the North Little Rock Public Education Foundation and its work on behalf of the students of North Little Rock. Marty Moore, President Trent Cox, Vice - President Rochelle Redus, Secretary John Riley, Parliamentarian Scott Teague, Disbursing Officer Teresa Burl, Member Dorothy Williams, Member Kenneth Kirspel, Superintendent B-1 'I North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Abbott, Robin C. Abdin, Ruba W. Adams, Eltrudia C. Ainley, Becky Alexander, Catherine L. Alexander, Richard C. Allen, Dinah M. Allen, Eva M. Allen, Rebecca Allen, Sylvia J. Allgeyer, David C. Amis, Glen P. Anderson, Deborah A. Arendt, Robin Arnold, Kathleen A. Ashcraft, Allison Badgett, Susan R. Baggett, Michelle Bailey, Rebecca S. Baker, Amber R. Baker, Hope L. Baker, Karen S. Baker, Lorie A. Baker, Sheila M. Balest, Mary A. Bangs, Paige Banks, Rhonda Barber, Melissa Barnette, Stephany Barrett-Smith, Gina L. Barton, Elaine Barton, Raquell Batte, Donna E. Battles, Autreana M. Bazil, Brenda A. Beard, Cheryl Bearden, Karyl S. Beckett, Cynthia L. Beeks, Camille D. Beeson, Gayle Belew, Rebecca J. Bell, Anita J. Bell, Cynthia L. Belton, Pamela Bennett, Jessica M. Bennett, Linda S. Benson, Priscilla L. C-1 Benson, Sheila Beranek, Jennifer Berry, Sherry L. Berryman, Sara L. Best, Abbra M. Beverly, William A. Billings, James M. Billings, Lee Bing, Cheryl Bingham, Judy Bledsoe, Sue A. Bona, Renee Bones, Michelle Botts, Mary J. Boutwell, Steve R. Bowers, Shirley I. Bradley, Paula S. Bragg, Melissa Brainerd, Lori B. Branch, Glenn D. Brazear, Shara B. Brewer, Karen S. Briggs, Mae K. Brinkley, Nancy L. Brixey, Gena Brooks, Elizabeth Brossett, Ramona Broughton, Judy A. Brown, Barbara E. Brown, Debbie J. Brown, Erin R. Brown, Jeffrey D. Brown, Paul W. Brown, Rhonda L. Bryant, Dawnley Bryant, Ruth M. Buch, Archita Bunn, Gary 0. Bunting Jr., Verdell Burks, Amy Burl, Brad G. Burnett, Judy C. Burrall, Sharon S. Burton, Lynn Bush, Jamie Bussard, Alison L. Butler, Brenda S. Butler, Debra L. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Butts, Carol A Calhoun, Stephanie Callahan, Allison Calva, Tina Camp, Drew C. Cannon, Melissa H. Cantrell, Anthony A Carlson, Emily A Carroll, Dawne M. Casavechia, Natalie D. Casey, Rita K. Cass, Natalie G. Cathey, Kasey Chamberlain, Robert A Chambers, Robbi S. Chandler, Angela Chaudoin, Amanda Chrisman, Tracy Clayborn Jr, Nathan L. Clement, Leslie Clemons, Elizabeth J. Clemons, Kairi Clemons, Peggy J. Cleveland, Joyce Clevenger, Dawna Clifton, Donna Cobb, Karen L. Cochran, Stacy Cochran, Thad M. Cody, Paul Coker, Deborah D. Coleman, Jennifer Collier, Tammy Conner, Jennifer Converse, Erin Cook, Cynthia L. Coombe, Amanda Cope, Natalie Copeland, Jairus L. Copeland, Mary C. Copley, Judi Cottrell, Arthur L. Coulter, S. P. Cowart, Ann M. Cox, Mary B. Cox, Takecia L. Crews, Brenda Crowder, Amanda K. C-2 Crumpler, Clair J. Crunkleton, Mitchell Crymes, Marilyn H. Curran, Samantha Custer, Rosemary P. Dale, Joann D'andrea, Wende Daniels, Diana L. Darby, Randa E. Darnell, Natalie Davenport, Debbie David, Jennifer M. Davis, Barbara Davis, Bettie L. Davis, Danna Davis, Gary L. Davis, Rebecca Davis, Sharon L. De Roche, Charlotte Deal, Dianna J. Dean, Marcia Dearworth, Rebecca Deatherage, Tamara M. Dees, Erin Dehan, Halita Derden, Julie A. Derden, Robert C. Derrick-Coleman, Karen Devore, Rhonda L. Dicus, Sasha R. Ditty, Debra K. Dishmon, Gloria M. Disterdick, Mindi Doolittle, Heidi Doss, Lisa B. Dotson, Jimmie S. Douglas, Melissa Douglass, Kimberlee D. Douglass, Mauri T. Drake, Rosemarie Dreher, Billie A Duke.Shannon Duke, Stephen Duncan, Stacy Dunn, Sherry M. Earles, Darla Eason, Jennifer East, Mary C. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Eaton, Ashley Edmonds, June M. Eldred, Sharon L. Elliott, Linda K. Ellis, Theresa Ellis, Ulanda Engelkes, Erin Ervin, Margaret A. Evans, Crystal P. Evatt, Emily Everley, Caleb M. Ewart, Kay T. Faith, Susan Farrar, Melissa G. Farris, Dorothy Felton, Teri L. Fendley, Susan C. Ferguson, Mary L. Fimple, Amanda Fimple, Daryl L. Fiser, Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Gwenn Fleming, Sean J. Fletcher, Whitney Floyd, Molly M. Floyd, Vanessa L. Ford, Kenya Fortner, Lynn L. Fortune, Shay Foster, Janet L. Fox, Connie France, Jennifer Frazier, Robin A. French, Terri Fricioni, David R. Frodyma, Judy Fuller, Stephen Fulmer, Lila A Furlough, Loretta J. Fuselier, Anita K. Gardner, Nona L. Gardner, Rebecca W. Garlington, Shirley Garrett, Carolyn F. Garrigus, Claudia M. Garrison, Janet Gaskalla, Diedra E. Gereaux, Amber D. C-3 Gibson, Elaine B. Gibson, Roger E. Gieringer, Christy Gill, Marc Gilliam, Melanie Gilliam, Suzanne Girone, Daniel L. Giuisti, Thomas M. Gladwin, Marla J. Golden, Jason S. Goodwin, Randi M. Gordon, Shandria L. Gott, Janice Gray, Anita K. Gray, Kathy C. Green, Michele S. Green, Nancy C. Greene, Debra K. Greenfield, Debra K. Grice, Andrea S. Grissom, Kimberly D. Grossmann, Linda Gump, Barbara E. Hadley, Telisa Hain, Andrea Hale, Kathryn D. Hall, Cherryl Hall, Cheryl (. Halliburton, Carla D. Hamlin, Sheri L. Hammonds, Gwendolyn M. Hampton, Cynthia Hampton, Jacqueline Hanan, Ashley Hancock, Melissa Hankins, Raymond L. Hanks, Carolyn S. Harris, Linda K. Harris, Nina C. Harris, Tracy A Harris, Vivian Harrison, Paula Hart, Elizabeth Hart, Lyndli P. Hartl, Elsa M. Haver, Gary L. Haver, Sharon HawkinsW, anda North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Hayden, Mary G. Hazeslip, Heather Heath, Honnye Heathcock, Rebecca S. Heller, Kathy L. Henderson, Patrick M. Hendrickson, Don Hensley, Pamela J. Henson, Sandra K. Herring, Alisha Herring, Melissa Hickey, Anne M. Hickman, Catricia D. Hicks, Mary E. Higgins, Debra S. Hill, Kimberly Hobbs, Thurman A Hoggard, Ashely G. Hogue, Kelli Holcomb, Meredith Holiman, Carol Holland, Anita Z. Holland, Kathy J. Holley, Schula M. Holt, Michelle Homan, Danniell N. Homan, Rosetta M. Hoover, Audrey Hopper, Jacqueline Horton, Darla K. Horton, Deborah J. Howard, Amanda Howell, Lou A Huddleston, Jeffrey R. Huels, Michael Huels, Shannon Huey, Cathie Huff, Todd Huffman, Leslie Humphries, Lara Hunt, Kathryn J. Hunter, Christie A Hurd, Joe Huston, Kristen M. Hutson, Angie Hutson, Bryan Hyden.Susan Hynum, Kathleen K. C-4 llochi, Kristine Ingalls, Ashley A lsgrig, Kimber L. Ivory, Lorine Jackson, Susan E. Jaros, Melissa L. Jarry, Cecelia Jennings, Claudette Johnson, Angela Johnson, Ozetta Johnston, Cathy L. Jones, Cassandra Jones, Elizabeth A Jones, Ellen M. Jones, Faith R. Jones, George S. Jones, Sandra A Jones, Shelly R. Jorgensen, Alaina Jorgenson, Lizbeth A Joshua, Leslie L. Joshua-Smith, Stacy Kaiser, Patricia A Keaton, Michelle Keeling, Paula S. Kelley, Darlene Kelly, Letitia M. Kelton, Amy Killingsworth, Jeffrey B. Kimbrell, Jennifer L. Kimbrough, Rebecca A Kirby, Cynthia D. Kirchner, Lessie Kite, Kathi J. Kleitsch, Pamela A Klippert, Sharon R. Klucher, Christy Klucher, Michael A Koettel, Patti A Koller, Tim Krebs, Leslie L. Kremers, Barbara E. Kron Jr, Richard T. Lanes, Quilla Lang, Janet Lann, Cynthia A. Larkan, Gina R. Larson, Pat A. . 'I North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Lasley, Sandra K. Lassiter, Jennifer R. Lathrop, Pamela Lawhon, Jill M. Le, Vu N. Lee, Barbara Lee, Deedra 8. Lefear, Bill Leger, Gwen Leirer, Kendra Lewis, Kathryn M. Lewis, Lisa Lewis, Rebekah H. Lincoln, Jennifer M. Loftis, Dorothy J. Lofton, Artis T. Lofton, Clara A Lofton, Joyce A. London, Cynthia C. Long, Gaye L. Looney, Lynne W. Lowrance, Anna Lupton, Cynthia Lutz, Deborah Luzzi, Dawna K. Mac Millan, Lindsay A Madden, Carrie J. Maddox, Kristen L. Malone, Frances N. Mann, Deanna Mann, Melonie Manning, Carrie J. Markham, Julia R. Marsh, Michael S. Marshall, Nancy L. Martin, Leslie Martin, Sally Martin, Terri S. Mascuilli, Sam J. Masterson, Deborah A Mathews, Joshua D. Matthews, Bettianne H. Matthews, Kristy Matthews, Mary D. Matthey, Lora Maxam, Denise Maxwell, Jimmy L. May, Susan H. C-5 Mayerhoff, Carol L. McAlister, Sara McAdams, Carol A McAfee, Marjorie E. McAlpine, Marva L. McCollum, Diana K. McCoy, Dana McCoy, Gretchen McCrannie, Wanda G. McGehee, Shari L. McGill, Natalee McGinley, Donnas K. McKinley, April McLean, Valerie C. McMahan, Mary P. McMillen, Martha B. McPherson, David M. McP herson, Jo E. McRae-Miller, Edwina Mcspadden, Susan F. Melvin, Brenda Merrell, Lisa Mick, Doreen K. Miller, Patrick A Miller, Susan M. Mills, Stephen W. Monnot, Katy D. Monroe, Megan Montgomery, Nancy A Moore, Brock Moore, Donald R. Moore, Ely D. Moore, Kendrick R. Moore, Nancy H. Moorehead, Kennith D. Moran, Claudia Murdaugh, Dottie Murdock, Jill Murphy, Olivia Murphy, Pilar Muse, Kelli L. Myers, Dorothy I. Nannen, Leann 0. Nash, Vandy M. Naylor, Janet S. Needler, Michelle Nesselrodt, Brandy Neumeier, Shanon K. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Neville, Andrea M. Newburg, Jessica R. Nichols, Joyce J. Nichols, Staci A. Nilz, John Noah, Judy G. Noland, John M. Norman, Virginia L. Nutz, Chasity A. Oberle, Sandra J. O'dell, Connie J. Orobona, Steven Otwell, Sharon Pack, Delinda Papineau, Deborah A. Park, Jennifer Parker, Brenda Parker, Edward 0. Parker, Renita G. Parker, Sandra K. Parr, Perry L. Parrish, Julie Parsley, Carrie A. Patterson, Suzzette R. Pearce, Kristan N. Pearce, Lori A. Pearson, Kimberly Peck, Cassandra M. Pendergraft, J.B. Pennington, Cheryl G. Pepper, Kayce Perkins, Marla C. Perry, Corrie Petty, Tammy L. Phaup, Courtney Phillips, Shauri Pierce, Judy K. Pierce, Marie L. Pitts, Christen B. Ploszay, Jane Ploszay, Joy Ponder, Anne S. Pool, Harriett S. Pope, Charles E. Porter, Steven Powell, Ami B. Powell, Betty Powell, Holly H. C-6 Powell, Karen L. Pride, Anita Priest, Lena Priester, Rebecca M. Pritchett, Alexandra T. Purtle, Damaris K. Quarry, Cindy A. Quattlebaum, Judith A. Rainey, Tracee L. Ralston, Laura Ratliff, Sherry A. Redden, Clara L. Reed, Mary A Reed, Rebecca Reed, Stacy L. Reeder, Tammy Reeves, Kimberly Reyes-Lovins, Elena Reynolds, Brouke Reynolds, Kimberly N. Rhodes, Natalie L. Rice, John W. Rigsby, Wilene Ripper, Donna A. Ritchie, Suzanne E. Ritter, Shelly L. Roach, DeAnn Robbins, Sarah L. Roberts, Tammy L. Rodgers, Keva Rogers, Mala J. Roper, Carol S. Rowe, Marjean Rozzell, Debora A. Runsick, Amber Russenberger, Cynthia Rynders, Michael E. Sallis, Roseanne Sandefur, Randy H. Schafer, Nicole Schimmel, Holly B. Schnarr, Loretta K. Scott, Marcia L. Scott, Marilyn M. Scott, Melinda Seidl, Catherine Sela, Melissa Selhorst, Prisca ., North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Seratt, Amber D. Serbousek, Mary C. Setzler, Morgan Sexton, Cortney Shadid, Joy R. Sheehan, Nancy Sheffield, Kellie L. Shelton, Anita Shimek, Becky Shipman, Meredith Shoemaker, Patricia A Showalter, Laura Siems, Maribel Sifford, Deborah K. Simon, Charlotte H. Simpson, Dawn T. Sisco, Lynda Skiba, Carol L. Skinner, Adonna Slattery, Leslie D. Smith, Andria Smith, Anita J. Smith, Beth A Smith, Lori Smith, Melinda Smith, Nannette L. Smith, Sammye L. Smith, Sheila A Smith, Shelly Smith, Sherry B. Smith, Tammy J. Sneed, Mary E. Snider, Margie A Somers, Amy Southwell, Jan Spadaro, Sara Spainhour, Billy Speyer, Bethany Stafford, Brooke Stafford, Kimberly S. Stamp, Maria Standley, Larry Standley, Mildred M. Stane, Dawn Stanfield, Joyce L. Stanley, Gale Stanley, Kimberly R. Stark, Harold D. C-7 Starks, Brigetta L. Steadman, Vicki L. Stewart, Linda P. Stewart, Nancy L. Stickland, Nelda R. Stogsdill, Lora Stone, Abigail Story, Arclista J. Sullivan, Jennifer Sumler, Jacqueline Summons, Dorie T. Sutherlen, Letitia Sutterfield, Lagatha Symancyk, Amanda A. Talley, Johnny J. Tate, John P. Taylor, Mary C. Taylor, Paul D. Thomas, Bryan K. Thomas, Majoice Thomas, Vicki L. Thompson, Elizabeth Thompson, Phylis Y. Tillery, Jane A. Toney, Connie M. Torres, Valerie D. Touchstone, Maria Tucker, Kevin Turner, Donna M. Tyler, Amity Ushery, Jennifer A Valentine, Terri Vammen, Anna N. Vance Chambers, Kathy V. Vancleve, Marcia Vandiver, Katherine Vanpelt, Amy L. Vasquez, Paula J. Veasey, Cora A. Vickers, Margaret Virden, Charlotte S. Vollman, Amy C. Wadley, Denise Wadley, Kristin Waits, Klevon Waldorf, Eric Walker, Joni L. Walker, Joyce M. North Little Rock School District Board Agenda April 20, 2006 LICENSED PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Walker, Mary L. Wallace, David J. Walls, Melissa Ward, Kimberly J. Ward, Lindsey Ware, Amanda A Warford, Bob Warnock, Sherah Wasson, Michele R. Watson, Esther M. Watts, Roy K. Weaver, Kathy J. Weimer, Jessica Welch, Mary C. Wells, Kassandra R. Wesson, Allison J. West, Lisa L. Whisnant, Karla R. Whisnant, Stanley A White, Michael C. Whitehead, Jacqui P. Whiteside, Carolyn R. Whitlock, Valarie K. Whitten, Robin D. Whitten, William H. Wickliffe, Sandy Wiggins, Gwen K. Wiles, Mary A Williams, Bettye M. Williams, James \"Jay\" R. Williams, Jeanne Williams, Joye P. Williams, Linda I. Williams, Meredith K. Williams, Sandra W. Williams, Sheila Williams, Sherrye Williamson, Danyial Willis, Don Wilsey, Linda A Wilson, Candace L. Wilson, Christie Wilson, Jada Winter, Charla D. Witcher, Mary R. Winters, Laura Wood, Crystal Woodard, James W. C-8 Woodard, Victoria Woods, Cynthia D. Woods, Pheleisa Woodsmall, Amy L. Woody, Pilar Woolqridge, Melanie Wright, Anita P. Wyeth, Victoria L. Yager, Tiffany B. Yarbrough, Alicia Young, Casey Young, Emily L. Zeiser, Juel North Little Rock School District Board Agenda - April 20, 2006 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR THE 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR Acklin, Bobby J. Alexander, Karen L. Asti, Martha K. Bowers, Billy A Broadway, Lenisha Calvin, Jonathan D. Cameron, Anita K. Canady, Steven C. Chadwick, Dana G. Chadwick, Susan L. Cherry, Mavis V. Cohen, Perry I. Colclasure, Angela M. Coleman, Rosie A Crites, Diane Danaher, Kevin H. Daniels, Gregory N. Dillinger, Rellia A Edrington, Jody L. Faulkner, Caroline Ferguson, Pamala Gallot-Knighten, Daphne Gillison, Sara F. Hartwick, Barbara J. Hassell, Loretta M. Haynie, John C. Haynie, June Jackson, Francical J. Jasper, Thelma Jennings, Laura 8. Jones, Charles L. Jones, Rickey E. Kelso, Beverly A Kincl, Barry L. Kirspel, Kenneth A Lowe, Kaye Martin, Brenda K. Martin, Letitia R. Massey, Jerry D. McMurray, Patricia C-9 Melton, Cynthia S. Mitchell, Brent S. Pharo, Jann Ratliff, Kristie A Rich, Larry G. Russell, Danny B. Satterfield, Marsha L. Shurley, Susan G. Smith, Gloria A Smith, Sheryll D. Snowden, Dana K. Stone, Micheal A Tackett, Dana L. Taylor, George Thompson, Gregory J. Thornton, Carol T. Turner, Winston B. Wallace, Virginia M. Warren, Shedrick J. Wilcox, Pamela A Wilson, Linda H. Woods, Richard E. Wright, Aimee T. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APRIL 20, 2006 CLERICAL PERSONNEL TO BE ELECTED FOR THE 2006-2007 SCHOOL YEAR ADAMS, ARETHA M. AMICK, KAREN Y. ANDERSON, DONNA S. ARENDT, CONNIE M. ARMAN, MARY K. ARMSTRONG, JACQUELYN D. ARNOLD, SHEILA A BARNETT, JUDY K. BAUGHER, KA THY M. BOARDMAN, PETREVIA A BRAY, CHERYL P. CAMPBELL, MURIELENE CARROLL, ELIZABETH A CHAPMAN, NORA L. CLARK, LA TONY A Y. COCHRAN, THERESA L. COLLINS, SANDRA K. CUMMINGS, L. C. CURRAN, NANCY L. DAHLBERG, RHONDA G. DANIELS, PEGGY DUCKERY, CARYN S. EUBANK, MICHEELA J. GATES, JUDIE A GILES, LINDA C. GLOVER, PAMELA D. GODWIN, ELIZA A HARPER, LINDA B. HAYGOOD, AMY K. HERNDON, MARY R. HESS, CARMA L. HICKMAN, CHRISTINE HOLMES, DARLENE V. HOLT, BRENDA S. HUDSON, NELL C. JACKSON, PAMELA M. JONES, PATSY Y. KILBURY, NANCY J. KINCL, CAROLYN L. KIRBY, SHEILA K. LANCASTER, LAURA L. LAWSON, DANETTE LIVELY, BOBBYE LIVELY, PATTI A C-10 LOVENSTEIN, RITA C. MCCARROLL, ROBINETTE MEEKS, JANA K. MITCHELL, LAMONICA R. MONK, CAROL MORRIS, NANCY E. MORRIS, TAMI R. NEWTON, ROSALYN J. OLIGER, JANELLE PARKER, VICKIE L. PETTIT, SHERRI PHILLIPS, TAMMY M. PLATT, YOLANDA A PORTWINE, FELICIA A PROCTOR-PERSON, ARETHA RICHBOURG, MARY S. RODGERS, JANET L. RODGERS, JOYCE M. RUBLE, JANET L. SARTIN, LOU A SARTIN, MALYNDA C. SHUFFIELD, MARY E. SIMS, MARVA D. SMITH, DOLLY A SMITH, SANDRA L. STOKES, PHYLLIS B. TEMPEL, SANDRA K. TERRY, LISA A THIBAULT, BETTY J. TILLMAN, MARGARET B. TUCKER, GLENDA L. URTON, PAULA K. WASSON, DOYALENE WATSON, BRENDA K. WILLIAMS, TONYA L. WILLIS, LINDA K. WILLOUGHBY, BRENDA WIRGES, ELIZABETH WISE, LINDA G. WONN, PATRICIA D. WOOD, SANDRA G. YOUNTS, KAREN L. ZAKRZEWSKI, MARY J. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO: MR. KEN KIRSPEL FROM: KA YE LOWE, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION SUBJECT: ELEMENTARYSUMMERPROGRAMS DATE: APRIL 13, 2006 Proposed Elementary Summer Programs Seventh Street Elementary Arkansas Reading First Summer Reading Camp Dates: June 5-June30, 2006 Student Hours: 8:00 a.m.-11 :30 a.m. Students Served: Eighty (80) Seventh Street Students, maximum, in grades K-3 Funding Source: Arkansas Reading First Grant Description: Four master teachers work collaboratively with four literacy coaches in providing intensive instruction for struggling readers. Breakfast will be served each morning. The site will also serve as a laboratory for professional development for K-3 teachers, literacy coaches, administrators, and K-12 special education teachers. Student transportation will be provided by the district. Budget: Budget Item Amount Fringe (22.6%) Number Total K Teacher - Erin Engelkes $5 000 $1,130 1 $6,130 1st Teacher - Ruba Abdin $5,000 $1,130 1 $6,130 2nd Teacher - Christie Wilson $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 3rd Teacher - Laura Showalter $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 K Coach - Joni Walker $5,000 $1,130 I $6,130 1st Coach - Fran Harris $5,000 $1,130 1 $6 130 200 Coach - Denise Houghton $5,000 $1,130 1 $6,130\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_1031","title":"\"CompassLearning in the Little Rock School District\" by Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2006-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"CompassLearning in the Little Rock School District\" by Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"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/1031"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition 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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1772","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.","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":["2006-01/2006-05"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","Education--Evaluation","Transportation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua's response to court's order, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools."],"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/1772"],"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":["51 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, Joshua's reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to Joshua's response to court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, notice of filing, LRSD preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education; District Court, order; District Court, notices of filing, four Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. MAGNET REVIEIAI Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTIUCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNCSION P. 002/008 LITI1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW .ITR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERlNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL . DEfEND.ANT INTER VENO RS INTERVENOR$ .JOSHUA S SURREPLY TO LRSD S REPLY TO .JOSHUA S RESPONSE TO COURT s ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 200s __ _,.Joshua requests to engage in discovery in anticipation of further proceedings including a possible hearing. Joshua. respectfully responds to the LRSD s reply to the Joshua Intervenors Response to the Court s Order ofNovember 8, 200S: 1 . The special education cost increases are not adequately c,cplained. Careful review of the reply indicates thnt the District did not identify salazyincreases nor employees U\u0026gt; be replaced who arc more senior and better educated. Moreover, of the $114,676.00 increasc'only $S000.00 is explained. The explanation otherwise has to be that each current employee will be give a $5000.00 salary increase. Joshua simply docs not understand this and it makes no sense. Furthermore, teachers and employees elsewhere in the district are not being given similar consideration as that which appears to be proposed. The consequence of disparate treatment would be to favor magnet school srudents and to disfavor regular school students of whom most in the special education curriculum arc African American. MAGNET REVIEW P.003/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Filed 01/05/2006 . Page 2 of 3 2. During public board meetings Board member Katherine Mitchell complained that students in a number of the regular schools did not have textbooks as of October, 2005. She indicated that the district did not have textbooks purchases for students as a priority. The district does not commit the $239,855.00 for textbooks. It simply says that the increase is related to its adoption of new textbooks in certain subjects. Joshua s concern is that LRSD s material and supply costs favor the students in the magnet schools to the possibl~ comparative detriment of the students in the regular schools, especially those who ore underachieving. 3. The district explains the $258,640.00 indirect costs increase as being for adminis~ve fees, the percentage rate of which was changed during 2004-2005. A raise of that amount would necessarily mean that the budget is being increased by more than $1. 75 million dollars, i.e., the fee base is more than SI. 75 million dollars. Joshua attaches the MRC minutes of September 20, 2005 which contain Mr. Mark Millhollen s explanation of the budget request. (Joshua Exhibit 1, page 3) In it, Mr. Millhollen indicates that the proposed budget increase is $900,000.00 half of which is for salary increases and the other part is for textbooks. Two things about this: 1) a fee base of 15% would increase the administrative costs amount by $135,000 rather than $258,000; and 2) it materially differs from the rationale submitted bytbe district to the court for the increases. 4. Joshua disputes that the closure of Mitchell and Rightsc:1.1 are unrelated to tbe MRC s proposed budgetS. Those two schools had low enrollments and out dated physical ~1rUcturcs for many years but they were still maintained for use during the student assignment plan. The students in those schools are entitled to equal education and services wherever they were assigned. An assessment of the budget, we believe, will demonstrate that the students in the closed schools have been adversely affected bythcir reassignments while the students in the ' . MAGNET REVIEW P. 004/008 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3997 Flle.d 01/05/2006 Page 3 of 3 magnet schools have had their education advantages and services enhanced. The district argues that it spends less to operate the stipulation magnets due to contributions from the State and the two other school districts. This misses the point. The question is whether the budget increases are adequately justified irrespective of who is paying the costs. We submit that the district may not advantage the magnet schools more ~y than the regular schools simply because the State, NLRSD and PCS SD are supplemental sources of funding. WHEREFORE. Joshua requC?Sts that the court afford Joshua the opportunity to explore the matter further by way of discovery as authorized by the federal rules; chat after such discovery, Joshua reports to the court its concerns and the evidentiarybasis therefor; and that the court at that time determine whether further proceedings arc necessazy. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John W, Walker _____________ ___,John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-37S8 501-3744187 (fax) Email: jobnwalkeratty@nol.cQID CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed -with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on this Sth day of January, 2005 whae copies are fur.warded to all counsel of record. Isl John W. Walker I I ' MAGNET REVIEW MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES September 20, 2005 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101. North Little Rock, Arkansas, on Tuesday. Scpcember 20, 2005. Members Present: Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson - LRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Marvin Jeter, PCSSD Absent: Guests: Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intc:rvencrs Danny Reed, NLRSD Gene Jones, Associate Monitor- Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mark Milhollen, ChiefFmancial Officer - LRSD Jean Ring, Director ofFmance and Accounting - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor-Office of Desegregation Monitoring The meeting was called to order at 8:45 a.m. by Chairperson Dr. Sadie .M'itchell. She immediately called for a reading of the minutes of June 29, 2005. Dr. Mitchell asked if there were any corrections or deletions to be made. Marcia Harding made a motion to accept the rmnutes as presented, and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Donna Grady Creer provided the Executive Director's repolt. She called the Committee's attention to items m correspondence. The first item was a letter to the Court, notifying the Court that the interdistrict magnet schools budget would not be submined by the June 30111 self.:imposed deadline but that. hopefully, the budget process would be completed within the month ofJuly. Copies of the Ietterweregiveri to MR.C members, but no action was required by the MRC. P.005/008 MAGNET REVIEW duals in all three school districts to thank them for . ~:i;,w -'~:)~i: _29, 200~ meeting. Copies oftbememoranduin ,,_;.,-,. for their infonnation . . .: ~~~; ... .:~ _ _. \"\"''\" tc, all three school districts' Student Registration Offices were ,;: . ,, . . This memprandwn suggested dates for the annua! \"swap . . _ , , iPagnet seats a.s possible before the beginning of the new school ~ ,,, required b the MRC. ljf.\"' y ~~-~~~~t: . . . .. .. ,.,, :- -~- was sent to John W. Walker, Attorney at Law. in response to a letter ~~ ::: ... w..a.a:s office requesting copies of all information from the MR.C Office prior t . ~ MRC meeting. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was Ttq\\1\\fed' t\u0026gt;jtnc\\Vfit\\:.. A thank-you memorandum was sent to participants at the aruiual \"swap meet\" which was held in the MRC Office. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Mann Magnet bas been given the opportunity to decorate the tree for the annual CART! Festival of Trees via a memorandum from Ms. Creer. Copies were given to MRC members for their perusal. A letter was sent to the Court to provide information that the imerdistrict magnet schools budget still was not fioaliud. due to teacher contract negotiatiom still in progress. Copies of the letter were given to MRC members, but no action was required by the MRC. - Copie., of a letter to Lisa Meyer, Director of Mall Marketing. McCain Mall, were given to MRC members. This leaer informed Ms. Meyer that the MRC is happy to be workmg with her again this year to host the Magnet Fair on Jamwy 21, 2006. A memorandum was sent to magnet school principals providing reauitrnent information for the 2005-06 school year, and of the activities that are being planned. Copies were given to MRC members, but no action was required on the pan of the MRC. Congramlations memorandums were sent to Diane Barksdale, Principal at Carver . Magnet, and Dr. Cheryl Carson. Principal at Booker Magnet, for hosting successful Open . Houses. Copies were given to MRC members for their information. Bills in the amount of S3, 181. 70 wc:re presented for payment. Oliver Dillirigbam made a . motion to pay the bills, and Marcia Harding seconded the motio.a. The: motion carried unanimously to pay the: bills. -2- P. 006/008 ' MAGNEr REVIEW There were no newspaper articles since the previous Magnet Review Committee meeting that are specifically related to magnet schools. With regard to recruitment, Ms. Creer has bad the opportunity to go to Open Houses. She did go to Booker, Carver, Henderson, and J. A Fair. All of them had a great turnout. Oliver Dillingham said he attended Mann's Open House as a parent, and said it was very nice and had Vt!fr'J good participation. There are no vaca.ocies or new hires at this ti.me in the Little Rocle School District Stipulation magnet schools. Mark Milhollen came before the Magnet Review Committee to present information with regard to the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, and the proposed budget for the Stipulation magnet schools for the 2005-06 school year. Mr, Milhoilcn started his presentation with the information that the final budget for the 2004-0S school year was based on the third quarter ADM of3,S62.90. Actual expenditures included giving a 10% raise. a step incrc:asc in 2004-05, and a raise in insurance contnbutions to $260.00 per month. All this was contained in the 2004-05 school year and still came within the budget. The fin.al budget figure placed the per pupil ex:peuditw-e at $7,235.00, which was $2.00 Jess per pupil than originally budgetecL The 2005-06 budget was established with the $5,400 figure for the funding formula. An agreement was reached for a % raise to the base for all employees and a step increase for all employees. The fringe package was also increased by $3.00, going from $260.0.0 to $263.00. There is also a re.open clause in the bargaining. If the results of the hearing from the Lakeview case are good. the district will r~pen the negotiations and tallc about potential ma-eases for the teachers. Wrth regard to FTE' s, Mr. Milhollen reported that a teaching position was lost at Gibbs Magnet, a choral position was added at Parlcview, and a Special Education teacher was also added at Parkview. Mr. Milhollen reported that the proposed budget canies an increase ofS900,000 for 2005-06. One-half of that amount is due to the salary increase. Another part of the increase is for textbooks - this is adoption year. . Marcia Harding then made a motion to accept the Stipulation magnet school budget for the 2004-0S schooJ year, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion curried unanimoualy. -3- P.007/008 MAGNt l REVIEW Dr. Mitchell thanked Mr. Milhollen for coming before tbe MRC and presenting the budget report. Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, came before the Magnet Review Committee to report on the status of the M-to-M Policies and Procedures. He-informed the MRC that a controversy arose last August regarding Majority-to-Minority Transfers. He then met with the parties (Joshua Intervenor.s included) to iron OUt the problems. There is a divergent interest among the- districts, according to Mr. Smith. One district is still in Court regarding student assignment issues - the other two are released from Court. Mr. Smith asked the parties if they wished to continue the M-to-M transfers, and the desire is to do so. The Office ofDesegregatioa Monitoring has now deve!oped an agreement in draft form that, hopefully, all parties will sign. Mr. Smith provided copies to l\\illC members. MT. Smith noted that this really affects the lives of children. Transportation issues are what we are dealing with. There is a reluctance to provide transportation to some M-toM students. Ms. Harding thanked Mr. Smith for his report to the MR.C. She noted that it was a very good report. Ms. Creer and Dr. Mitchell reported that Dr. Jeanne Dreyfus, Magnet ConsuJtant. has been visiting in Little Rock. She necd:i a lot of historical .information about the magnet schoob, and Mark Milhoilen is putting together the information for her. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Creer also met with Dr. Dreyfus, and she reported to them on the teacher evaluation programs. Dr. Dreyfus will be bade in town again soon, and Ms. Creer and Dr. :M:itchell will keep the MRC updated on the progress. Ms. Creer reminded the MRC that it is time to select our MR.C Chairperson and ViceChair for the 2005-06 year. Marcia Harding made a motion to continue with Dr. Sadie Mitchell as Chairperson, and Danny Recd as Vice-Chair. Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. ' Ms. Creer informed the MR.C that Parkview would like to host the next Magnet Review Committee meeting. It was agreed by consensus to schedule it for Wednesday, October 12, 2005. When no further business was brought before the MR.C, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to adjourn the meeting. and Dr. Marvin Jeter seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 a.m. P.008/008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED \u0026amp;n~ ,~--;,o~- omceOF DESEGREGATIONYONITORJNG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD hereby gives notice of the filing of the preliminary evaluation report on Year-Round Education in accordance with the Court's Order of December 17, 2005. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR\" ICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 13, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing Notice with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: rnark.ha2:erneier@ag .state.ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Pag. e 1 of 45 ~ _/ . (D -(J,u,, . { 1 ( 1,,0 RECEIVED OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Extended Year or Year Round Education Program In the Little Rock Arkansas Schools. An Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African American Student Achievement Draft Report for Comments Only January 13, 2006 Rece,veo JAN 17 2006 James S. Catterall DESEGREGjWoiE:bNtrORJNG Professor UCLA Gradu_ate School of Education \u0026amp; Information Studies Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 Please direct comments to the author at: jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3998 Filed 01/13/2006 Page 1 of 36 RECEIVED ~ t -- . . - - -- 11 / !J~i- - do~ omceoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little, Rock, Arkansas Family l\"nterviews Year-round - vs - 9-month Schools UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED JAN 3 O 2006 DFFICEDF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCSSD's Motion Respecting the Arkansas School Choice Act (Doc. No. 3911). The motion is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 6824475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education January 31, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 RECf f,VED Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG' Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WR W Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of January 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~\"11-o.R Scotts~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr: J anna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair - Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle *' Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RECialVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl\"\\JSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB - 2 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for January 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on January 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. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 cottSm1th REC::fVED FEB - 2 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFleE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAl~GAil0NM ONITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) forthe current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 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-. Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education February 28, 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 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2006 . OFFICE.OF DESEGREGATION'MONITORING Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 P. 0. Box 1510 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 February 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane.Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry.Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle or: Calvin King, Marianna *Randy La\".\"son, Bentonville *Mary Jane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer ( . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED MAR 1 - 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 February 2006. Respectfully Submitted, i~fk Scott Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on February 28, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr: M. Samuel Jones, III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 P~ n and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 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. ARKAN SAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. r. Kenneth James, commissioner .Ed U Cat 1 wn 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us March 31 , 2006 SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED APR -.l 2006 CEOF N MONITORING Sl'ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia et Vice Chair: Diane.Tatum-,.Pine Bluff Members:- Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle: .. Dr. CalvirrKing, Marianna .. Randy Lawson; Bentonville. .. Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton .. MaryJanl!!Rebick, UttlecRi\u0026gt;ck. .. Dr. NaccamarrWilllams, Springdale A,r 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-82-800-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, ~ 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. SrunuelJones,m Mitchell, Williruns, Selig; Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 _Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~1tk 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$ KATHERINEW. KNIGHT, ETAL INTERVENOR$ ADES 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. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .Educatii'n '--5 Gene s.ei-~ Arkansas Dep , '1 ' n SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071. {501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us ED 6 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Dr: JeannaWestmoreland; Arkadelphia Vice.Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine-Bluff Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro ., Shelby Hillman, carlisle ., Dr. calvin King, Mariann ., Randy Lawsorr,.Bentonville .. Dr: Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock:. Dr: NaccamanWilliams, Springdale Arr Equal Opportunity employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar# 92251 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 '1 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. Samuel Jones, ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026lt;~~ttkir- 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 Irr 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 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 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average- daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date. Last day of- each month, August--June. 05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 US DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DJSTRJCT OF ARKANSAS omcE OF THE CLERK 600 WEST CAfflOL A VENUE SUITE402 Ll'ITJ...E ROCK, ARKANSAS 72.201-3325 PAGE 01 ,JAMF..S W. McCORMACK CLD.K ($01)604-5351 F AX(~1)604-S32S TO: 'FROM: DATE: RE: The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ATTN: PoJJy) Tammy Downs, Oeputy Clerk May 11, 2006 Little Rock School District, et al. v. Pulaski County School Distriqt, et al. Case No.: 4:82-cv-00866 I Attached is a copy of the recent text entry order entered by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr. The original will follow by mail. Thank you. THJS FACSIMILE MESSAGE CONTAINS A TOTAL OF_ PAGES INCLUJDlNG THIS COVER PAGE. 05/11/2006 13:48 5016045321 MJ.ME- Version:l.O f~om:ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov T.o:arecl_ecf@ared . u!.courts.gov Message-Id:\u0026lt;64777l@ared.useourts.gov\u0026gt; Bee: US DISTRICT COURT Subject:~ctivity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pu~.iski Cty School, et al \"Order on Motion to Withdraw\" Content-Type: t~xt/plainNOTE TO PUBLIC ~CC?.SS USERS*** You may view the; filed documents once wit hout ch~ r.ge . To avoid later charges, download a copy of each docUltlent during this first vi,ewing.U.S. District Court Eastern Distr.ict of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5/2/2006 at 11:54 AM CDT and file~ on 5/2/2006 Case Name: Little ~OCK School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Ca.se Number: 4: 82-cv-866 http://ecf.at'ed. uscourts. gov/cgi.-bin/DktRpt .pl. ?26052 WAAN~NG: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4012 Copy the URL adc:l:r:ess from the line below into the l ocation bar o f. your Neb : browser to view 1:he document: 401.2 Docket Text: PAGE 02 (This is a TeXT ENTRY ONLY. T.here is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER gnnting (4011] LRSO's Motion to Wj_thdraw Objections to ODM Budget. Signed by Judge William R. Wil~on Jr. on 05/02/06. (dmm, ) The followj_ng docurnQnt(sl a~e associated with this transaction: 4:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailQd to : Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock(!mbbw5 .. com Ma~k Terry Burnette mburn~tte@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltQl.net Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeierear.kansasag.gov, angela.dover@arkansasag.gov Christopher J. Heller he.Uer@fQc.net, brendak@fec.net; tll\\iller@fec.nc.\\t. M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephan w. ~Tones sjone$@jlj.com, lcate.jones@jlj.com; l :i.nda,calloway@jlj.coni Phili? E. Kaplan pkaplan~kbrnlaw.net, nmoler@~bmlaw.net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yaboo.com John W. Walker johnwe.lkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmQil.com 4:82-cv-866 Notic-: will be d~livered by other mQans to: No.t'man J. Chachkin NAACe Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY. 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger ~rkan$aa Attorney General\"s Office Ca~lett- Prten rower Building 323 Center StrcQt St)i.te 200 Little Roe~, AR 72201-2610 , 105/11/2006 13: 48 ' 5016045321 Jame~ M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Stret Post Office Box 918 Fo~t Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 Wast Capitol Suite 1895 Little Roek, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Tho~p5on \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eigh~eenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, 1\\R 72902-0818 US DISTRICT COURT PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4014 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. A May 2, 2005 Order reads: ORDER On April 29, 2005, I received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 fiscal years. I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five (5) days; otherwise, the ODM's proposed budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately .1 - On May 9, 2005, LRSD filed objections to the proposed budget.2 However, on May 1, 2006, LRSD filed a Motion to Withdraw its objections to the ODM budget.3 The motion was granted the next day.4 Because there are no longer objections to the proposed ODM budget, it is approved and adopted as presented. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2006. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 3914. 2Doc. No. 3917: 3Doc. No. 4011. 4Doc. No. 4012: LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... (T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 2004-05 Budget 2005-06 Budget 10/1/04, % of 2004-05 2003-04 2004-05 10/1/04 %of 2005-06 2004-05 Enroll- Total Budget Credit Budget Enroll- Total Budget Estimated ment Enroll- Allocation (Budget Payment ment Enroll- Allocation Credit ment not spent) ment (Budget not spent) 25,720 47.93 134,583 4,282 130,301 25,720 47.93 118,262 1,724 9,496 17.69 49,672 1,580 48,092 9,496 17.69 43,648 636 18,449 34.38 96,536 3,072 93,464 18,449 34.38 84,829 1,236 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment 116,538 43,012 83,593 2005-06: The 2005-06 Budget Allocation, the 2004-05 Estimated Credit, and the 2005-06 Estimated Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to the October 2004 enrollment numbers. After the final 2005-06 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2005-06 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above, that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) ofODM's unspent budget for the previous year: 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's budget before the close of the current fiscal year. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BUDGET: 2004-05 and 2005-06 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD'!\u0026gt; share of the budget NLRSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals NL RS D's share of the budget PCSSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals PCSSD's share of the budget 2003-04 BUDGET 200,000.00 177,217.00 724.00 176,493.00 61 ,292.00 250.00 2003-04 Actual .................................................. 61,042.00 127,415.00 520.00 126,895.00 f'\\ 2004-05'0 2004-05 2005;,()lf _, BtlDGET Estimated BUDGE.T . 200,000.00 200,000.00 \\ . 1~,583.00 134,583.00 118,262.00 4,282.00 4,282.00 1,724.00 130,301 .00 Note: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, including bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, ODM applies this amount toward each school district's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed budget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the enrollment numbers for the current year become available. EXPENDITURES 2003-04 2003-04 ~ .'2004:.c,5,/1~ 2004-05 ,, 2005-0,\u0026amp;f\"1~1 BUDGET Actual : i t,,BUDGErJ; j Estimated .BUD.GEE:,t ~ .. ,:: ., Communications 8,000.00 7,813.33 J!it):9f1_90:0Q~ 9,006.00 ~ r 61000lOdri Dues ahd Fees 735.00 930.00 ',.' 'J\u0026gt;, ' 265:00t,1 265.00 ... ;, ., . .. , r-, ~ '.', \" .. ' j, '.\\l 2:Zo,,0.0;_. ft'}': ,.ii:='.l'o' ;a00;.~ \\ ,' \u0026lt; ,, ,, Equipment 500.00 2,590.99 f ; --~t~t,,;,:r; : . -~ 0.00 f o;oor Food Services 0.00 :--,,, ,.A~ ( O:oo1 ~- ,,, . ', ,.'\u0026lt;.I 0.00 ., 0.00 1, O'.0Q,. Management Services ,. :t ' ' ' f 5,000.00 0.00 ~ ' ,r.~: o:oo:. 0.00 } O.OOx !I ,ct} J . ~ Periodicals 121 .00 135.00 .,la(:\",.,:,, . 135.00. 135.00 I 0:0,Q'i.i Printing \u0026amp; Binding 6,000.00 5,033.07 ~ir I. 5;500,00); 5,245.00 i 5,250.oci ' ' ' . ''';; Prof \u0026amp; Tech Services 1,700.00 1,717.50 ' .,,,;t, 7!00.0Q';,\u0026gt;, 1,554.00 t ,700,00,, Rent 48,860.00 48,869.80 J~,; ' so!s9,1:oo;; 50,691.00 1, 52,564;00 Repairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 400.00 434.95 If ' 400.0\u0026lt;r ~, -1;' -'4QQ.OO.\\ 252.00 Resource Library 0.00 0.00 ,\u0026gt;;t!\\'f'Y((\"._'j,~M. ~ l .\"+.o:oa~ 0.00 r,. (Yf o~oo! Salaries 405,419.00 405,251.10 f. ,, .3 ' 32.,, 04'2.,. 0'Q\\ ; 332,042.00 t ' ' ~, . ,;, 300,603;00;t Benefits 80,018.00 78,447.40 t ~i:7,~(3'-fr-OO' 75,311 .00 I .742;322.0(( Staff Development 0.00 0.00 F'' .. 0.00,.; 0.00 }. o.oBJ (,.,;.' r, 'p ' Supplies 6,000.00 5,403.11 ~ 4',000:0.0.l: 4,000.00 3,500;00J, ,. 1~075:00~ 11 Travel 2,459.00 2,013.54! 1~525',ooH ; 1,066.00 ,, ... ,s1t.om I' Insurance 712.00 572.00 - 572.00 1, 600.00t ~ =-ig.~:-. .... ~~~-.r ,:, ,'\"' ' 1:,Jotat,Scpe.n difuresj. , \"; II!,@ ' ' :,of.,:. ' ' 1Jif 565';\"~2~oof Y,i,.i;, ' -\"; . i ,if; 559,~;J.1:19'f 7: 480,79;1:0ro- . 480,.,139:00: ~ 446:739.00;\"- Difference (Income minus Expenditures 0.00 8,933.87 0.00 3,596.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 2003-04 Budget 8,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 7,813.33 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 9,006.00 2004-05: The increase in the budget is due to the advertising expense for the vacant position of the Federal Monitor. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 2003-04 Budget 735.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 930.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 265.00 2003-04: Over budget due to the registration for an associate to attend the National Counselors' Conference was $45 more than budgeted, and the registration fee for the Federal Monitor to attend the International Association of Facilitators conference was $150 more than budgeted. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 2003-04 Budget 500.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,590.99 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 2003-04: Over budget because one of the older computers crashed and had to be replaced. The total cost of the computer was $2,108.55. Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually oras a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 2003-04- Budget' 5,000.00 2003-04-Actual Expenditures 0.00 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Page.4 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 2003--04 Budget 121.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 135.00 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 135.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2003--04 Budget 6,000.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 5,033.07 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 5,245.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2003--04 Budget 1,700.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 1,717.50 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 1,554.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2003--04 Budget 48,860.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 48,869.80 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 50,691.00 2005-06: Office space could be reduced and therefore reduce the amount charged for rent by approximately $8,500. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2003--04 Budget 400.00 2003--04 Actual Expenditures 434.95 2004--05 Estimated Expenditures 252.00 Page5 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2003-04 Budget 405,419.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 405,251.10 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 332,042.00 Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2004-05 and 2005-06 salary, reflecting a 3.29% annual base increase, which is equal to or less than the annual step increase on the salary scales of the local districts. Name of 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Employee Salary Salary Salary Ann Marshall 119,022 40,900 0 Gene Jones 1 58,828 61,530 63,438 Margie Powell 70,196 72,505 74,890 Horace Smith 70,196 72,505 74,890 Polly Ramer 52,689 54,422 56,212 Linda Bryant 29,219 30,180 31 ,173 Act 11 of 1999 2 5,269 0 0 1Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive paymentfor annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 2Act 11 of 1999 allows an employee who completes their 28th year under the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System to enter the Teacher Deferred Retirement Option Plan (T-Drop) and receive compensation for unused leave. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid on behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are' over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2003-04 Budget 80,018.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 78,447.40 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 75,311 .00 B e1 o w 1s a b re akd own b, yeat egoryof eac h emp ovee ' s 2004 -05 b U dl g ete d frin1 ge b ene fit s: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Marshall 300.00 2,380.21 411 .99 253.00 2.72 21 .48 5.08 5.24 3,379.72 Jones 960.00 4,780.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,740.38 Powell 1,200.00 5,595.80 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,640.46 Smith 1,200.00 5,348.67 10,318.78 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 20,393.33 Ramer 0.00 4,015.33 7,619.02 3,106.00 32.64 263.40 60.96 62.88 15,160.23 Bryant 0.00 2,258.32 4,225.10 3,106.00 20.40 263.40 60.96 62.88 9,997.06 fiir~''~---,,1: \"?t!J.\"J''''_4:'. ~- il({~.(\"'l\"!-ls' ~~r~'t ::1\u0026lt;z;4,'3,:,7 ,.8 ~11f 1~11 893:s.i ti . .. .,. ' ,. r , '': i rozsfoa~ 1f; I,, ,2~s tf)~~-n ~ ' ~1\"' ~ ;pi~S'i:lj' Tobi ~-...., fl':~~ :ffe)J~ ~~-,- ,,,.j: . ,., \" !i,\u0026gt; if'_ 12;a:m::oo.~- ( 12.t:~ ;:_258,76ll f1l, '-75}3~1~1:,fJ Page6 - - , ., ', ' \\\". - Below is a breakdown b ee's 2005-06 bud benefits: Name Car Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital . Short Total Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits. Jones 960.00 4,926.45 0.00 0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 5,886.45 Powell 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Smith 1,200.00 5,820.89 10,652.60 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 21 ,219.01 Ramer 0.00 4,300.22 7,869.68 3,120.00 32.64 269.04 60.96 62.88 15,715.42 Bryant 0.00 2,384.73 4,364.22 3,120.00 20.40 269.04 60.96 62.88 10,282.23 'T,otal' Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or-items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 2003-04 Budget 6,000.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 5,403.11 2004-05' Estimated Expenditures- 4,000.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 2003-04 Budget 2,459.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures 2,013.54 2004-05 Estimated Expenditures 1,066.00 2004-05: The budget includes guest parking and reimbursement to support staff for the mileage they drive in their own vehicles on official business, an amount budgeted at $125.00. The remainder ($950.00) is for travel and lodging associated with one-of the monitors attending the National Counselors' Conference, as explained above in the Dues and Fees section. 2005-06: The increase in budget is due an anticipated increase in conference costs. Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance. coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2003-04 Budget 712.00 2003-04 Actual Expenditures. 572.00- 2005~06: The increase in budget is due to a 5% increase irrthe annual premium: 2004-05 estimated expenditures 572.00 P-age:7 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF .EducatiWn May 25, 2006 Gene Arkansas SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall LittJe Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 STATE.BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair.- Dr.; Jeanna.Wesbnoreland, Arkadelphia Vice-Chair: Diane\u0026gt;Tatum,,Pine Bluff Members:: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Shelby Hillman, Carlisle. .. Dr. Calvin-King; Marianna: ., Randy lawson; Bentonville~ .. Dr. \u0026amp;'en-Mays; Clinton- .. MaryJane. Rebick, Little Rock; .. Dr. Naccaman-Williams; Springdale. ArrEqua/ Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 2 6 2006 . omcEOF 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, Je~,i/b Smith, Bar # 92251 General Counsel _ Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY ,2 6 2006 . . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL . . OFFiCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI CpUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,_ ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENOR$ KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progres~ 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 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Lastday 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_1111","title":"Exhibits: Open-enrollment charter school","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":["2006/2010"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records","Charter schools"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Open-enrollment charter school"],"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/1111"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nDocuments 4441-1 to 4441-10, LRSD exhibits 31-40\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 Resources.\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_560","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":["2006-01/2006-07"],"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":["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/560"],"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\nMargie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ghweems@ualr.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jstrahl@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dununnley1@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jpdrey@aol.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jbates2@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;JNunnery@odu.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;blktinzie1@yahoo.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;rose.harris@ocse.state.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Young, Linda\" \u0026lt;Linda.Young@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Davis, Suzi\" \u0026lt;Suzi.Davis@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Fletcher, Danny\" \u0026lt;Danny.Fletcher@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olds, Arthur\" \u0026lt;Arthur.Olds@lrsd,org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Riley, Cheryl\" \u0026lt;Cheryl.Riley@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Shofner, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Shofner@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Underwood, Krista\" \u0026lt;Krista.Underwood@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Whittaker, Nona\" \u0026lt;Nona.Whittaker@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Wiiliams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wilson, Janice\" \u0026lt;Janice.Wilson@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Woole, Ricky\" \u0026lt;Ricky.Woole@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@aristotle.net\u0026gt; Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:38 AM Year Two Evaluation Team Meeting To All\nA Year Two evaluation team meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, February 9th, 1 pm to 4pm, at the Distant Learning Lab at Metro Technical School. The purpose of this meeting is to review the proposed research design by the two outside evaluators. Since there are four teams, plus the Magnet team involved, I have scheduled the following times so that not all will need to be there the entire three hours\n21st Century: 1-1:40 Read 180: 1:40-2:15 Pre-K Literacy: 2:15 - 2:45 A+: 2:45 - 3:20 Magnet: 3:20-4:00 PRE will either LISPS mail or e-mail the respective team members the research design description. Please call, 447-3386, or e-mail if you have questions. Talk to you soon Dr. Ed R. Williams Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 1/24/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Alexander, Sheneka\" \u0026lt;Sheneka.Alexander@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Doyne, Angela\" \u0026lt;Angela.Doyne@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Purtle, Sarah\" \u0026lt;Sarah.Purtle@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Martha\" \u0026lt;Martha.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Underwood, Krista\" \u0026lt;Krista.Underwood@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Freeman, Ann\" \u0026lt;Ann.Freeman@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Michelle Ellison\" \u0026lt;mellison@fsainc.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;laura@bnbstudio.com\u0026gt;\n\"Mccraw, Helen\" \u0026lt;Helen.Mccraw@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Olds, Arthur\" \u0026lt;Arthur.Olds@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;lwharrsn@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnid@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts, Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;heller@fec.net\u0026gt; Monday, February 27, 2006 5:57 PM RE: Pre-K evaluation team meeting Feb 13 The evaluation team for Pre-K Literacy will meet at 10 AM. Monday. March 13 at the IRC (3001 S Pulaski). The room number will be posted at the front desk. One of our team members could not attend until 10:30. but we will be able to devote enough time to accommodate any questions. In another week I'll send copies of the draft questionnaires and latest version of the evaluation plan, so you can be familiar with them before the team meets. Thanks for you interest and commitment to this evaluation. 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 From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:13 PM To: Alexander, Sheneka\nDoyne, Angela\nPurtle, Sarah\nRoberts, Martha\nUnderwood, Krista Cc: Williams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia\nOlds, Arthur\nDejarnette, Karen\n'James Catterall'\n'awgrehan@memphis.edu'\nlwharrsn@memphis.edu\najmcdnld@memphis.edu Subject: Another evaluation team meeting soon Dear team members for Pre-K Literacy. Dr. Grehan expressed interest in reviewing the evaluation with the team in more depth than was possible Feb 9. She and Dr. Harrison can meet with us in LR on 3 occasions soon: next Tuesday, February 28, as early as mid-morning the next morning, Wednesday, Marcy 1, or Monday, March 13, as early as mid-morning. The best date for benefiting the evaluation would be the earliestnext Tuesday. However, meeting on any of the days would be helpful. Would you please let us know whether you can meet and on which date? Martha, please forward this to Ms. Ellison. I will be out of the office for the remainder of this week but monitoring my messages. Thanks very much for your help. Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 2/28/2006HHH.21.2006 4:27PM JOHN W WALKER P ft NO.307 Fag=.20ti Joy Springer From\nTo: Sent\nSubject. \"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Jim Wohlleb\" \u0026lt;jim.wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Friday, April 21.2006 5:26 PM LRSD Program Evaluations Would you kindly advise whether requests for information from the ODM regarding LRSD Program Evaluations are addressed to Hugh Hattabaugh? If not, I believe that this is an issue that needs to be brought to the attention of Judge Wilson. Please forward this email to Karen DeJamette, Olivine Roberts, Hugh Hattabaugh and Chris Heller. Joshua does not wish to communicate to Judge Wilson that LRSD has been uncooperative regarding this process. I 4/21/06I, HnK.dl.dUUb 4:27PM JOHN W WftLKER P fl NO,307 P.l JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 I FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Hate: April 21, 2006 To: Gene Jones, ODM Fax: 371-0100 Re\nLRSDvPCSSD, etal. Sender: John W. Walker I YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL '\u0026lt;{501) 374-37S8\u0026gt;' The infoimation comainedialhis facsimile message is anomey privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of die individual or entity named above. If die reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have receiv^ this gowiimmication in eiror, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at die above address via the U.S, Postal Service. Thank you. I !Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM ODM Concerns.doc FW: document enclosed From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:41 PM To: 'mqpowell@admemail.com' Subject: document enclosed Mr. Jones and Ms. Powell, The document listing concerns heard in yesterdays discussion is enclosed. I met with Dr. Brooks, Dr. Roberts, and Mr. Hattabaugh today and shared these concerns. Mr. Hattabaugh says he will call you. Gene, thanks for attending the sessions yesterday. I will work to make the team meetings more meaningful for each member, as we discussed. Karen I 6/1/2006ODM Concerns: Is the Court Order of utmost importance to the District and PRE? Does PREs placement on the organizational chart allow us to command input from evaluation team members? When will the Testing Coordinator position be filled, amount of time PRE staff are spending on test administration? When will PRE enact the formative assessment process (data warehouse)? What is the amount of time PRE staff are spending on non-court related evaluation or assessment projects? Will the closing of schools affext programs being evaluated? Are we discussing the implications? Joshua concerns: Will SW students receive the same services at new schools? Will funding follow students? Is Brooks resegregating the district, i.e. closing of schools etc.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:12 PM FW: Letter of request I told Gene Id let him know when I received a response from Dr. Potter. Her response follows. From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qpotter@arkedu.ka12.ar.us received JUN 0^2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORIHG 6/6/2006Margie From\nTo: Cc: Sent: Attach\nSubject: /T fe d Page 1 of 1 \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:32 PM A+.parent.intvs.doc FW: parent interview protocol - final version Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@,lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 receded desegregation MOHITORIMG ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:56 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim Cc: Williams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: FW\nparent interview protocol Jim, Here is the final draft of the parent interview protocol. The one we sent to team members was a near final draft. ------Original Message------ From: James Catterall [mailto:jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 2:44 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: parent interview protocol Karen here is the parent interview protocol. james Os WHS 6/8/2006Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: Karen, Page 1 of 2 \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts. Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Rober:s@ksd.on \u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Brooks. Roy G\"\u0026lt;Royg.r \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.cl \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Friday. June 09. 2006 3:20 PM RE\nLetter of request JUN 1 2 2006 \u0026lt;Lr '^ttabaugh, Hugh\" Heller\" ih Walker\" OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside ( K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks. Gayle From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, This email message is to clarify fiirther our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of June 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its 6/12/2006Page 2 of 2 individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1,2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter(aiarkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 ll\n04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qDOtter(S)arkedu.ka12.ar.us 6/12/2006Margie Page From: To: Cc\nSent: Attach: 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\"W Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powel \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;,' \u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschooi.com\u0026gt; \u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:59 PM Magnet Evaluation Year I Report July 06.doc Draft Magnet Report Please review the enclosed draft Magnet Schools and Programs Report written by Jeanne D external evaluator of our Magnet Schools and Programs. An evaluation team meeting, with [ Dreyfus on conference call, will be held on July 14 at 10a.m. in Room 10 at the IRC. I hope attend and provide feedback on the draft report. Please call if you have questions, 447-3382 Please note: Remember it's still an early draft. Findings and recommendation still have to be composed for several sections. Thank You, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent\nSubject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\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\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;Jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Monday. July 10. 2006 2:03 PM RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, We checked the NORMES website today and did not see the needed data posted. Please let me know when we should expect to be able to pull the data from the site to forward on to our external evaluators. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Karen Dejarnette Karen Dejarnette Director Planning. Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 447-3387 or 425-3109 From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:20 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside ( K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks, Gayle From: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto\nKaren.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE: Letter of request 7/12/2006Page 2 of 3 Dr. Potter, This email message is to clarify further our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of Jxme 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1, 2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School 7/12/2006Page 3 of 3 District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-4558 qpotter@arkedu.ka12.ar.us 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:57 PM FW: extension of time request fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 7:57 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Brooks, Roy G\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: extension of time request Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11 th. Perhaps we could suggest due dates for all four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Page 1 of 5 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Gayle Potter (ADE)\" \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt; \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Ken James (ADE)\" \u0026lt;kjames@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Diana Julian (ADE)\" \u0026lt;djulian@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Janinne Riggs (ADE)\" \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Scott Smith (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Donna Wolfe (ADE)\" \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Susan Gray (ADE)\" \u0026lt;sgray@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\"Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\" \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.k12.ar.us\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Hugh.Hattabaugh@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Royg.Brooks@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:17 AM Re: Letter of request Karen, You will remember from my last e-mail and from our telephone conference call that I am not responsible in any way for the work with NORMES. Janinne Riggs is the contact person for that work. She explained on the conferemce call with you the process followed by NORMES and districts in data verification for AYP purposes. She also talked about likely timeline if no problems whatsoever occur. All assessment data from contractors for which my office is responsible has been delivered to all districts in the state, to the best of my knowledge. You will need to communicate with Janinne Riggs henceforth about all matters concerning the posting of data on the NORMES website. Gayle Potter Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen \u0026lt;Karen.Dejamette@,lrsd.org\u0026gt; To: Gayle Potter (ADE) \u0026lt;gpotter@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt; CC\nKen James (AdDE) \u0026lt;kiames@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt;: Diana Julian (ADE) \u0026lt;diulian@,arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Janinne Riggs (ABE) \u0026lt;jriggs@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Scott Smith (ABE) \u0026lt;dssmith@arkedu.kl 2.ar.us\u0026gt;\nDonna Wolfe (ADE) \u0026lt;dwolfe@arkedu.k 12.ar.us\u0026gt;: Susan Gray (ADE) \u0026lt;sgrav@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Margaret Crank-Amps (ADE) \u0026lt;mcrank@arkedu.kl2.ar.us\u0026gt;: Roberts, Olivine \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@,lrsd.org\u0026gt;: Hattabaugh, Hugh \u0026lt;HughJHattabaugh@lrsfrprg\u0026gt;\nBrooks, Roy G \u0026lt;Royg.Brooks(S,lrsd.org\u0026gt;\nChris Heller \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;: Margie \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;: Joy Springer - John Walker \u0026lt;ispringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;: James Catterall \u0026lt;iamesc@,gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;: smross@,memphis.edu \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Sent: Mon Jul 10 14:03:38 2006 Subject: RE: Letter of request Dr. Potter, We checked the NORMES website today and did not see the needed data posted. Please let me know when we should expect to be able to pull the data from the site to forward on to our external evaluators. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. Karen DeJamette Karen DeJamette Director Plaiming, Research, and Evaluation Department 7/12/2006Page 2 of 5 Little Rock School District 447-3387 or 425-3109 From\nGayle Potter (ADE) [mailto:gpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Friday, Jime 09, 2006 3:20 PM To: DeJamette, Karen Cc\nKen James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject\nRE\nLetter of request Importance\nHigh Karen, Karen, All of the student assessment data from both Riverside (K-2 is already there) and Questar (the Rapid Electronic School Rosters for Benchmarks in Grades 3-8 have been posted since May 31) will be in public school districts by July 1. All of the tests you listed in your request will be included in these score reports. These score reports will be sent by the testing contractors in the same format as last year to all school districts. Janinne Riggs and I will call you Monday afternoon after the State Board of Education meeting if you are available to discuss your request for access to data via the NORMES website. What would be the best telephone number at which we might reach you? Thanks, Gayle From\nDeJamette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejamette@lrsd.org] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:02 PM To: Gayle Potter (ADE) Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE)\nRoberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G\nChris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer - John Walker Subject: RE\nLetter of request Dr. Potter, 7/12/2006Page 3 of 5 This email message is to clarify further our request for computer-readable ACTAAP test results. The Little Rock School Districts request for a date when the Districts ACTAAP data will be accessible is not to the test company but to the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). We have understood that ADE provides electronic data for the NORMES website, and then school personnel access the data from that site. This was the process last year when the District provided computer-readable data to the external evaluators who carried out the four court-mandated evaluations. It is the same process we are inquiring about now. To our knowledge, last years data was not delivered to the District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district as your email message of June 6 incorrectly implies. Because you seemed not to understand what I meant by computer-readable format, I am attaching an example excel file to this email. If you would like instruction about this, please contact us. We have two specific questions: When will the Little Rock School District have access to electronically formatted ACTAAP data of its individual students via the NORMES website (or any other source)? Is the process stated above correct? If not, please correct our understanding. You email message of June 6 mentioned AYP data. We are not requesting such data at this time. My letter to you, dated May 25, 2006, included a list of the exact data variables our evaluations need, and AYP was not among them. Please respond as soon as possible. I need to let the external evaluators know when they can expect the data, so a motion for an extension can be filed with the Court if the date for expected data is later than July 1,2006. Thank you for assisting us with obtaining this information. Karen DeJamette Ph.D. Director 7/12/2006Page 4 of 5 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District From: Gayle Potter (ADE) [mailto\ngpotter@arkedu.kl2.ar.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:04 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Ken James (ADE)\nDiana Julian (ADE)\nJaninne Riggs (ADE)\nScott Smith (ADE)\nDonna Wolfe (ADE)\nSusan Gray (ADE)\nMargaret Crank-Amps (ADE) Subject: Letter of request Importance: High Karen, I have received your letter and packet of information requesting dates when ACTAAP results will be available in what you call \"computer-readable format.\" I have forwarded this information to both Riverside and Questar and will respond to you as soon as I hear back from them. However, I am wondering about your request for \"computer-readable format.\" I am not aware that testing data has ever been delivered to the Little Rock School District from the assessment contractors in a different format than that received by any other school district in the state. I would appreciate clarification on this matter. Also please remember, if the data which is needed is, or includes, AYP data, the source for those data and the delievery dates for those data will be different from the assessment data coming from the Curriculum, Assessment, and Research Section. You will need to contact Janinne Riggs for any information concerning AYP data, dates, and data format. Gayle Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director Curriculum, Assessment, and Research 4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-4558 gpotter@arkedu.ka 12. ar. us 7/12/2006Page 5 of 5 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM FW\n2 Page Fax From 5016045149 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:28 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nBabbs, Junious\nWatson, Linda\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine\nMitchell, Sadie\nVann, Suellen Subject: RE: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 Chris, this is what we need: Electronic formatted benchmark data for every student involved in one of the evaluated programs. So far, this data is not available. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:33 AM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh\nBabbs, Junious\nDejarnette, Karen\nWatson, Linda\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts, Olivine\nMitchell, Sadie\nVann, Suellen Subject: Fwd: 2 Page Fax From 5016045149 roy - our (hopefully) final hearing is scheduled for December 18. there will be no hearing on Joshuas issues before then, within the next few days (as soon as i can determine exactly what we will need), we will probably have to ask the court to extend the deadline for our last four evaluations, the extension request will be based on the unavailability of necessary benchmark results in the required format, i believe that we will have draft evaluations completed before October 1, but not final evaluations (although last year there was no significant difference between the draft and final evals), i will ask for the minimum time we absolutely need no as not to delay our hearing date, ch 7/12/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:26 PM FW: extension of time request From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:24 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: extension of time request What you saw in the paper are data fro groups of students showing how groups of students performed. What evaluators need is electronic data for each student that can be dumped into an excel or spss format for statistical analysis and triangulation with other data sets. Program evaluation or assessment tasks require data for every individual student in that program being assessed or evaluated. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:50 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: extension of time request karen - remind me about the difference between what our experts nees and the information in today's paper, thanks, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/11/2006 7:56 PM \u0026gt; Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11th. Perhaps we could suggest due dates for all four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:26 PM FW: extension of time request From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:25 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: extension of time request Also, when you have time please respond to my inquiry about confidentially. PRE staff do not want to upset Brooks and we do want to meet the requirements outlined in the Compliance Remedy. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:50 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: extension of time request karen - remind me about the difference between what our experts nees and the information in today's paper, thanks, ch \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/11/2006 7:56 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Chris, The PreK evaluation team met this afternoon with researchers from CREP to discuss a few pieces of data still needed. Because many of the types of data utilized in the PreK design have not previously been analyzed or maintained in a District database, PRE staff had to transfer data from a hard copy to an electronic format for evaluation use. For two such databases, we still have some cleanup and matching tasks to complete. We also discussed the importance of including the QELI data which we learned last week will not be available from NORMES at this time. NORMES was scheduled to post the data then determined it to be filled with errors and decided not to make available. So, we will have to construct a database and input the data ourselves from paper copy reports we received from the ADE. I do not know how long this will take but I do know Steve Ross requires 6-8 weeks from receipt of all data to produce a draft report. I think it will take us at least a week or two to make the data available in an electronic format to CREP. As for the other three evaluations, please file a formal request for an extension. In our last update to the Court we cited July 10 as the date ADE personnel expected the data to be available in an electronic format through the NORMES website. The data is not available as of today, the 11th. Perhaps we couid suggest due dates for ail four evaluations to the Court after we have all placed of the needed data in the hands of evaluators. Thanks for assisting. Karen 7/12/2006Margie c\nPage 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:11 PM database revised.doc timeline for database discussion Hi Margie, We have tried to outline our discussion and work efforts related to the database PRE needs to conduct program assessments. Karen 7/13/2006f C: 7 Comparison______________________ Crystal Database as of July 11, 2006 TetraData offered Student demographics Standardized test scopes 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 fon aats requested PRE imports data files into SPSS and Word for analyses and reports. PRE staff anange di Statistical features support analyses and reports. IOn the recommendation of Dr. Bernhardt, PRE staff engaged in design conversation wit 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, an\u0026lt; maintains data warehouses specifically for educational organizations. Its databases offe 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\n1) 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. Throug the end of 2005 she demonstrated to senior LRSD administrators the ability of TetraDat 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. Iron $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.In 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 contempora 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 base and provide it to Information Services Department and other departments\nso PR 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 Court 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 tl 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.Page 1 of 1 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 14, 2006 2:46 PM FW: Scott Smith.... From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:33 PM To: 'Brenda Kampman' Cc: Wohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed\n'Chris Heller' Subject: RE: Scott Smith.... If Scott does not know what we need at this point (after all of the letters, emails, phone conversations, etc.) then I have absolutely no hope that we will ever finish these evaluations on time. The group from ADE said they understand what we need in our last phone call which Chris was a part ofthey even said theyd give us what we need on July 10^. How could they now have forgotten what we need? I am so OVER running around this bush! From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:07 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Scott Smith.... says LRSD keeps talking to his people regarding what they need in test scores data and he isn't sure what it is they want - if he could find out exactly what they want and in what format, he will go ahead and finalize a response. 7/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 14. 2006 2:46 PM database revised.doc FW: Snapshot From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:44 PM To: Griffin, Beverly Subject: RE: Snapshot Compliance Remedy - External Evaluations On June 1PRE 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 10*^. 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\nAn update on the status of completing the compliance report? 7/17/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette. Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:23 PM draftRec06jul18.doc\nnormes postings.pdf FW: letter to counsel Fyi, another request to Chris to file for an extension. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:22 PM To: 'Chris Heller' Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G\nGriffin, Beverly Subject: RE: letter to counsel Chris, Here is an updated letter. I am also including a scanned copy of postings pulled from the NORMES website that show their expectations for benchmark and QELI data (see starred paragraphs). Karen From: Chris Heller [maiito:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 5:14 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Fwd: letter to counsel karen - can you update this letter based on our latest information about when we will get the data we need and your best information about how long it will take from then to complete the evals, as we discussed on the phone, i don't want to ask for any more time than we absolutely need would like to hold on to the December 18 hearing date if at all possible, i plan to file our motion tomorrow, thanks, ch 7/18/2006Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 July 18, 2006 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 Dear Chris\nPlease request from the U.S. District Court an extension for the four external evaluation reports due to the Court on October 1, 2006. We are experiencing unforeseen delays in obtaining the data needed for each of the studies. In a June conversation with officials of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), including Drs. Gayle Potter, Diana Julian, Janinne Riggs, Don Stewart, and Ellen Treadway, we learned that digitally formatted individual students ACTAAP benchmark test scores will be delayed past July 1. This data is necessary for three of the external evaluations\nA+, 2P Century Community Learning Centers, and Read 180. In that conversation, ADE projected electronic data to be available on July 10,2006. Now, a week past that date, we have neither the data nor a new projected date from ADE. Officials of NORMES, which stores and facilitates access to the test data, project making it available by early August. LRSDs Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE) will require approximately two weeks to find and correct errors in the data set, once we receive it. Data for the pre-kindergarten literacy evaluation has been delayed as well. Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI) data for individual kindergarten students is not available in an electronic format, according to Riverside Publishing, which processes and publishes this data. Originally, NORMES projected posting the QELI data in an Excel file for downloads available in early July. However, NORMES recently announced that posting has been delayed due to over 15,000 missing numbers and names. Instead, PRE is currently negotiating directly with Riverside Publishing to create a data set for this evaluation. PRE expects to provide the QELI database to evaluators by early August. The accompanying evaluators letters indicate that they require six to eight weeks past their receipt of individual student data to produce their draft reports. If external evaluators can receive all of the necessary data by the end of August, they can submit their draft reports to the District by October 15, rather than the originally stated September 1. Further delay of access to the data will result in like delay in the reports. I therefore recommend an adjustment of the due dates to not sooner than October 15 for the initial drafts and November 17 for board approval. Thank you for carrying our recommendation to the Court. We will be pleased to answer any questions about it. Sincerely yours, Karen DeJamette, Ph.D. Director EncPage 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\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powell\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer - John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams, Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt; Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:16 PM Magnet Update PRE staff members are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with magnet programs and will supply this list as well as matching test scores for the magnet students so Dr. Dreyfus can meet the requirements set forth by the evaluation team. The deadline of the initial report will need to be extended for Dr. Dreyfus to accommodate the added analysis. Originally, we planned to provide the Board with a draft report on August 4** but now will need to provide the initial draft by September 8^. 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 7/19/2006Page 1 of 2' Margie From: To: Cc: \"Robinson, Maurecia\" \u0026lt;Maurecia.Malcolm@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Morgan, Nancy\" \u0026lt;Nancy.Morgan@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Miller, Leticia\" \u0026lt;Leticia.Miller@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Menking, Mary\" \u0026lt;Mary.Menking@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Williams Ed\" \u0026lt;Ed.Williams@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Hobbs, Felicia\" \u0026lt;Felicia.Hobbs@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Marjorie Powell\" Sent: Subject: Nancy, \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaii.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;brigette@abpg.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;donnacreer@magnetschool.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;gjones@aristotle.net\u0026gt;\n\"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Mitchell, Sadie\" \u0026lt;Sadie.Mitchell@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer-John Walker\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Milhollen, Mark\" \u0026lt;Mark.Milhollen@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Roberts Olivine\" \u0026lt;Olivine.Roberts@lrsd.org\u0026gt;\n\"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd orq\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11\n06 AM RE\nMagnet Update No. this is not a request for CIS to provide data. Our department (PRE) will supply the matching test scores for the magnet students. Once the general enrollment data (Radar request #688) has been fulfilled we will take it from there. Thanks Maurecia From: Morgan, Nancy Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:24 AM To: Robinson, Maurecia Cc: Robinson, Maurec:a\nMiller, Leticia\nMenking, Mary\nWilliams, Ed\nHobbs, Felicia\n- 'Marjorie Powell'\nbrigettetgJabpg.com'\n'donnacreer@magnetschool.com'\n' (gjones@aristotle.net)'\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie- 'Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu'\n'Joy Springer - John Walker'\nMilhollen, Mark\nRoberts' Olivine\nDejarnette Karen Subject: FW\nMagnet Update Hi Maurecia, Is this a request for CIS to provide data? If so, I will need specific instructions from your department. How does this request relate to your radar request #688 for \"General Enrollment Data, 2004-2005 bv school by groups\"? You indicated you are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with magnet programs and will supply this as well as matching test scores forthe magnet students. Has PRE provided us with magnet scores to be included in ourwarehouse for reporting purposes? Please advise as soon as possible for us to meet your deadline of July 21, 2006. Nancy Morgan Coordinator of Application Development Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 447-1050 Fax: (501) 447-1157 -----Original Message------ From: Robinson, Maurecia. Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 3:16 PM To:-Miller, Leticia\nMenking, Mary\nWilliams, Ed\nHobbs, Felicia\nMarjoriePOwell\nbrigette@abpg.com\ndonnacreer@magnet5chool.com\n' (gjones@aristotle.net)'\nWohlleb, Jim\nMitchell, Sadie, Morgan-,. Nancy\n- T/j.9-/20\n0ffPage 2 of 2 Catterall@gseis.ucla.edu\nJoy Springer - John Walker Cc: Dejarnette, Karen\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed Subject: Magnet Update PRE staff members are currently working to determine who the magnet students are at the schools with maqnet programs and will supply this list as well as matching test scores for the magnet students so Dr. Dreyfus can meet the requmements set forth by the evaluation team. The deadline of the initial report will need to be extended for Dr. Dreyfus to accommodate the added analysis. Originally, we planned to provide the Board with a draft report on August A* but now will need to provide the initial draft by Septembers'*'. Thank you, Maurecia Maurecia Robinson, Statistician Planning, Research, and Evaluation Little Rock School District 3001S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501/447-3382 501/447-7609 r! 13-/ 20 OSPage 1 of 2 Margie From\nTo: Sent\nAttach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Thursday. July 20, 2006 4:25 PM foias july20.pdf FW: another foia fyi ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent\nThursday, July 20, 2006 4:23 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings' Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nBrooks, Roy G Subject: FW: another foia Here are the two foias I meant to enclose with the last email. ------Original Message------ From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:09 PM To: 'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings' Subject\nRE: another foia Okay, I am including Khayyam on this email too since he is working on the most recent foias. As I stated in the earlier email I believe I gave you all of the emails requested by Mr. Walker as of a couple of weeks ago. Nearly all of our recorded communications are via email. As you know, an efficient way to capture all of this is to \"dump\" the contents of our email on the LRSD server. PRE staff are scheduled to attend workshops outside of the IRC every day next week. The following week (July 31 -August 4) I am taking a week of vacation out of state. I am enclosing the two most recent foias\n1) renewed request and 2) a request for emails between the three PRE statisticians, district staff, and outside consultants that arrived today. Also, I really need counsel on information that is confidential and caimot be shared with ODM and JOSHUA. This is my third request on this topic. I sent a copy of the 1993 Order that seemed to relate to this issue to you and asked advice but have not yet received any. Please respond. 7/21/2006Page 2 of 2 ------Original Message------ From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:18 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: Re: another foia Karen - I'm in Colorado until Saturday - khay is handling the latest round of foia requests. Thanks. CH \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejamette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/19 5:25 pm \u0026gt; Chris, I received this fax today. I believe I have given you most of the emails related to this request. However, he is now asking for emails with PRE staff. I will call you tomorrow. Thanks. Karen 7/21/2006JUL.\n. 9.2306 10:41AM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.360 P.l Ikte: Tci 1'6 Ki i'.e' Sauierr 70/SVIV. IVALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 VKK TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Jufy]7,200d Karen DeJametie 447-76Q9 Renewed Request far Emails John W. Wailcer 'OU SHOULD SSCEIVE f ----------Oficluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PT.PAfiR r.AT,T, \u0026lt;(S0D374^37SS\u0026gt; Thei^r^\u0026lt;cMtainfidmthBfi\u0026lt;simi]amessagelsaoraeypriviI^mdami5d(mtialinfonnai(mint^^ on^ the use of liie individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended OTihe employee or agent rei^xmsible to deliver it to die intended recipient, you are hereby notified tuat any dusemmatton, diSribution or copying of tJiis comnnraication is strictly prohibited If you have received this commiinicatian in eiror. please immediate notify us by telephone, andretnmttseorigiiialmessaao to os at the above address via the U.S, Postal Service. Thank you.JUL, 19.2 506 JOHN M WALKER P R NO,360 P,2 JOIN w. walk\nh SKAmiCHILD3 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Lmpu! Rock, Arkansas 72206 TEIEPHONS (501) 374-3758 PAX (SOI) 3744187 l^ail: johnwallttratty@aoLcom Via Facsimile - 447-7609 July 19.2006 ___ OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. PA DONNAJMcHENRY 8210 Hbns\u0026amp;ksoh Limu Rock, Arkansas 72210 PenNE (501) 37S.342B Pax (501) 372.8428 OsAAil: Dr. \u0026lt;aien DeJamette Din ctor of PRE Licti s Rjock School District 300\nPulaski Lili\nRock,AR 72206 D\u0026lt;a-Dr. DeJamette: I ata renewing my request of June 22,2006 regarding emails related to the work of your deal rtment. Would you kindly provide all emails between and among you, Dr, Brooks, Hugh Hafl jbaugh. Dr, Olivine Roberts, Chris Heller, members of ODM, all outside and mt ji .bers of PRE staff for the period between August 1,2005 and the present. This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA and the LRSDs coir pliance remedy. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Tnkn U7 John W, Walker JWWzjs cc: Chris HellerJUL..20.2)06 1:29PM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.393 P.l JOZCV W, WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 VAX. TRANSMISSION COVER SBEET r DM!: Tc: July 20. 2006 Karm DeJameite Fax 447-7609 Rt: LSSD Seniltr: John W. Wtdktr 7 lUSHOULD RECEIVE [ Oncluang cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-375S\u0026gt;* The mifacmaxian u'^iueined b this facsimile mesa age is attotiiey privileged and confideiuial infimwaTinn intended only for the use of the mdividDBl ai eulily named above. If the madw of this message is not the blended recipient, or die employee or t^nt responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminarion, distribution or copying of Ais communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication m error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via die U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.JUL. 20.3506 1:30PM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.393 p.2\" johnw.wal:q R SHAW cntixiii JOHN W. WALKER, P. A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Limji Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374.S758 FAX (501) 3744187 Email: johnwalkenittytSaiol.com. Via Facsimile - July 20,2006 OPCOUNSHL ROBERT MeHZNSy, PA DOWAJ.MoHBNSY 8210 HZNDtRSQN ROaD LnriB Rocs, Abswsas 72210 PBOne\n(SOI) 372.3425 \u0026lt; Pax (501) 372.3428 Bmali: mcheoiydSsvbtlLliat Dr. F area DeJamette Little Rock School District SOC l Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 De^ir Or. DeJamette\nThis request is to secure all emails between and among your three statisticians, outside const dtants and LRSD district staff regarding any subject related to program assessment and/or cvalt adon for the period between August 1,2005 and the present This request is pursuant to the Arkansas FOIA and pursuant to the LRSD Compliance Remi dy. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. WalkerPage 1 of 1 I Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Friday, July 21,2006 2:59 PM FW: counsel fyi From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 2:59 PM To: Brooks, Roy G Cc: Roberts, Olivine\nHattabaugh, Hugh\n'Chris Heller'\n'Khayyam Eddings'\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed\nRobinson, Maurecia Subject: counsel Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/21/2006Margie Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24. 2006 11:41 AM FW: counsel From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 7/24/2006Page 2 of 2 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks. I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely. Karen 7/24/2006Margie Page 1 of 3 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24, 2006 2:47 PM FW: counsel From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? 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 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? \u0026gt; 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 7/24/2006Page 2 of 3 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior 7/24/2006Page 3 of 3 message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen,Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSDs (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and . .. We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/24/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 AM FW: counsel From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:00 AM To: 'Khayyam Eddings'\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and ... We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. 7/24/2006Margie Page 1 of 4 From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemaiLcom\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM FW: counsel From: Wohlleb, Jim Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:40 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen Cc: Robinson, Maurecia\nWilliams, Ed Subject: FW: counsel Karen, This is the last communication from Chris. I dont remember receiving anything about responding to the FOIA request involving us statisticians. 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 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 3:13 PM To: Wohlleb, Jim Cc: Hattabaugh, Hugh Subject: RE: counsel i don't want to change any internal procedures, mr hattabaugh has been forwarding the foia requests to us, and that's fine, ch \u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 3:01:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks, Chris. We'll continue fon/varding Joshua's FOIA requests. A few months ago, I understood that we were to send them all to Mr. Hattabaugh. Should we now send them all to counsel again (as we did before that new instruction)? 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 From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:51 PM 7/26/2006Page 2 of 4 To: Chris Heller\nKhayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel Usually Joshua makes a foi request and then ODM asks informally (not through foi) for the same information. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM 7/26/2006Page 3 of 4 To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE\ncounsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddlnqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE\nThis e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE\nThis e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you 7/26/2006Page 4 of 4 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and .. . We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen 7/26/2006d! Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt; Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:34 AM FW: foia From: Robinson, Maurecia Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:46 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: RE: foia Below are the latest emails. From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:34 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel we need to know about all joshua requests for information and review the responses, we are still in litigation and there are several issues at stake, first, the rules of legal ethics do not allow direct contact of our clients by an opposing attorney in litigation, second, we believe that the foia should not be used to conduct discovery in litigation, we can only prevent abuses if we know what's going on. finally, it should be obvious that we need to know what the opposing lawyers in the case know, i can't imagine a situation in litigation where it would be a good idea for a client to provide information to the other side without involving their own lawyers. ch\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 2:22:47 PM \u0026gt; Thanks for the clarification. Does Khay's advice apply as well to non-FOIA requests by Joshua? Jim Wohlleb, Statistician Planning, Research, \u0026amp; Evaluation Department Little Rock School District 3001 South Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 iim.wohlleb@lrsd.org 501/447-3381 or 680-9244 (mobile) (fax) 501/447-7609 From: Chris Heller [mailto:HELLER@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:15 PM To: Khayyam Eddings\nWohlleb, Jim\nDejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Williams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel khay was asked about foia requests and his advice applies to foia requests, in the unlikely event that odm makes an foia request, then the process khay suggested should be followed, this will have no effect upon the typical odm request for information, ch \u0026gt; \"Wohlleb, Jim\" \u0026lt;Jim.Wohlleb@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 1:36:12 PM \u0026gt; Does this agree with the Court's directive to LRSD in the early 1990s? 7/26/2006Page 2 of 3 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 From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:19 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: RE: counsel yes Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredqe \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/24/2006 6:59 AM \u0026gt; Khayyam has advised that if a document (including email) currently exists and is requested through the FOIA process then we should provide the document to counsel for review. Then, counsel will forward the requested document(s) on to the person(s) who made the request. This includes documents requested by ODM. Chris and Khayyam, is this correct? From: Khayyam Eddings [mailto:keddings@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:31 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller\nWilliams, Ed\nHattabaugh, Hugh\nWohlleb, Jim\nRobinson, Maurecia\nRoberts, Olivine Subject: Re: counsel All- I have spoken with Dr. Dejarnette and have hopefully quelled any concerns she has. Please do not hesitate to call me if either of you have any questions. Khayyam M. Eddings Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Email: keddinqs@fec.net 7/26/2006Page 3 of 3 Direct Phone: 501-370-1417 NOTICE: This e-mail message or fax transmission and any attachment contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail, fax or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail or fax in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at (501)370-1417 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. This notice is automatically appended to each e-mail or electronically produced fax message leaving Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Thank you \u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; 7/21/2006 2:59 PM \u0026gt; Dear Dr. Brooks, I'd like to alert you that LRSD's (neither Chris nor anyone else in his firm) counsel has not responded to our questions about confidentiality and .. . We feel urgently that there are important legal issues affecting our department. So if the District's counsel is not available to us, we would like to seek other counsel. Thanks for your interest and appreciation for our department. Sincerely, Karen From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:44 PM To: Robinson, Maurecia\nWohlleb, Jim\nWilliams, Ed Subject: foia Statisticians, Have you heard back from Chris about the foia directed to the three of you last week? I have not heard from him. The last email sent to him from' me indicated Mr. Walker could access the email database rather than us spending time to print the emails. Please let me know where you are in responding to the foia. Thanks, Karen 7/26/2006Page 1 of 3 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;awgrehan@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jstrahl@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dlowther@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;JNunnery@odu.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;hkenaga@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;dslawson@memphis.edu\u0026gt; Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:27 AM RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Eds email reports the electronic file sent to you is correct, however, Diane reports otherwise and says a new set of electronic data is being sent. Perhaps the code book that is embedded in the CD is incorrect. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:09 AM To: 'smross@memphis.edu'\njamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Cc: HELLER@fec.net\nmqpowell@odmemail.com\njspringer@gabrielmail.com\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\nhkenaga@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Diane just called and reported the electronic data will be shipped to us with the paper copies. She thinks we will receive the data by August 4*^. As soon as we receive it we will email a new database. From: smross@memphis.edu [mailto:smross@memphis.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:52 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\njamesc@gseis.ucla.edu Cc: HELLER@fec.net\nmqpowell@odmemaiLcom\njspringer@gabrielmail.com\najmcdnld@memphis.edu\nawgrehan@memphis.edu\njstrahl@memphis.edu\ndlowther@memphis.edu\nJNunnery@odu.edu\nhkenaga@memphis.edu\ndslawson@memphis.edu Subject: RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Ok... Im notifying the researchers here so that theyre up to date. 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: Dejarnette, Karen [mailto:Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org] 7/27/2006Page 2 of 3 Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:28 AM To: Steven M Ross (smross)\nJames Catterall Cc: Chris Heller\nMargie\nJoy Springer Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Steve and James, Riverside Publishing Company, the provider of ITBS tests and results, has issued an email stating the Math Total results we received on paper reports are incorrect because all of the subtests were not included. I called Dianne Al-Tikriti to inquire about the accuracy of the electronic data we have received. She could not answer but said she will talk with a Program Manager and get back to me. I will keep you posted. Karen From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:39 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Please note. From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:42 PM To: Roberts, Olivine Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Dear Arkansas Educator: Re: AR NRT 3-9 District, Building, and Student Reports In June 2006, you received score reports for the results of the ITBS (grades 3-8) and the ITED (grade 9) from the spring 2006 statewide administration. These results were accurate, but did not include all three math subtests in the math total section. This was noted on the reports that you received by an asterisk (*) and the following associated verbiage\n*Math computation is not included in the Math Total or in any score that includes the Math Total. The math total should have included all three subtests that were administered. Due to this, new score reports will be run which will produce a new math total. The new reports will not have the asterisk (*) or verbiage mentioned above. Please note that the only change to the score reports will be the math total score. All of the subtest results were originally reported correctly. If additional information is needed regarding this, please feel free to contact Riverside directly. The revised reports for your district that include math computation in the math totals will be shipped starting today through next week. They will be marked with sticker's with the wording: \"Revised July Reports\". There will be a folder for each school in your district and one folder for the district. These reports are a replacement for ALL of the 3-9 score reports that were sent in June (GRADES 3-9 REPORTS ONLY). A letter with this information will be included in box 1 of your new report boxes as well. Please destroy the original Grades 3-9 scorereports you were sent in order to assure that the correct results for the math totals are being distributed. The K- 2 reports are correct. Please do not destroy these. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. For questions about the materials, interpreting the reports or 7/27/2006Page 3 of 3 ordering additional materials and reports, please call Dianne Al-Tikriti at 800-323-9540 extension 6737. If you have any additional questions regarding the Arkansas state testing program, or the reports, please contact me directly at extension 6094. Sincerely, Meredith A. Durgin Senior Program Manager Riverside Publishing 7/27/2006Page 1 of 2 Margie From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \"James Catterall\" \u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt; \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;HELLER@fec.net\u0026gt;\n\"Margie\" \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\"Joy Springer\" \u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmail.com\u0026gt; Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:51 AM RE: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Seems to me the electronic data we have sent to you would have to be incorrect but I wanted to verify with Riverside. I have asked Diane to also inquire about a timeline for republishing the electronic data if it is in fact incorrect. If I do not hear back from her by mid afternoon I will call her again. From: Dejarnette, Karen Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:28 AM To: 'smross@memphis.edu'\n'James Catterall' Cc: Chris Heller\n'Margie'\n'Joy Springer' Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Steve and James, Riverside Publishing Company, the provider of ITBS tests and results, has issued an email stating the Math Total results we received on paper reports are incorrect because all of the subtests were not included. I called Dianne Al-Tikriti to inquire about the accuracy of the electronic data we have received. She could not answer but said she will talk with a Program Manager and get back to me. I will keep you posted. Karen From: Roberts, Olivine Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 6:39 PM To: Dejarnette, Karen Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Please note. From: Brooks, Roy G Sent: Mon 7/24/2006 3:42 PM To: Roberts, Olivine Subject: FW: AR 3-9 NRT Score Reports Dear Arkansas Educator: Re: AR NRT 3-9 District, Buiiding, and Student Reports In June 2006, you received score reports for the results of the ITBS (grades 3-8) and the ITED (grade 9) from the spring 2006 statewide administration. These results were accurate, but did not include all three math subtests in the math total section. This was noted on the reports that you received by an asterisk (*) and the following associated verbiage: *Math computation is not included in the Math Total or in any score that includes the Math Total. The math total should have included all three subtests that were administered. Due to this, new score reports will be run which will produce a new math total. The new reports will not have the asterisk (*) or verbiage 7/27/2006Page 2 of 2 mentioned above. Please note that the only change to the score reports will be the math total score. All of the subtest results were originally reported correctly. If additional information is needed regarding this, please feel free to contact Riverside directly. The revised reports for your district that include math computation in the math totals will be shipped starting today through next week. They will be marked with sticker's with the wording: \"Revised July Reports\". There will be a folder for each school in your district and one folder for the district. These reports are a replacement for ALL of the 3-9 score reports that were sent in June (GRADES 3-9 REPORTS ONLY). A letter with this information will be included in box 1 of your new report boxes as well. Please destroy the original Grades 3-9 scorereports you were sent in order to assure that the correct results for the math totals are being distributed. The K- 2 reports are correct. Please do not destroy these. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. For questions about the materials, interpreting the reports or ordering additional materials and reports, please call Dianne Al-Tikriti at 800-323-9540 extension 6737. If you have any additional questions regarding the Arkansas state testing program, or the reports, please contact me directly at extension 6094. Sincerely, Meredith A. Durgin Senior Program Manager Riverside Publishing 7/27/2006Margie Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: \"Dejarnette, Karen\" \u0026lt;Karen.Dejarnette@lrsd.org\u0026gt; \u0026lt;smross@memphis.edu\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jamesc@gseis.ucla.edu\u0026gt; \u0026lt;mqpowell@odmemail.com\u0026gt;\n\u0026lt;jspringer@gabrielmaiLcom\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; Friday, July 28, 2006 10:00 AM SFX3F1.pdf FW: Availability of test information Fyi, the ADE confirms early August as the expected date for needed data. From: Brenda Kampman [mailto:Brendak@fec.net] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:48 AM To: Dejarnette, Karen\nRoberts, Olivine\nBrooks, Roy G Cc: Chris Heller Subject: Availability of test information Letter from ADE with attachment. Brenda Kampman Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 direct line: 501-370-1444 fax: 501-376-2147 7/31/2006ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Education Dr. T. Kenneth James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://ArkansasE(l.org OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL July 25, 2006 Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 RE: Little Rock School District Dear Chris: It is my understanding that your client, the Little Rock School District, has asked for information as to what dates certain criterion reference test information might be available to Arkansas school districts. To that end, please find attached the requested information. I will assume this information is sufficient to answer the school districts questions, absent any further notice directly to my office. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sinc^ly, .Scott Smii General Counsel SS:law Attachment cc: Dr. Ken James Janinne Riggs Dr. Gayle Potter 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 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Smith FROM: Janinne Riggs DATE: July 17,2006 RE: Follow-up on a memo from your office regarding Request from Dr. Karen Dejarnette, LRSD A conference call was held on June 12,2006 with parties from the LRSD and staff of ADE (Dr. Stewart, Dr. Potter and Ms. Riggs) for the purpose of discussing score reports for the district. A tentative timetable for posting the school improvement reports was discussed as follows: Benchmark school roster data posted to district May 31 All student assessment data no later than July 1 July 7 data corrections excel spreadsheets posted to allow student demographic changes to be made (see Commissioners Memo COM-07-001 dated 7-7-06) Data corrections submitted to NORMES by July 14 School Reports posted by early August (tentative date)\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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":22,"next_page":23,"prev_page":21,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":252,"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}}]}}